Archive By Date | Today's Links to Search By
Activists' News | Nuclear | Depleted Uranium | Military | Police
Alternative Energy Etc. | From Subscribers
NUCLEAR
Chance to Revive Sales Draws Nuclear Industry to China
Australia - Govt to buy Abrams tanks
$550m buys mates' rates on US tanks
Australia picks US tanks to 'harden' force
Shaheen-II / Hatf-6 / Ghaznavi
Gas Centrifuge a Sensitive Nuclear Asset
Iran Plans to Resume Uranium Enrichment
Deal defers Iran weapons sanctions
U.S. Softens Its Rebuke on Iran Nuclear Issue, Appeasing Allies
U.S. Yields In Faulting Iran on Arms
Iran Says U.S. Vengeful in Nuclear Claim
S. Korea Demands N. Korea Dismantle Nukes
Libya Signs Accord Allowing Snap Nuclear Checks
Dossier on Libya Nuclear Program to Close
A Nuclear 9/11
U.S. Bunker-Buster Program More Robust Than Expected
Oyster Creek design vulnerable to terrorist attack
Progress for Indian Point, and a Setback for Its Critics
Expert raps VY uprate
Trade Deficit Widens to Record $43.1 Billion
Uneasy Over Deficit, G.O.P. Lawmakers Tackle the Budget
Democrats Forming Parallel Campaign Interest Groups Draw GOP Fire
MILITARY
Military will keep secret report on U.S. raid
Militants attack U.S. base in Afghanistan
Boeing Lax on Hiring By Rules
Haiti's Prime Minister Chosen
U.S. forces to expand mission in Haiti
Iran claims U.S. seeks revenge for Iraq failures
Shiites May Demand Lifting of Limits on Their Power
US to retain Iraq security role
Gunmen Posing as Police Kill 2 Americans and Iraqi
Washington asks Pakistan for fewer missile tests
New C.I.A. Recruiting Video Features 'Alias' Star
C.I.A. Chief Says He's Corrected Cheney Privately
Lawmakers Seek Answers on Iraq Reports
CIA's Tenet Defends White House on Iraq
US Iraq war toll stands at 552 dead
A Rumsfeld Favorite Is Out as Army Secretary Nominee
Rumsfeld Says Full Funding Needed to Continue Terror War
Air Force to Study Rape Complaints
POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS / JUSTICE
Bush Agrees to Answer All of 9/11 Panel's Questions
Bush Backs Off Limit on 9/11 Questioning
Palestinian group says U.S. assassinated Abul Abbas
Hijacker of Achille Lauro Dies in U.S. Custody in Iraq
Indonesian Court Cuts Term of Terror Suspect
OTHER
Toxic Dumping Ground Looks to Spread the Pain
Argentina Agrees to Pay IMF
ACTIVISTS
Political Groups Spend Millions to Take on Bush in Ad Campaign
March 20: The World Still Says No to War
Pilger on the US and terrorism Australian Broadcasting Corporation
-------- NUCLEAR
-------- china
Chance to Revive Sales Draws Nuclear Industry to China
March 10, 2004
By CHRIS BUCKLEY
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/10/business/worldbusiness/10nuke.html?pagewanted=all&position=
BEIJING, March 9 - China plans to significantly expand its nuclear power in the coming decades, and the Bush administration has been courting the country's top officials on behalf of American companies seeking a starring role in that expansion.
The United States is competing with France, Russia and, in a minor way, Canada to build four 1,000-megawatt plants that energy executives say will signify China's coming of age as a nuclear energy provider, and offer crucial relief to makers of nuclear technology starved of new orders in their home countries.
"China is the country most likely to have robust growth in nuclear power in the next 10 years," said Ron Sinard, who oversees plant development for the Nuclear Energy Institute, a Washington organization that represents the United States industry. "Looking at the market over the next decade, it's probably the biggest piece of the pie."
The call for tenders may be issued as early as this month, nuclear industry executives said. The winner is likely to have an advantage in subsequent bids for 20 or more nuclear plants that may be built by 2020.
China currently has eight nuclear power plants that generate a total of 6,200 megawatts; by 2020 nuclear power could provide China with 32,000 megawatts. Even if all the proposed plants are built, nuclear power would supply China with about 4 percent of its electricity needs by 2020, with the bulk of electricity coming from coal-fired stations and, to a lesser extent, hydroelectric projects like the Three Gorges Dam.
In choosing among rival bids, China will be making choices not only on which technology it will use but also on geopolitical allegiances, environmental safety and, in the case of American bidders, China's gaping trade surplus with the United States.
"The stakes are huge. These are big contracts with a lot of implications," said Jean-Christophe Delvallet, who represents the French energy company EDR in China.
In recent months, a procession of political leaders has pressed China to favor power plant designs and equipment from their home countries. They have included President Jacques Chirac of France; former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien of Canada; Viktor Khristenko, who was named fuel and energy minister in Russia on Tuesday; and dozens of less-prominent officials.
President Bush even raised the virtues of American nuclear technology with the Chinese prime minister, Wen Jiabao, during a meeting in December, said Jim Fici, a senior vice president at Westinghouse, which has long sought to enter China's nuclear energy sector.
The expense of building nuclear plants - more than $2 billion for each unit - may weigh in Westinghouse's favor as China considers big purchases to close its $113 billion trade gap with the United States.
When the deputy prime minister of China, Wu Yi, travels to the United States in April to discuss trade disagreements, the sale of American nuclear technology will be on the agenda, according to United States government officials. Westinghouse is based in the United States, but is owned by BNFL, a British company.
China is likely to shift from its current mixture of Canadian, French and Russian technology to a more uniform array of plants, nearly all the officials and executives interviewed said.
"They want a more standardized system," said Rene de Preneuf, the chief China representative for Areva, the French-based nuclear energy company.
Standardization would make building and running plants less expensive and safer, he said, because it allows equipment, skills and experience to be shared across a wider net. Standardization also means the successful bidder has the lucrative prospect of a run of similar projects.
Most observers agreed the main contest is between Areva, a company that has long dealt with China and hopes to sell its latest generation of Framatome ER reactors, and Westinghouse, which hopes to sell its AP1000 reactor, a model so new that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has not yet approved it for construction in the United States.
This is not the first time China has publicized plans for expanding nuclear energy. Similar plans were announced in the early 1990's but were abandoned because of a slowing economy and a temporary glut in electricity. Energy industry executives and analysts agreed that this time the Chinese government, alarmed by the country's voracious appetite for electricity and growing dependence on imported oil and natural gas, is determined to expand its nuclear energy resources.
Power shortages that disrupted industrial production across two dozen provinces last year revived interest in nuclear power. Last year electricity demand increased 15 percent to 1.9 trillion kilowatt hours, and tens of thousands of factories in China's eastern provinces were forced to cancel production because of power cuts. Similar power shortages are expected this year and next. The chairman of China's electricity regulation commission, Chai Songyue, said that China would face a shortfall of 20 million kilowatt hours this year.
Stronger government support for nuclear energy is reinforced by enthusiastic promises of investment for China's power companies.
"A lot of utilities are investing money to prepare sites that might be approved in the next five-year plan," said Simon Tang, who represents Atomic Energy of Canada in Beijing, referring to China's five-year budget, which will be released next year.
The booming coastal provinces of Zhejiang and Guangdong are the first in line for nuclear power stations, in part because coal mines and dams are far away, making energy transport a major expense. "You must look at this at a local basis," said Philip Andrews-Speed, an expert on China's energy sector at the University of Dundee in Scotland.
But energy companies see China as their best potential market. "Western nuclear suppliers see China as one of their greatest hopes for rekindling their business," said Edwin Lyman, a specialist on nuclear energy issues with the Union of Concerned Scientists, a United States group that opposes nuclear energy.
Economic concerns may outweigh worries about China's role in the spread of nuclear weapons.
Westinghouse developed the AP1000, which can generate 1,100 megawatts, with half a billion dollars of support from the federal government, and the government would collect tens of millions of dollars in royalties from any such plant in China, a senior United States energy official said. Credit support from the Import-Export Bank may also be used to finance the plants, he said, and Chinese officials had sought assurances that China would receive an export license for the plant.
The National Reform and Development Commission, China's top energy agency, and Chinese nuclear agencies all declined to be interviewed for this article.
Critics are concerned that China's leap into nuclear power may test its immature and incomplete regulatory system. Mr. Lyman of the Union of Concerned Scientists said it was not clear how China would ensure that its radioactive materials remained safe, in civilian hands. He said the AP1000 design lacked too many traditional safety backups.
His concerns were dismissed by proponents of the deal. Mr. Fici, of Westinghouse, said tests showed the AP1000 was many times safer than existing plants. The transfer of the AP1000 technology to China would "raise no new policy issues" in proliferation, the United States government official said. The official said he was confident China would abide by United States rules preventing the transfer of licensed nuclear technology to third countries.
Critics and skeptics of China's nuclear energy program agreed that over the coming years, the shape and speed of its expansion will be at the mercy of economic downturns and political uncertainties.
"Now there's a scramble to build as much generation as possible," said Mr. Sinton, the analyst. "But with all this building there's the possibility of overcapacity in a few years' time. There are systemic factors that lead to a boom and bust cycle."
-------- depleted uranium
Australia - Govt to buy Abrams tanks
The World Today
Wednesday, 10 March , 2004
Nick Grimm,
Australian Broadcasting
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2004/s1062969.htm
HAMISH ROBERTSON: The Federal Government has formally announced that it's to proceed with plans to purchase 59 second-hand M1-A1 Abrams tanks from the United States, despite concerns about their suitability for the Australian military.
The $550-million deal was announced this morning by Defence Minister, Senator Robert Hill, and Chief of the Army, Lieutenant General Peter Leahy.
The tanks played a prominent role during the wars in Iraq, and Australian defence chiefs say the decision to equip the Australian Army with the machines will allow it to work more closely with the Americans in future conflicts.
Nick Grimm reports.
(sound of tanks and machinery)
NICK GRIMM: The American built Abrams tank last year showed itself to be an incredibly effective weapon for rooting out rogue Middle Eastern regimes.
It was its performance during the blitzkrieg of Iraq that impressed Australian defence planners of its capability.
Chief of the Army, Lieutenant General Peter Leahy, announced this morning, Australia is to buy 59 of the tanks from the United States.
PETER LEAHY: We believe that this tank offers an outstanding package. It's the best value for the Commonwealth's money as it provides the best combination of tank capability, support, sustainment, extensive simulation and a comprehensive training package.
NICK GRIMM: And with its $550-million price tag, Defence Minister Senator Robert Hill also believes the Abrams tanks represents excellent value for money.
ROBERT HILL: That we were able to negotiate with the US such a good deal, I think is in part, because of our very good relations with the US and the experiences of recent years where our forces have worked so well together.
(tank noise)
NICK GRIMM: But as fighting vehicles go, critics say the Abrams is the equivalent of what used to be known as the classic American yank-tank. They're big, heavy and hungry for fuel.
But don't expect the M1-A1 Abrams tank to come complete with plenty of chrome. Rather, the war machine is decked out with ceramic plating, an optional feature in place of the depleted uranium armour used by the US military.
It also has to be pointed out that the tanks Australia will buy are pre-loved. They have been "remanufactured", and in theory at least they are as good as new.
However the Defence Minister admits, he hasn't checked the exact age of the tanks.
ROBERT HILL: I don't know how old the hulls are. The US has over 3000 M1-A1 tanks, and it has a program to refurbish some of them up to this standard, and basically we will become part of that refurbishment program.
NICK GRIMM: Concerns have also been raised that the tanks are too heavy for the Australian military's needs.
Professor Ross Babbage is Head of the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at the Australian National University. He's worried about their fuel consumption.
ROSS BABBAGE: Well look, the M1 Abrams tank is now a well sorted vehicle. It's a very, very good tank indeed. My really only major concern is that it uses a different fuel to just about all the other vehicles in the Army's fleet, especially the Army's ground fleet.
NICK GRIMM: And why is that a problem?
ROSS BABBAGE: Well it means that you're going to have to cart turbine fuel, and it doesn't use diesel generally, it uses turbine fuel. You're going to have to cart this in much larger quantities forward, and the logistics of doing that, getting into remote areas and so on. This is the sort of fuel that is not down at the local petrol station or road house, you know, it just means that there's going to have to be a really significant supply train running behind this, especially if we're operating on our own in say northern Australia, or offshore Australia or somewhere.
PETER LEAHY: The tank is multi-fuel capable.
NICK GRIMM: But Lieutenant General Peter Leahy insists those problems have been addressed.
PETER LEAHY: In US use, it uses JP 8, which is they're battlefield fuel. In our use, it will use JP 4 or 5, or diesel. It's a simple matter of tuning the engine to use a different fuel.
HAMISH ROBERTSON: The Chief of the Army, Lieutenant General Peter Leahy. That report compiled by Nick Grimm.
--------
$550m buys mates' rates on US tanks
By Tom Allard,
Defence Reporter
March 10, 2004
Sydney Morning Herald
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/03/09/1078594364315.html
Australia will spend $550 million to buy 59 M1A1 Abrams tanks from the US military, in a "mates' rates" deal that includes free training, support vehicles, spare parts and maintenance.
The deal highlights the new era of closer ties with the US, with Australia receiving a discount that will amount to hundreds of millions of dollars over the lifetime of the tanks.
"It's mates' rates, a sweetheart deal," one defence commentator said last night.
The decision to buy the tanks is likely to spur controversy.
Some analysts consider the heavy-duty tank to be suited to desert warfare, open plains and high-intensity conflict rather than the poor quality roads and the jungles of Australia's immediate region.
The Abrams achieved considerable success in the invasion of Iraq last year, rekindling the Government's interest in it.
The army wanted new tanks to replace its 100-strong fleet of 30-year old Leopard tanks, which are vulnerable to mines, rocket-propelled grenades and shoulder-held missiles.
This technology is widespread - part of virtually every nation's armed forces - and is in the hands of terrorists and militias.
The Government considered three types of tanks - the Abrams, the lighter German-built Leopard 2 tanks, and the British-made Challenger 2.
The US Government lobbied for the Abrams, despite concerns it was high-maintenance and guzzled fuel.
The Minister for Defence, Robert Hill, who will announce the purchase today after cabinet's national security committee endorsed the expenditure late yesterday, pushed the US to address these concerns.
Defence sources said Australia had bought a "complete capability" rather than just a tank.
The US has agreed to provide continuing maintenance for the tanks, training and simulators, spare parts, support vehicles such as transport trucks and accessories such as radios.
Unlike the US version, the Australian tanks will not use depleted uranium in its armour.
The tanks' gas turbine engines will also be compatible with diesel and helicopter fuel used by the Australian Defence Force, rather than the aviation fuel used by the US version.
The US is keen to ensure Australian and American equipment are compatible for any future coalition combat.
It is a doctrine supported by Canberra, with both governments discussing joint training facilities and a military pre-positioning post.
As revealed in the Herald last year, the tanks are expected to form the basis of a new joint training facility in northern Australia, where exercises will be conducted and US equipment stored in the event of conflict in the region.
----
Australia picks US tanks to 'harden' force
By Mark Forbes Defence Correspondent Canberra
March 10, 2004
The Age (Australia)
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/03/09/1078594363569.html
American-built M1 Abrams battle tanks valued at $550 million will spearhead a "hardened" Australian Army role in major overseas conflicts alongside the US.
Cabinet's national security committee last night agreed to buy 59 reconditioned, 68-tonne Abrams, ahead of British Challengers and German Leopards. The decision will be announced today.
Senior Defence sources said the war in Iraq had reaffirmed the belief that tanks were essential in modern conflicts to protect infantry troops.
Last November, The Age revealed that the military had settled on buying the Abrams, with Defence Minister Robert Hill, force chief Peter Cosgrove and army chief Peter Leahy backing the US tank over its rivals.
The Government's about-face on buying heavy armour is intended to strengthen the US alliance by boosting "interoperability" for future Iraq-style conflicts. Its 2000 Defence white paper argued against "the development of heavy armoured forces suitable for contributions to coalition forces in high-intensity conflicts".
In an indication of the strategic importance of the move, the US Administration will sell the tanks directly to Australia at a substantial discount.
The Australian Abrams, to be based in Darwin, would facilitate training between the two forces and access to ongoing development.
It could also allow Australian crews to fight in pre-positioned US tanks.
The Abrams will be modified for Australian requirements, including replacing its depleted uranium armour with ceramic plating.
Critics claim the Abrams are unsuitable for operations in the Pacific region and are too heavy to be airlifted. The tanks must be transported by sea.
Late last year General Leahy predicted that new tanks should be in service by July. He attacked critics of the planned tank purchase and said he had looked for a manoeuvrable, mid-weight, well-protected tank.
"Frankly, it's not there," General Leahy said. "So what we need to do is to respond to the current threat environment... where protection is, quite frankly, achieved by heavier armoured vehicles."
-------- india / pakistan
Shaheen-II / Hatf-6 / Ghaznavi
March 10, 2004
Federation of American Scientists (FAS)
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/missile/shaheen-2.htm
The Shaheen-II was test-fired on March 9, 2004. The Pakistani military issued a statement saying, "Pakistan today successfully carried out the maiden test fire of the Shaheen 2 surface-to-surface ballistic missile."
In an interview with an English daily in Islamabad, the director General of the National Development Complex [and a member of Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission - PAEC] Dr. Samar Mubarik Mund said work is in progress on the long range Shaheen-II which can travel 2000 kilometres. He said the missile would be ready for testing by the end of 1998, though it was not launched until early 2004.
A pair of Shaheen-II ballistic missiles were displayed during the Pakistan Day parade in Islamabad on 23 March 2000. One of the missiles was carried on a 12-wheel Transporter Erector Launcher, while the other missile was carried on a Missile Transporter. These vehicles, based on a common chassis, are evidently significantly larger than the 8-wheel launcher used by the Shaheen, though they use a similar cab. During the parade, it was claimed that the Shaheen-II surface-to-surface missile had a range of 2,000 kilometers [over 1400 miles].
The Shaheen-II is evidently a Pakistani version of the Chinese M-18, which was originally shown at the 1987 Beijing air show as a two-stage missile with 1000 kms range carrying a 400-500 kilogram payload. This M-18 missile had the longest range of any of the current M-series missiles.
The Shaheen series of missiles are evidently based imported from China by the PAEC's National Development Complex. The Shaheen, which was tested with considerable publicity on 15 April 1999, is evidently the Chinese M-11 which Pakistan purchased in the early 1990s. The Shaheen-II would appear to represent the Chinese M-18, although it is questionable whether Pakistan has actually obtained these missiles from China. There is no present indication that China has transferred such missiles to Pakistan.
Pakistan has announced that development efforts are underway on a longer-range missile, designated the Ghaznavi, although no details of this system's proposed characteristics have been made public.
--------
Gas Centrifuge a Sensitive Nuclear Asset
Syed Rezwi
Pakistan News
2004-03-10
http://www.paknews.com/articles.php?id=1&date1=2004-03-10
A great deal has been said about the recent illegal transfer of sensitive nuclear technology, especially the 'Gas Centrifuges'. As the controversy gets deeper it becomes essential to describe and give a brief background on the development and of this nuclear component, and also explain how the equipment supports in the development of weapon of mass destruction.
Uranium, not as rare as once thought, is now considered to be more plentiful than mercury, antimony, silver, or cadmium, and is about as abundant as molybdenum or arsenic. It occurs in numerous minerals such as pitchblende, uraninite, carnotite, autunite, uranophane, and tobernite. It is also found in phosphate rock, lignite, monazite sands, and can be recovered commercially from these sources.
The use of centrifugal fields for isotope separation was first suggested in 1919; but efforts in this direction were unsuccessful until 1934, when J.W.
Beams and co-workers at the University of Virginia applied a vacuum ultracentrifuge to the separation of chlorine isotopes. Although abandoned midway through the Manhattan Project, the gas centrifuge uranium-enrichment process has been highly developed and used to produce both HEU (highly enriched uranium) and LEU (low enriched uranium). It is likely to be the preferred technology of the future due to its relatively low-energy consumption, short equilibrium time, and modular design features.
In the gas centrifuge uranium-enrichment process, gaseous UF 6 is fed into a cylindrical rotor that spins at high speed inside an evacuated casing.
Because the rotor spins so rapidly, centrifugal force results in the gas occupying only a thin layer next to the rotor wall, with the gas moving at approximately the speed of the wall. Centrifugal force also causes the heavier 238 UF 6 molecules to tend to move closer to the wall than the lighter 235 UF 6 molecules, thus partially separating the uranium isotopes. This separation is increased by a relatively slow axial countercurrent flow of gas within the centrifuge that concentrates enriched gas at one end and depleted gas at the other. This flow can be driven mechanically by scoops and baffles or thermally by heating one of the end caps.
The main subsystems of the centrifuge are (1) rotor and end caps; (2) top and bottom bearingsuspension system; (3) electric motor and power supply (frequency changer); (4) center post, scoops and baffles; (5) vacuum system; and (6) casing. Because of the corrosive nature of UF 6, all components that come in direct contact with UF 6 must be must be fabricated from, or lined with, corrosion-resistant materials.
The separative capacity of a single centrifuge increases with the length of the rotor and the rotor wall speed. Consequently, centrifuges containing long, high-speed rotors are the goal of centrifuge development programs.
The primary limitation on rotor wall speed is the strength-to-weight ratio of the rotor material.
Suitable rotor materials include alloys of aluminum or titanium, maraging steel, or composites reinforced by certain glass, aramid, or carbon fibers. At present, maraging steel is the most popular rotor material for proliferants. With maraging steel, the maximum rotor wall speed is approximately 500 ms. Fiber-rein-forced composite rotors may achieve even higher speeds.
Another limitation on rotor speed is the lifetime of the bearings at either end of the rotor. Rotor length is limited by the vibrations a rotor experiences as it spins. The rotors can undergo vibrations similar to those of a guitar string, with characteristic frequencies of vibration. Balancing of rotors to minimize their vibrations is especially critical to avoid early failure of the bearing and suspension systems. Because perfect balancing is not possible, the suspension system must be capable of damping some amount of vibration.
One of the key components of a gas centrifuge enrichment plant is the power supply (frequency converter) for the gas centrifuge machines. The power supply must accept alternating current (ac) input at the 50- or 60-Hz line frequency available from the electric power grid and provide an ac output at a much higher frequency (typically 600 Hz or more). The high-frequency output from the frequency changer is fed to the high-speed gas centrifuge drive motors (the speed of an ac motor is proportional to the frequency of the supplied current). The centrifuge power supplies must operate at high efficiency, provide low harmonic distortion, and provide precise control of the output frequency.
The casing is needed both to maintain a vacuum and to contain the rapidly spinning components in the event of a failure. If the shrapnel from a single centrifuge failure is not contained, a "domino effect" may result and destroy adjacent centrifuges. A single casing may enclose one or several rotors.
Although the separation factors obtainable from a centrifuge are large compared to gaseous diffusion, several cascade stages are still required to produce even LEU material. Furthermore, the throughput of a single centrifuge is usually small, which leads to rather small separative capacities for typical proliferator centrifuges. To be able to produce only one weapon per year, several thousand centrifuges would be required.
The electrical consumption of a gas centrifuge facility is much less than that of a gaseous diffusion plant. Consequently, a centrifuge plant will not have the easily identified electrical and cooling systems typically required by a gaseous diffusion plant.
A modern centrifuge runs for more than 10 years with no maintenance. An advantage of the centrifuge process is its low energy consumption. The gas centrifuge process had already been commercially developed by the Russians and by Urenco in the United Kingdom, Germany, and The Netherlands. Gas centrifuges have been used in Europe for about 30 years for enriching uranium.
The principal hazards at an enrichment plant are the chemical hazards in handling UF6. If UF6 contacts moisture in air, it reacts to form hydrogen fluoride and uranyl fluoride. The chemical hazards of compounds of uranium in soluble form such as UF6 and uranyl fluoride are much greater than the radiological hazards of those same compounds. In addition, hydrogen fluoride can be very dangerous if inhaled and represents the principal hazard at an enrichment plant.
These hazards are controlled by plant design and administrative controls to confine soluble uranium compounds. The radiological hazards are relatively low and containers of natural, enriched, and depleted uranium can be handled without additional shielding.
Requirements for shipping UF6 are generally equivalent to requirements for shipping non-radioactive corrosive materials.
Enrichment processes generate a product of 3 to 5 percent U-235 for use as nuclear fuel and a product of depleted uranium (about 0.3 percent U-235). The depleted uranium has some commercial applications in counterweights and in antitank armaments.
After this recent nuclear fiasco, Pakistani Authorities need to take a very proactive approach in securing these nuclear assets and should take extreme measures that such an incident may not and should not happen again. Pakistan had been under the scope of several U.S. and international lobby's that are actively promulgating nuclear non-proliferation.
The fact is that Pakistan is being dealt with some exception, due to its active participation in the United States war on terrorism is guarding Pakistan greatly, but this leeway will disappear in time as America will curtail its involvement in Afghanistan, and the issue of nuclear proliferation will come back to haunt Pakistan once again, forcing the country to either roll back its nuclear program or to persuade it to abide by higher degree of restrictions, which will be detrimental to countries sovereignty and its stature in the modern society.
With the recent admission by Pakistan's most revered scientist Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan; the fear of nuclear mayhem emerging from Pakistan has been confirmed. A statement made by President of the United States George Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell favoring Pakistan's stand in the investigation has indeed helped President Musharraf and his government to hold back the media onslaught and has also effectively taken Pakistan out of the limelight. But it is also not certain if the Bush Administration will receive the same level of support from the Americans in this year's election, they are also under intense scrutiny due their misjudgments in the Iraqi incursion. Who will deliver for Pakistan then?
Democratic Congressman Frank Pallone the former co-chair of the India Caucus, and a loyal and staunch supporter of India has given some very damaging statement against Pakistan's nuclear establishments, he has called for U.S. and international monitoring of Pakistan nuclear program. He also suggested that the Bush administration should re-impose the Symington sanctions on Pakistan as a result of its "active yet covert nuclear exchange program". His policies against Pakistan have been very effective in past and his call for the international scrutiny could not be considered futile. Our weak democratic institution has made us vulnerable to pressure tactics by Pallone and other lawmakers like him.
Acquiring sensitive fissile technology for developing nuclear deterrence was in a way easy for Pakistan but holding on to this technology is a task of immense responsibility. The transfer of fissile related technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea has been very damaging to Pakistan 's credibility as a responsible nuclear state.
Pakistani authorities should not let matter to rest. They should aggressively implement programs and strategies to secure the nuclear program of Pakistan and make sure such a debacle does not occur again.
[The writer is the member of executive and editorial board of Association of Pakistani Professionals and a Mechanical Engineering Professional based in New York City.]
-------- iran
Iran Plans to Resume Uranium Enrichment
March 10, 2004
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Iran-Nuclear.html
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iran said Wednesday it would resume uranium enrichment and warned it may quit cooperating with the International Atomic Energy Agency, which it accused of kowtowing to Washington at a crucial meeting in Vienna.
Separately, Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani told reporters the Iranian military had built nuclear centrifuges for civilian use -- the first time Iran has acknowledged its military was involved in the country's nuclear program.
IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei warned that Iran risked undermining its efforts to convince the world its nuclear intentions are peaceful.
``I think suspension is ... a good confidence-building measure, and Iran needs to do everything possible right now to create the confidence required,'' ElBaradei said Wednesday in Vienna, Austria, where the U.N. atomic agency's board of governors was meeting.
The agency's 35-nation board of governors was preparing for a debate Thursday on whether Iran is living up to its pledge to full transparency on its nuclear program.
The United States, which suspects Iran is building nuclear arms, wants a draft resolution on Iran to take a tough line because of evidence of secrecy. But the Europeans want to acknowledge Iran has made substantial, if not complete, steps toward openness.
An American official told The Associated Press Wednesday that the United States has struck a compromise with European nations that defers a showdown with Iran at the United Nations on its nuclear programs yet deplores its failure to come clean with the IAEA.
A draft obtained by The AP said the agency noted ``with the most serious concern'' that Iran's declarations ``did not amount to the correct, complete and final picture of Iran's past and present nuclear program.''
The draft also praised Iran for signing an agreement that granted a free hand to IAEA inspectors.
The Bush administration had hoped the current IAEA conference in Vienna would wind up with the agency referring Iran's activities to the U.N. Security Council, where economic sanctions could be imposed to punish Iran.
But the administration decided on a compromise approach that defers action at the United Nations, in the hopes of attracting wider support from the Europeans as well as other countries, the official said.
Iran's chief delegate to the IAEA, Pirouz Hosseini, told reporters outside the board of governors meeting that Iran was unhappy with the draft and accused the United States of putting pressure on the Europeans.
``We have never been involved in any nuclear weapons program ... and the Americans don't want to accept the fact,'' Hosseini said.
In Tehran, Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi accused the world body of failing to reciprocate.
``We told (the IAEA) that cooperation should be bilateral. We take steps and expect the other side to take steps. It can't go one-sided,'' Kharrazi said.
Kharrazi warned Britain, France and Germany -- whose foreign ministers visited Tehran last year to discuss the nuclear issue -- that Iran will stop cooperating with them if they fail to resist U.S. pressure at the Vienna meeting.
``We recommend that the three European countries remain committed to their obligations (toward Tehran) and resist U.S. pressure, if they want ... cooperation between Iran and them to lead to results,'' Kharrazi said. ``Cooperation is a two-way street.''
Kharrazi said Iran had a ``legitimate right to enrich uranium'' to fuel the nuclear reactor it is building to generate electrical power.
``We suspended uranium enrichment voluntarily and temporarily. Later, when our relations with the IAEA return to normal, we will definitely resume (uranium) enrichment,'' Kharrazi said.
One of the reasons for the recent IAEA inspections of Iran's nuclear facilities was last year's discovery of undeclared uranium enrichment.
Kharrazi accused the IAEA of giving in to U.S. pressure.
``Unfortunately, the agency is sometimes influenced by the United States, while it should maintain its technical and professional identity,'' Kharrazi said.
Defense Minister Shamkhani said the military industries had produced P-1 centrifuges, which are used for low-grade enrichment, not the P-2 models used for weapons-grade enriched uranium.
``We have produced P-1, not P-2, contrary to U.S. allegations,'' Shamkhani said.
``It's natural in the world that defense industries produce civilian parts,'' Shamkhani said, adding the industries also produce televisions and parts for civilian planes and vehicles.
The IAEA has questioned Iran about blueprints for the more advanced P-2 centrifuges. Iran says the blueprints never got beyond the research stage.
A leading Iranian hard-line editor, Hossein Shariatmadari, urged the government Wednesday to give the IAEA an ultimatum.
``Iran has to set a deadline,'' Shariatmadari wrote in the newspaper Kayhan. ``If Iran's nuclear dossier is not removed from the agency's agenda, Iran must not only stop allowing unfettered inspections of its nuclear facilities, it must resume uranium enrichment and, possibly, even withdraw from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.'' The treaty commits its members to peaceful use of nuclear power.
---------
Deal defers Iran weapons sanctions
March 10, 2004
By David R. Sands
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20040309-100205-2894r.htm
U.S. and European diplomats in Vienna, Austria, yesterday agreed on a compromise resolution that would condemn Iran for continuing to hide parts of its nuclear-weapons programs, but put off the possibility of international sanctions for at least two months.
The deal on a draft resolution, which was softer in tone than a text favored by the Bush administration, comes as leading U.S. officials continued to insist Iran has not come clean on its clandestine efforts to obtain nuclear weapons.
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, in an interview with Fox News yesterday, called Iran "a nation that has spent a lot of time trying to deceive the world with respect to its programs, and we won't be satisfied until everything is known about those programs."
The 35-nation board of governors of the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the United Nations' nuclear watchdog, could have cited Iran for violating past promises not to pursue nuclear programs and referred the question to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions. The compromise draft notes Iran's nuclear activities with "the most serious concern," but puts off any formal IAEA recommendation until the board's next meeting in June.
A State Department official, briefing reporters on background, said the continued IAEA scrutiny could serve U.S. interests, allowing U.N. inspectors more time on the ground to uncover the extent of the Iranian programs before any confrontation at the Security Council in New York.
"Frankly, we felt there was more to be found out this way," the official said.
Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi told the state-run IRNA news agency that Tehran would "not accept" an IAEA finding that the country is in violation of its commitments under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
"Shortcomings, which could have taken place in many countries, all belong to the past and most of them have been solved," he said.
U.S. hopes for a stronger condemnation of Iran by the IAEA board were resisted by Britain, France and Germany, which last fall reached an agreement with Iran to allow international inspections.
The draft text, according to accounts filed by numerous wire services from Vienna, says that Iran's disclosures to date fall short of the "correct, complete and final picture of Iran's past and present nuclear program" that was demanded in an IAEA resolution approved in November.
IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei on Monday criticized Tehran for failing to disclose design drawings in its files of advanced centrifuges that could be used to make atomic bombs.
But the compromise text also praises Iran for agreeing to allow international inspections of its suspect facilities. The draft document also puts off any punitive action until the board meets again in June and makes no direct mention of any Security Council action.
The State Department official said the agreement between the United States and its European allies is only the first step in obtaining approval of the resolution. The text must be approved by all 35 nations on the IAEA board, and some nonaligned countries represented in Vienna said they still have doubts that a critical resolution is needed.
--------
U.S. Softens Its Rebuke on Iran Nuclear Issue, Appeasing Allies
March 10, 2004
By CRAIG S. SMITH
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/10/international/middleeast/10TEHR.html
VIENNA, March 9 - The United States agreed Tuesday to tone down its criticism of Iran in order to win European support for a demand that Tehran divulge more about its nuclear program, according to European diplomats here.
Washington dropped threatening language from a draft resolution being prepared at a meeting of the board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations' nuclear watchdog, and agreed to insert a paragraph praising Iran's cooperation so far. The board's 10 European members signed off Tuesday on the revised draft, and the United States will present it to remaining board members on Wednesday.
The resolution, which board members are expected to approve later this week, will be the third on Iran issued by the agency since the country was discovered last year to have a far more extensive nuclear program than was previously known. And it will be the second in which the United States has agreed to a weaker rebuke against Iran than it would like because of European fears of alienating the country.
Last November, the United States dropped its demand that an agency resolution threaten Security Council action if Iran again failed to disclose details of its nuclear program, which Tehran insists is for purely peaceful uses.
The resolution instead said that if any further serious failures came to light, the board would "consider all options at its disposal." The United States repeated that language in its initial draft this time but agreed Tuesday to remove the threat in favor of a simple reference to the previous resolutions.
The debate carries unsettling echoes of the controversy that preceded the war with Iraq, when European allies argued to give Iraq more time to prove it had no weapons of mass destruction. In Iran's case, France, Germany and Britain reached an agreement with Iran last year under which Iran would suspend its uranium enrichment program in return for easier access to technology and trade.
The Associated Press reported Tuesday that John R. Bolton, a United States under secretary of state, complained in a letter to the French, German and British governments that their stance was hurting the effort to get Iran to comply with its promises for full nuclear disclosure.
Iran gave the energy agency a detailed account of its nuclear program in October. But the country was later found to possess a more advanced design for uranium enriching centrifuges than it had declared, as well as other undisclosed equipment and plans.
The most pressing question remaining is the origin of traces of highly enriched uranium found on some of the equipment in Iran. Iran told the agency that the traces were on the equipment when it arrived in the country, and that since it had been bought through various middlemen, there was no way to identify its source.
But it is possible that Iran enriched the uranium itself, which would constitute clear evidence of Iran's intent to develop nuclear weapons and represent a major breach of its commitments to the agency.
The draft resolution calls for Mohamed ElBaradei, the director of the energy agency, to report on Iran's progress in May before its next board of governor's meeting in June, deferring the question of how to respond to Iran's omissions in its October declaration until June.
--------
U.S. Yields In Faulting Iran on Arms
By George Jahn
Associated Press
Wednesday, March 10, 2004; Page A19
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44479-2004Mar9.html
VIENNA, March 9 -- The United States agreed with European nations Tuesday to tone down criticism of Iran for its continued nuclear secrecy, ending days of grueling negotiations aimed at finding an acceptable mix of praise and condemnation.
The United States also accepted a draft resolution prepared for a high-level conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency that praises Iran's willingness to open its nuclear programs to outside inspection.
U.S. officials insist that Iran wants to build nuclear weapons. They had wanted the meeting to condemn Iran for not fully living up to pledges to reveal all past and present nuclear activities, while keeping open options for future involvement by the U.N. Security Council.
France, Germany and Britain, however, wanted to focus on Iran's cooperation with the IAEA, the U.N.'s nuclear monitoring agency. The cooperation began only after the discovery last year that Iran had plans to enrich uranium and, over nearly two decades, had conducted other tests with possible weapons applications.
The head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, said negotiations continued on final language for the resolution. The text of the document must be approved by all 35 nations represented on the IAEA's board of governors.
The compromise reflected the obstacles faced by the United States in its effort to deal harshly with Iran. When the issue first came up before the board of governors last year, the United States pushed to have Iran called before the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions, arguing that the country had violated the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It has been repeatedly forced to back down because of widespread resistance from the board of governors. The consensus text made no direct mention of the Security Council.
The text criticizes Iran for not fully living up to its pledge to be completely open about its nuclear activities. The document says that past declarations made by Iran "did not amount to the correct, complete and final picture of Iran's past and present nuclear program."
The text also is critical of Iran for "failing to resolve all questions" about uranium enrichment, which can be used to make weapons.
But the draft praises Iran for signing an agreement throwing open its nuclear programs to full and pervasive IAEA inspection perusal and "recognizes" Iran's cooperation with agency investigations, even while calling on Iran to "intensify its cooperation."
--------
Iran Says U.S. Vengeful in Nuclear Claim
March 10, 2004
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Nuclear-Agency-Iran.html
VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- Iran's chief delegate to the U.N. atomic agency said Wednesday that U.S. failures in Iraq are prompting Washington to seek revenge against his country by persisting with accusations about its nuclear program.
Also Wednesday, the 35-nation board of governors meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency passed a resolution praising Libya for fully meeting its pledge to scrap its nuclear weapons program, clearing the stage to focus on what to do about Iran.
Libya also signed an agreement opening up its nuclear activities to pervasive IAEA perusal, a step that both agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei and Libyan Science Minister Matouq Mohamed Matouq said reflected Tripoli's commitment to scrap its weapons of mass destruction.
That left the focus on Iran, and a draft resolution trying to meld U.S. demands for tough language because of continued evidence of secrecy and European wishes to praise Tehran for the substantial -- but not full -- openness it has shown.
Iranian delegate Pirouz Hosseini reiterated that Iran's nuclear programs are purely peaceful, despite American assertions to the contrary.
``We have never been involved in any nuclear weapons program ... and the Americans don't want to accept the fact,'' he told reporters. ``The Americans have failed in Iraq, and it seems that it will be very difficult for them to accept a second failure.''
The U.N. nuclear watchdog appeared to have moved closer to agreement on Iran Tuesday after the United States and major European powers agreed to praise Tehran's increased openness about its nuclear programs but criticize it for continuing to hide some suspicious activities.
Hosseini criticized the draft, saying the Americans had put ``too much pressure'' on the Europeans to toughen its language. Additional complications loomed with Iran's announcement Wednesday that it would resume uranium enrichment once its problems with the IAEA are resolved.
``It's our legitimate right to enrich uranium,'' Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi said Wednesday after a Cabinet meeting in Tehran.
Iran also acknowledged that some centrifuges it produced for enrichment were built by its military industries but asserted this was normal, with the same sector producing parts for television sets and other nonmilitary applications.
Undeclared Iranian enrichment of uranium was one of the reasons behind an IAEA probe of the country's nuclear program. The United States insists uranium enrichment programs conducted clandestinely until their discovery last year, along with plutonium processing and other undeclared tests, point to a nuclear weapons agenda.
Kharrazi also warned that Iran could end nuclear cooperation and called on the Europeans to oppose U.S. efforts to come down hard on Tehran at the Vienna meeting.
In the draft, agreed on Tuesday in Vienna, the United States compromised with Britain, France and Germany to tone down criticism of Iran's continued nuclear secrecy and offer some praise of Tehran's record in opening activities to outside perusal.
The United States had wanted the meeting to condemn Iran for not fully living up to pledges to reveal all past and present nuclear activities. But the Europeans wanted to focus on Iranian cooperation with the IAEA that began only after the discovery last year that Tehran had plans to enrich uranium and secretly conducted other tests with possible weapons applications over nearly two decades.
``We recommend the three European countries ... resist U.S. pressures if they want the project of cooperation between Iran and them to lead to results,'' Kharrazi said, alluding to agreement that foresees the three providing technology to the Islamic Republic in exchange for a stop to uranium enrichment.
When the issue first came up before the board last year, the United States pushed to have Tehran dragged before the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions, arguing that Iran had violated the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. But it has found little board support for that. The draft text, made available to The Associated Press, made no direct mention of the Security Council, but noted ``with the most serious concern'' that past declarations made by Iran ``did not amount to the correct, complete and final picture of Iran's past and present nuclear program.''
It criticized Iran for ``failing to resolve all questions'' about uranium enrichment, saying it ``deplores'' this lapse.
Still, it praised Iran for signing an agreement throwing open its nuclear programs to full and pervasive IAEA perusal and for signs of Iran's cooperation with agency investigations.
The resolution on Libya noted that for more than a decade, Libya violated the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in running a weapons program but lauded it for volunteering to have it destroyed under IAEA supervision.
An IAEA report last month accused Tehran of continuing to hide evidence of nuclear experiments and mentioned finds of traces of polonium, a radioactive element that can be used in nuclear weapons. It also expressed concerns with the discovery of a previously undisclosed advanced P-2 uranium centrifuge system.
While praising Tehran for some cooperation, ElBaradei said he was ``seriously concerned'' about Iran's refusal to declare plans and parts for the P-2 enrichment system, calling it a ``setback to Iran's stated policy of transparency.''
On the Net:
IAEA, http://www.iaea.org
-------- korea
S. Korea Demands N. Korea Dismantle Nukes
March 10, 2004
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Koreas-Nuclear.html
SEOUL, South Korea (AP) -- South Korea demanded on Wednesday that North Korea dismantle not only its nuclear weapons program, but also its atomic power-generating reactors, saying the communist North had failed to win trust that it would not use such reactors to develop weapons.
For its part, North Korea said it would keep atomic programs for peaceful purposes, and threatened to strengthen nuclear deterrent forces, a South Korean news report said.
The communist North made similar comments last month, shortly after a second round of six-nation talks aimed at ending Pyongyang's nuclear programs. The talks ended without a significant progress.
``The reckless position of the U.S. will ... have us expand our nuclear deterrence,'' the state-run KCNA news agency quoted a North Korean Foreign Ministry spokesman as saying.
``We will keep taking necessary measures at a speeder pace while the U.S. continues to drag its feet on the nuclear issue,'' KCNA, monitored by South Korea's Yonhap news agency, also quoted the unidentified spokesman as saying. He didn't elaborate.
The North was willing to scrap its nuclear weapons program if Washington dropped its ``hostile policy'' toward Pyongyang, he said, but even then would maintain ``peaceful nuclear activities.''
Earlier Wednesday, South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon said a major obstacle at the six-nation talks was the North's insistence on keeping what it calls a ``peaceful nuclear power-generating program.''
Washington had insisted on a ``complete, verifiable and irreversible dismantling'' of all the North's nuclear facilities, saying the country had previously flouted international treaties by using a nuclear reactor to develop weapons.
North Korea is suffering from chronic energy shortages, especially since the United States and its allies suspended free fuel oil shipments amid the nuclear standoff.
``Our position is that North Korea should get rid of all its nuclear programs and all its nuclear materials,'' Ban said during a news conference.
Ban, who returned Monday from trips to Washington and Tokyo, said the United States and its allies might tolerate a nuclear power-generating program in North Korea if it holds up its end of the deal and rejoins the international Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
``Right now, the international community doesn't have trust in North Korea,'' Ban said.
The treaty is designed to prevent nuclear weapons proliferation. Its members can run nuclear power plants under the monitoring of the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency.
Since the nuclear standoff flared in late 2002, North Korea withdrawn from the treaty, restarted nuclear facilities frozen under a 1994 deal with Washington and said it has reprocessed all of its 8,000 spent nuclear for bombmaking.
North Korea runs a 5-megawatt nuclear power plant and has two bigger reactors under construction. It insists it will keep using its reactors for power generation, but the United States says those reactors could produce bomb materials.
The nuclear crisis began when the United States accused North Korea of secretly running a uranium-based nuclear weapons program in addition to plutonium-based facilities frozen under the 1994 accord
Ban also dismissed North Korea's recent demand that Washington withdraw its 37,000 U.S. troops based in South Korea and provide a guarantee that U.S. troops won't invade the communist state. He called the deployment of U.S. troops in South Korea a bilateral matter between Seoul and Washington.
He said other participants in the six-nation nuclear talks -- the United States, China, Russia, Japan and South Korea -- will provide a joint security guarantee to North Korea once it eliminates its nuclear facilities.
-------- libya
Libya Signs Accord Allowing Snap Nuclear Checks
March 10, 2004
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-nuclear-libya.html
VIENNA (Reuters) - Libya took a fresh stride toward international rehabilitation Wednesday by signing an agreement allowing the U.N. atomic watchdog to conduct snap inspections of nuclear facilities.
``This is a step by Libya to be clean of all nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction,'' Scientific Research Minister Maatoug Mohammed Maatoug said after signing the accord.
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) head Mohamed ElBaradei told reporters: ``Libya's decision could be, and should be, a first step toward an Africa and Middle East free from weapons of mass destruction and at peace.''
Earlier, the IAEA's governing board passed a resolution praising Libya for dismantling its secret nuclear weapons program. It commended Tripoli to the U.N. Security Council.
Diplomats said the resolution noted Libya's past nuclear activities had put it in breach of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) but applauded its disarmament moves.
The moves are widely seen as significant fresh steps by Libya -- long branded by the West as a rogue state for allegedly sponsoring attacks like the 1988 Lockerbie airline bombing -- to reintegrate itself into the international community.
U.S. PRESSES IRAN
The U.S. ambassador to the IAEA, Kenneth Brill, said he hoped Iran -- whose own nuclear program is under intense scrutiny at a meeting this week -- would follow Tripoli's lead. Iran denies U.S. charges it is seeking to build an atomic bomb.
``Today's (IAEA) board action on Libya sets a very good example for Iran, and that is: a country that truly comes clean with the agency, truly cooperates proactively, gets a constructive response,'' Brill said.
``And countries that seek to avoid providing the kind of proactive cooperation that Libya has will continue to be the subject of...thorough scrutiny.''
Tripoli made the surprise announcement last December it was abandoning all weapons of mass destruction programs and would cooperate with the IAEA, the United States and Britain to dismantle them.
Saturday, it dispatched a shipload to the United States containing all the equipment believed to remain from its nuclear arms program, along with longer-range missiles and launchers.
Monday, the IAEA supervised an airlift to Russia of 80-percent-enriched uranium from a reactor near Tripoli. It said the metal was almost pure enough to be used in a nuclear weapon.
Asked if there would be further shipments of uranium or nuclear-related equipment, Maatoug told reporters: ``There's nothing still to be removed.''
In recognition of Libya's efforts, the President Bush's administration announced last month it would allow U.S. oil firms to begin negotiating to resume operations, long banned under U.S. sanctions.
Exxon Mobil Corp, the largest publicly traded oil company in the world, said Wednesday it was considering returning after a break of more than 17 years.
--------
Dossier on Libya Nuclear Program to Close
March 10, 2004
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Nuclear-Agency-Libya.html
VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- Preparing to close the books on Libya, the U.N. atomic agency on Wednesday urged the Security Council to note the country's past attempts to produce nuclear weapons but praised it for making good on a pledge to abandon its weapons program.
The International Atomic Energy Agency's 35-member board of governors adopted the resolution unanimously. U.S. chief delegate Kenneth Brill said countries like Iran, whose nuclear agenda also is under investigation, should follow Tripoli's example.
``A country that truly comes clean with the agency and truly cooperates ... gets a constructive response,'' Brill told reporters. ``Countries that seek to avoid providing the kind of cooperation that Libya has continue to be the subjects of intensified ... scrutiny.''
Iran asserts its nuclear programs are peaceful and has promised to cooperate with IAEA inspectors to clear away suspicions prompted by revelations last year of uranium enrichment and other activities that could be used to make weapons. Since then, however, new finds by IEAE inspectors of undeclared items have cast doubt on Tehran's assertions that it has no more nuclear secrets.
Libya signed an agreement Wednesday opening up its nuclear activities to pervasive IAEA perusal, a step that both agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei and Libyan Science Minister Matouq Mohamed Matouq said reflected Tripoli's commitment to scrap its weapons of mass destruction.
The agreement gives IAEA inspectors broad rights to oversee all nuclear programs and make sure they remain peaceful. Inspectors had already gone to Libya to make sure it dismantles its nuclear weapons program. Diplomats said Libya has nothing to fear from the Security Council. But reporting Libya for violating the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty sets a possible precedent to do the same with Tehran if the board decides in a June meeting that it violated the treaty. That could lead to Security Council censure or sanctions.
``Everyone knows what the meaning of this is,'' a U.S. official told AP, speaking on condition of anonymity. ``If this can pass for Libya, it can pass for Iran.''
A draft being discussed by the board contains harsh language on Iran's lapses in reporting all suspicious nuclear activities. In contrast, the Libyan resolution was lavish in praise, ``applauding'' Tripoli's decision to give up its nuclear weapons ambitions; ``commending'' it for cooperating with the IAEA; and ``welcoming'' its decision to agree to pervasive agency inspection.
Progress on Libya has been rapid since it announced in December that it had programs for weapons of mass destruction and pledged to scrap them. A ship left the country for the United States on the weekend carrying 500 tons of cargo -- the last of the equipment that Moammar Gadhafi's government had used for its nuclear program.
The decision to give up such programs is part of Gadhafi's effort to end his country's international isolation, restore diplomatic relations with the United States and attract foreign investment.
-------- terrorism
A Nuclear 9/11
March 10, 2004
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF E-mail: nicholas@nytimes.com
OP-ED COLUMNIST
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/10/opinion/10KRIS.html
10-kiloton nuclear bomb (a pipsqueak in weapons terms) is smuggled into Manhattan and explodes at Grand Central. Some 500,000 people are killed, and the U.S. suffers $1 trillion in direct economic damage.
That scenario, cited in a report last year from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, could be a glimpse of our future. We urgently need to control nuclear materials to forestall that threat, but in this war on proliferation, we're now slipping backward. President Bush (after ignoring the issue before 9/11) now forcefully says the right things - but still doesn't do enough.
"We're losing the war on proliferation," Andrew F. Krepinevich Jr., a military expert and executive director of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, says bluntly.
Until recently, nuclear trends looked encouraging. President Kennedy and others in the early 1960's expected dozens of countries to develop atomic weapons quickly, but in fact controls largely worked. Even now, only eight nations definitely possess nuclear weapons.
And there's more good news. While I believe that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, at least Saddam Hussein won't be making warheads soon. Likewise, partly thanks to Mr. Bush's saber-rattling, Libya is abandoning its weapons program.
But all in all, the risks of a nuclear 9/11 are increasing. "I wouldn't be at all surprised if nuclear weapons are used over the next 15 or 20 years," said Bruce Blair, president of the Center for Defense Information, "first and foremost by a terrorist group that gets its hands on a Russian nuclear weapon or a Pakistani nuclear weapon."
One of our biggest setbacks is in North Korea. Thanks to the ineptitude of hard-liners in Mr. Bush's administration, and their refusal to engage in meaningful negotiations, North Korea is going all-out to make warheads. It may have just made six new nuclear weapons. Then there's Iran, which has sought nuclear weapons since the days of the shah, and whose nuclear program seems to have public support. "I'm not sure there is a way to get an Iranian government to give it up," a senior American official said.
Finally, there's the real rogue nation of proliferation, Pakistan. We know that Abdul Qadeer Khan, the Islamist father of Pakistan's bomb, peddled materials to Libya and North Korea, and we don't know who else.
"It may be that A. Q. Khan & Associates already have passed bomb-grade nuclear fuel to the Qaeda, and we are in for the worst," warns Paul Leventhal, founding president of the Nuclear Control Institute.
It's mystifying that the administration hasn't leaned on Pakistan to make Dr. Khan available for interrogation to ensure that his network is entirely closed. Several experts on Pakistan told me they believe that the administration has been so restrained because its top priority isn't combating nuclear proliferation - it's getting President Pervez Musharraf's help in arresting Osama bin Laden before the November election.
Another puzzle is why an administration that spends hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq doesn't try harder to secure uranium and plutonium in Russia and elsewhere. The bipartisan program to secure weapons of mass destruction is starved for funds - but Mr. Bush is proposing a $41 million cut in "cooperative threat reduction" with Russia.
"We're at this crucial point," warns Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "And how we handle these situations in the next couple of years will tell us whether the nuclear threat shrinks or explodes. Perhaps literally."
The steps that are needed, like negotiating seriously with North Korea and securing sites in Russia, aren't as dramatic as bombing Baghdad. But unless we act more aggressively, we will get a wake-up call from a nuclear explosion or, more likely, a "dirty bomb" that uses radioactive materials routinely lying around hospitals and factories. To clarify the stakes, here's a scenario from the Federation of American Scientists for a modest terrorist incident:
A stick of cobalt, an inch thick and a foot long, is taken from among hundreds of such sticks at a food irradiation plant. It is blown up with just 10 pounds of explosives in a "dirty bomb" at the lower tip of Manhattan, with a one-mile-per-hour breeze blowing. Some 1,000 square kilometers in three states is contaminated, and some areas of New York City become uninhabitable for decades.
-------- u.s. nuc weapons
U.S. Bunker-Buster Program More Robust Than Expected
By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire
Wednesday, March 10, 2004
http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2004_3_10.html#DD16C5A5
WASHINGTON - A Bush administration program to study a controversial new earth-penetrating nuclear weapon is much more ambitious than previously indicated, according to a congressional analysis released Monday (see GSN, Jan. 23).
A report by the Congressional Research Service says the Energy Department's Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) program is projected to proceed beyond the study phase and cost as much as $485 million over the next five years.
Senior administration officials previously tried to dismiss criticism of the program by saying it only involves a three-year study projected to cost just $45 million.
The program "is a study. It is nothing more and nothing less," said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld during a May 2003 press briefing.
The congressional analysis of the Energy Department's fiscal 2005 budget request documents says the study is now projected to run four years, from fiscal 2003 to 2006, and cost $71 million between those years.
Furthermore, the budget documents project $484.7 million in program costs through fiscal 2009 with post-study development work, for which specific congressional approval is required.
The Energy request "seems to cast serious doubt on assertions that RNEP is only a study," says the report, authored by analyst Jonathan Medalia.
The program is controversial, with congressional critics charging that U.S. interest in new nuclear weapons capabilities undermines efforts to persuade other countries to forgo nuclear weapons and raises questions about an international commitment the United States made in 2000 to move toward eventual disarmament.
A manager for the Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration, the CRS report says, dismissed the budget projection as a "placeholder" to protect the option of proceeding with the program for avoiding any future delay in funding. The official said no decision had been made on whether to proceed beyond the study phase.
Congress appropriated $15 million for the study in fiscal 2003 and $7.5 million in fiscal 2004, following criticism by congressional Democrats. The administration is seeking $27.6 million for next year and is planning to extend the study through fiscal 2006.
NNSA attributed the increases to the need for an additional participant in the study, additional project management requirements, better definition of the study's requirements and costs and an increase in safety of the proposed weapon.
-------- u.s. nuc facilities
-------- new jersey
Oyster Creek design vulnerable to terrorist attack
Asbury Park Press
3/10/04
By STEPHEN M. LAZORCHAK
http://www.app.com/app/story/0,21625,922644,00.html
The Oyster Creek nuclear power plant in Lacey was designed when the commercial use of nuclear power was in its infancy. Recently, AmerGen, an Exelon company, announced it plans to seek an extension of Oyster Creek's operating license for an additional 20 years past 2009. The power plant's owners say the plant is in excellent operating condition and safe because they are constantly replacing equipment and plant security was upgraded. However, no security measures taken by AmerGen will decrease the power plant's vulnerability to a terrorist attack utilizing a large aircraft. The United States has increased security at our airports to prevent terrorist hijackings, but our government cannot protect us from security lapses in foreign countries.
The Reactor Building at Oyster Creek is the large square structure, easily seen from Route 9. The concrete portion of the building is 119 feet, from ground level to floor elevation. Should one stand on the Reactor Building operating floor, you can look into the spent fuel pool and see the tons of spent fuel rods at the pool bottom. Adjacent to the spent fuel pool, thick concrete shield plugs cover the reactor. Around you is a 50-foot-high steel frame enclosure. Steel columns supporting steel roof trusses are covered with sheet metal siding.
This vintage Reactor Building is structurally not adequate to protect the spent fuel rods from an aircraft terrorist attack. A large plane can easily penetrate the metal building over the fuel pool. Its ruptured fuel tanks will spill thousands of gallons of burning fuel across the operating floor, down the stairwell and down the 30-foot-square equipment hatch that is an unobstructed opening to the first floor. Any fire-damaged floor penetrations will allow burning fuel to leak down on the numerous wires and electrical cables essential to safe shutdown of the reactor and systems maintaining cooling water to the spent fuel pool. Without constant cooling, the reactor will rupture.
Similarly, the spent fuel rods can boil the water in the pool, cracking the steel liner and its supporting concrete structure. An uncontrolled leak would develop and drain the pool, allowing spent fuel rods to be exposed to the burning jet fuel. This postulated event could occur within one hour, a far shorter time than any design accident condition plant operators are trained for.
Like all concrete structures, there are cracks in Oyster Creek's Reactor Building, requiring periodic monitoring by plant structural engineers. Of particular importance are the structural cracks beneath the spent fuel pool, the refueling pool and cracks that have signs of water leaks. As part of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission review for license extension, the Reactor Building crack issue may be reviewed. But, there is no requirement to analyze the concern and determine actual concrete stresses for all building design load combinations.
Crack investigation is not an easy task. It requires a detailed mapping of all building crack patterns utilizing the structural drawings, analysis of actual building loads with seasonal thermal changes, and a thorough review of plant construction photographs. The observed conditions and analysis should correlate; otherwise, the wrong assumptions would be used in the analysis. Only then can the analysis model be used to check extreme loads in accordance with the postulated accident and safe shutdown earthquake conditions.
Therefore, why should Oyster Creek be permitted to operate another 20 years? The short answer: There is no state or federal regulation mandating existing nuclear plant buildings be upgraded for aircraft impact or any change to the current building code, after the original operating license is issued. If communities in Ocean County and surrounding counties do not express any concern about Oyster Creek's obsolete structural design basis, it will be allowed to operate beyond 2009, providing 20 more years as a target of opportunity for terrorists.
Advocates for allowing the plant to remain open defend it as a cheap source of power. But, nuclear plant operators will charge more for their electricity because the marginal cost of electricity produced by natural gas actually sets the cost of nuclear power, not the nuclear plant's operating expenses. If Oyster Creek shuts down, a load-following natural gas power plant will likely replace it, operated with less than 35 people, and pose an insignificant risk to the surrounding population.
As a nation, the elimination of nuclear power as one source of electrical generation is unwise and jeopardizes our national security. We should be building new nuclear plants to replace the aging and obsolete plant designs that supply 20 percent of our nation's power. We should repeal President Carter's directive that prevents the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel rods. If spent fuel rods are reprocessed, as originally envisioned by the early nuclear power engineers, 97 percent of the fuel rod is reused; only 3 percent must be handled as waste. Carter attempted to eliminate nuclear proliferation, thereby eliminating recycling as an option. It's time to discard this outdated political view and provide for a meaningful energy policy, utilizing nuclear power for all base load generation requirements.
Stephen M. Lazorchak, of Dover Township, is a consulting structural engineer and a former Oyster Creek employee.
-------- new york
Progress for Indian Point, and a Setback for Its Critics
March 10, 2004
By MAREK FUCHS
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/10/nyregion/10indian.html
In a setback and rebuke to opponents of the Indian Point nuclear plant in Westchester County, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has pronounced the plant's two active reactors fit and has moved to reduce their level of oversight to standard from heightened.
Neil Sheehan, a spokesman for the commission, which oversees the nation's nuclear plants, said yesterday that an issue that had remained a concern until the end of 2003 - faulty construction of a control-room wall at Indian Point 2 - had been resolved, paving the way for the reactor to get the commission's highest rating, which means the lowest level of inspection.
"It's a sea change for them," Mr. Sheehan said of the reactor, which received poor performance ratings before and after Entergy Corporation, a Louisiana company, purchased it from Consolidated Edison in 2001. Indian Point 3 still exceeded a threshold for the number of unplanned shutdowns in 2003, said Mr. Sheehan, "but they are getting close to where they should be."
He added, "While certainly milestones, this doesn't mean the plants are without issues."
The commission sent Entergy an assessment letter last week, spelling out the company's accomplishments in 2003 but pointing out areas of continued concern, like maintenance backlogs. Mr. Sheehan added that additional strides have been made since the end of 2003.
Reaction from local officials and plant opponents was swift and unfavorable. Richard Brodsky, a state assemblyman from Westchester who has long fought to close the plant, said it was irresponsible to move to less oversight so soon after the assessment letter, which said Indian Point's overall performance was improving, "albeit slowly."
"The N.R.C. is being an apologist, not a regulator," said Mr. Brodsky. "It's what happens when an industry captures a government." The commission arrives at its overall rating through color-coded ratings in a range of performance and inspection categories. Mr. Brodsky said that such a focus on multiple small issues obscured the broader picture.
"There's a term for it in psychology that's called circular insanity,'' he said. "It happens when you are trapped in assumptions and standards that are completely inside the circle and you never explain whether the circle is nutty."
Alex Matthiessen, executive director of Riverkeeper, an environmental group opposed to the plant, said: "They gave a clean bill of health while saying the facility has a number of serious problems. And that doesn't, by the way, acknowledge the chance of sabotage, attack or the lack of an escape plan."
In addition to concerns over plant operations, opponents point to the fact that one of the airplanes that struck the World Trade Center on 9/11 had flown by the plant. And public officials have little confidence in evacuation plans for the communities around Indian Point should an attack or accident occur.
To Entergy, though, the commission's opinions were gratifying evidence that their long-term plan to turn the problematic plant around was working. "We knew we had to address some of the issues we became aware of during our due diligence," said Jim Steets, a company spokesman, who said that hundreds of millions of dollars had been invested in improvements. "This is a good indication that we've been effective."
Asked whether the ratings were a finger in the eye of the plant's vocal opponents, Mr. Steets said: "It's certainly a vindication, in a sense. Some criticized Indian Point, either prematurely or without information."
-------- vermont
Expert raps VY uprate
By CAROLYN LORIÉ
Reformer Staff
Wednesday, March 10, 2004
http://www.reformer.com/Stories/0,1413,102~8860~2007550,00.html
MONTPELIER -- Speaking at a public forum on Entergy Nuclear's proposed "uprate," industry whistleblower Arnie Gundersen started his talk at the State House by saying that he was "pro-nuclear and pro-safety."
That said, Gundersen launched into a detailed account of why he believes a 20 percent uprate at the Vermont Yankee plant is a dangerous proposition.
According to Gundersen, the main problem has to do with net positive suction, that is the ability of the emergency pumps to suction water into the core in the event of an accident. Because the uprate would increase the temperature of the water, it would flash to steam, rendering the pumps useless.
In order to compensate for this, Gundersen said, Entergy's plan is to increase the pressure in the container, which will push the water into the pumps and prevent it from turning to steam.
The problem with this plan is that the pressure could cause a valve on the container to blow open, releasing radiation, said Gundersen.
Again, Entergy has addressed this, by calling for the valve to be closed manually -- a plan Gundersen considers inadequate.
While Gundersen is pro-nuclear and does not advocate closing the plant before its license expires in 2012, he did serve as an expert witness for the New England Coalition in its role as intervener in Entergy's uprate process.
"This thing scares me," said Gundersen to the audience that over the course of the talk included over 20 legislators.
The forum was sponsored by members of the Windham County delegation, including Reps. Richard Marek, D-Newfane; Steve Darrow, D-Dummerston; Carolyn Partridge, D-Windham; David Deen, D-Westminister; Sarah Edwards, P-Brattleboro and Michael Obuchowski, D-Bellows Falls.
Although Entergy was invited to join the discussion, a representative did not attend. According to Vermont Yankee spokesperson Rob Williams, the company believes the issue has already "received a thorough airing through the established channels."
Williams added that Entergy provided the coalition with thousands of pages of documents and that a number of public meetings have been held concerning the uprate.
"We question the value of this ad hoc forum one week before the (Public Service Board) decision," said Williams.
Rep. Darrow said that he was disappointed by Entergy's absence.
"I was looking forward to Entergy's presentation. We gave them the opportunity to step up to the plate and give us their side. Evidently they are afraid of being in the same room as a knowledgeable, pro-nuclear person like Mr. Gundersen," he said.
Darrow added that he believes an independent safety assessment similar to what was done at Maine Yankee in 1997 needs to be done before there is an uprate.
According to Gundersen, the review done by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) during the uprate process is substantially different from an independent safety assessment (ISA).
"An ISA would have 20 or so guys from the NRC at Vermont Yankee for three or four months. It's very thorough and hands on," Gunderson said.
There was sharp criticism aimed at Entergy for "perverting" the term independent safety assessment.
Peter Alexander, executive director of the New England Coalition, accused Entergy of purposefully misusing the term "independent safety assessment" as a way of manipulating the public.
"It shows a pattern of deception," he said.
Neil Sheehan, spokesperson for NRC Region I, said the term can be used to mean a variety of things and did not consider Entergy's use of it to be deceptive.
Gundersen, however, challenged that claim, reiterating that the term has a very specific use within the industry.
Similar to Paul Blanch, another whistleblower who served as an expert witness for the coalition, Gundersen believes the NRC to be under the control of the industry.
"NRC -- the letters stand for 'nobody really cares,'" he said.
As the forum was in progress, the Senate Finance Committee voted to send a resolution to the Senate floor calling for an independent safety assessment, similar to the one performed at Maine Yankee.
In addition to Darrow, Reps. Milkey, Partridge and Marek expressed support for an ISA.
"I think it's clear that at the very least, we need an ISA done by people with no vested interest. It's the very least we can do to protect the safety of Vermonters," said Partridge.
-------- us politics
Trade Deficit Widens to Record $43.1 Billion
March 10, 2004
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/business/AP-Economy.html?hp
WASHINGTON (AP) -- America's trade deficit hit a record monthly high in January, the start of an election year in which Democrats hope to use the swollen trade gap and the loss of U.S. jobs as campaign issues against President Bush.
The Commerce Department reported Wednesday that the trade imbalance mushroomed to $43.1 billion in the first month of 2004, representing a 0.9 percent increase from the previous month.
For all of 2003, the trade deficit posted an annual all-time high of $489.9 billion, according to revised figures.
The latest snapshot of trade activity comes as tensions have grown over global trade and the migration of jobs in the United States to other countries.
The Bush administration believes the best way to handle the trade deficits is to get other countries to remove trade barriers and open their markets to U.S. businesses. But Democrats and other critics point to the deficits as evidence that the president's free-trade policies aren't working and are a factor in the loss of U.S. jobs.
Bush defended his economic policies, including free-trade, Wednesday and renewed a warning against economic isolationism -- a swipe at presumptive Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, though Bush didn't mention him by name.
Kerry, a Massachusetts senator, has said he would place all trade deals under a 120-day review and would require companies to provide notice before moving jobs to other countries.
The trade deficit in January grew as the value of imported goods and services eclipsed the value of U.S. exports.
Imports of goods and services came to $132 billion in January, the second-highest level on record. Still, that represented a 0.5 percent dip from the record level of imports seen in December. The economic rebound in the United States has fed demand for foreign-made goods.
Exports, meanwhile, totaled $89 billion in January, representing a 1.2 percent decrease from December. That largely reflected weaker demand for U.S. food products. Exports of meat and poultry in January plunged by 40 percent to $379 million, the lowest level since November 1993, as the first case of mad cow disease in the United States stalled beef exports to many countries.
Sherry Cooper, chief economist at BMO Nesbitt Burns, called the drop in exports disturbing and said the trade deficit probably would be a drag on economic growth in the current quarter.
Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan last week said that a weaker U.S. dollar should eventually help narrow the country's trade deficits.
Wednesday's report also showed that America's politically sensitive trade deficit with China expanded to $11.5 billion in January, up from $9.9 billion in December.
U.S. manufacturers contend that China is deliberately undervaluing it currency, the yuan, by as much as 40 percent, giving that country a big trade advantage when competing with U.S. companies and contributing to the loss of U.S. jobs.
The Bush administration has been pressing Beijing to stop linking its currency to the dollar and let the value of the yuan be set in open markets.
The U.S. trade deficit with Japan, meanwhile, narrowed to $5.3 billion in January, compared with $5.7 billion the month before. U.S. exports to the country, valued at $4 billion, marked the lowest level in a year.
America's trade deficit with Mexico of $3 billion in January was the lowest since December 2002. The United States' trade gap with Canada widened in January to $5.2 billion, up from $4.4 billion in December.
The United States' trade deficit with oil-producing nations, including Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, grew to $4.7 billion in January, the highest level since April 2003. The average price per barrel of imported crude oil in January, meanwhile, climbed to $28.55, the highest since March 2003.
On the Net:
U.S. International Trade in Goods and Services report: http://www.economicindicators.gov/
--------
Uneasy Over Deficit, G.O.P. Lawmakers Tackle the Budget
March 10, 2004
By CARL HULSE and RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr.
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/10/politics/10BUDG.html?pagewanted=all&position=
WASHINGTON, March 9 - Increasingly anxious about the deficit as a political issue, Congressional Republicans are moving to reshape President Bush's budget, with some taking aim at his planned increases for the military and even considering steps to make it harder to extend the tax cuts that expire in 2011.
Despite their concerns, Republicans may end up approving a budget close to the president's. Indeed, Senate Republicans on Tuesday defeated, 51 to 46, a Democratic amendment that would have made it difficult for the Senate to create new tax cuts or increase spending unless the lost money was made up elsewhere. Also on Tuesday, several key Republican senators said Mr. Bush would probably secure the money he was seeking for the military budget.
The Republicans' willingness to consider trimming sacred cows like increases in military spending or reducing tax cuts shows how worrisome the ballooning budget deficit is.
Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said "there has been a shifting of gears" among Republicans.
"Last year was about economic growth," Mr. Graham said. "But this year is about deficit control."
Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, a moderate, said: "The deficit resonates as an issue, and people are going to pay attention to it. And if we don't do something on the revenue side, we are playing with fire, especially with all the C.E.O. scandals. This is hazardous territory for Republicans."
Republicans are of several minds on how to attack the red ink, and votes this week on the Senate floor and in the House Budget Committee will illustrate the complex task the party leadership faces in reaching a consensus on taxes and spending.
"We have been out of control for the last three years," Senator Trent Lott, Republican of Mississippi, said in referring to overall Congressional spending. "We kind of got a little carried away."
Mr. Lott said he was uncertain about its effects, given that Republicans ran against deficits for years could not unseat the Democratic majority until they shifted their message. "If the Democrats want that issue and they think they can win on it," he said, "let them have it."
Mr. Bush has called for Congress to make permanent his tax cuts that are now set to expire in 2011. Republican lawmakers have avoided the issue by agreeing to consider only budgets of five years' length, not covering when the tax cuts expire.
Despite the defeat of the Democrats' pay-as-you-go amendment, Republicans, like Senator Pete V. Domenici of New Mexico, and Democrats, like Senator Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin, have been trying to negotiate a less strict version of the proposal. Depending how it is written, such an amendment could complicate, in later years, efforts to extend tax cuts at the decade's end.
Many Democrats say they would favor such a proposal, even if it exempts extensions of three tax cuts that expire this year but that have bipartisan support. Those actions are ending the so-called marriage penalty, expanding the 10 percent tax bracket and keeping the $1,000 annual tax credit for children, instead of allowing it to revert to $700. Extending those three cuts is expected to cost $80 billion over five years.
Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, the Democratic leader, said he found it hard to believe that Republicans would agree to anything that would render it more difficult to make permanent the much more costly tax cuts that expire in 2011.
"But that's the kind of fiscal discipline that's going to be required if we're going to turn this deficit around," Mr. Daschle said.
Some moderates and conservatives have also joined in an effort to trim the $27 billion, or 7 percent, increase in military spending that Mr. Bush seeks. The proposed budget resolution being debated in the Senate would give the Pentagon a $20 billion, or 5 percent, increase.
Some Republicans, including Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, have promised to give Mr. Bush everything that he seeks.
The new focus on spending reflects growing unrest among constituents about spending after the adoption of a $400 billion Medicare drug benefit last year and a huge catchall spending measure as an early order of business this year, said Brian M. Riedl, an analyst at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative group.
"Certainly this level of resolve over spending was not present last year," Mr. Riedl said. "If the Republicans want to seize the title of fiscal conservatives, they have a lot of work cut out for them and a lot of difficult decisions to make."
Liberal groups scoff at the notion that domestic spending has been the problem, saying that Mr. Bush's tax cuts and steep increases in spending on the military and domestic security are driving the deficit, estimated this year at $478 billion.
The Republicans' proposal in the Senate, by Don Nickles, the Budget Committee chairman, would cut $113 billion from domestic programs over five years, excluding the military and domestic security, compared with what current law would spend, according to Richard Kogan, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal group.
Democrats also say the emerging Republican approach to spending restraint works against other segments of the economy. For instance, the White House is threatening to veto a highway bill being written in Congress because of its costs. Yet lawmakers from both parties agree that the bill would create a substantial number of new positions.
The recognition that they need to get a handle on spending is reflected not just in the budget. Senate Republicans have cut in half a $30 billion energy measure from last year in hope of getting it through Congress.
Democrats have been pounding on the president and Congress for squandering the Clinton-era surplus, and there is evidence that the attacks resonate. Recent polls have found that the public rates the deficit as an important problem and gives Mr. Bush poor marks for his handling of the issue. One survey also found that the public preferred controlling the deficit by canceling tax cuts rather than cutting programs like health and education.
"There are really deep differences of opinion, even among the Republicans, with regard to the direction we ought to take," Mr. Daschle said, adding. "I don't know that there is any consensus among Republicans today."
--------
Democrats Forming Parallel Campaign Interest Groups Draw GOP Fire
By Dan Balz and Thomas B. Edsall
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, March 10, 2004; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A44513-2004Mar9?language=printer
Led by veterans of presidential and congressional campaigns, a coalition of Democratic Party interest groups, armed with millions of dollars in soft money, is rapidly constructing an unprecedented political operation designed to supplement the activities of Sen. John F. Kerry's campaign in the effort to defeat President Bush.
The newest visible sign of the coalition's activities will be seen beginning today, when a $5 million advertising campaign begins in 17 battleground states. But behind the scenes, Democratic operatives are moving to set up coordinated national and state-by-state operations that amount to the equivalent of a full presidential campaign, minus the candidate.
The Democratic groups have created five organizations to oversee facets of the campaign: paid advertising; voter identification and turnout; communications, polling, research and rapid response; fundraising; and the coordination of the operations of more than two dozen liberal organizations.
This parallel Democratic campaign, already under legal challenge, grows out of changes in campaign finance laws. Those changes prohibit the national party committees from raising and spending soft money -- large, unregulated contributions -- on behalf of their presidential candidates. The Democrats have taken the expertise they developed in past campaigns and applied it to the new, separate operation. By law, coalition members cannot coordinate with the campaign of Kerry (Mass.), the presumptive Democratic candidate.
"Our sense was we needed to have a message up on the air that tells the truth about the Bush record and defends the Democratic position on the issues," said Ellen Malcolm, president of Emily's List and a driving force behind the coordinated effort. "There is no question that Bush has $100 million and Kerry is down to zero. It's very important that there are alternative voices out there talking about the Bush record."
Most of these new organizations have been established as "527s," shorthand for the provision of the tax law that covers their activities. The 527s are controversial because they accept soft money from corporations and unions, which critics say represents an evasion of the ban on large, unregulated contributions in the new campaign finance law known as the McCain-Feingold Act, and because they operate under less stringent disclosure regulations.
A new ad to be launched today was produced by the Media Fund, the principal vehicle for pro-Democratic television commercials by the coalition. But the coalition's advertising effort will be shared by MoveOn.org, the Internet-based liberal advocacy group that has become part of the umbrella operation established by the Democratic organizations.
The new ad -- one of three tested in focus groups in Tampa and Pittsburgh -- states that "George Bush's priorities are eroding the American Dream."
Ben Ginsberg, a lawyer for the Bush-Cheney campaign, called the Media Fund ads "a blatant circumvention of the new campaign finance law." He said the president's campaign plans to immediately file a complaint that seeks to have the Federal Election Commission determine whether groups "knowingly and willfully" solicited donors "to contribute in excess of federal law and to determine whether they [the donors] knew that the money was to defeat a federal candidate."
Harold Ickes, president of the Media Fund, said: "We would expect nothing less than scorched-earth harassment by the Republicans."
But in addition to the Bush-Cheney complaint, Democratic 527 groups face legal scrutiny by the FEC, which plans to issue new rules governing the organizations' activities. Republicans said the complaint is likely to take at least six months to process, and the new 527 rules will not be effective until late July at the earliest.
Republicans say that if the Democratic 527 activity is ruled legal, GOP groups will be quickly formed to match the opposition. Republicans have been under less pressure to raise non-party money because of the success of the Bush campaign, which has already raised about $150 million, and the Republican National Committee. In addition, past corporate soft-money donors to the RNC are reluctant to risk legal repercussions while the status of 527s remains in limbo.
The Democratic groups have created an operation that combines close coordination with a division of labor designed to avoid duplication of effort and maximize resources. Beyond the Media Fund, the entities include Americans Coming Together (ACT), which is responsible for get-out-the-vote efforts; America Votes, the umbrella organization that will stitch together the activities of various progressive organizations; the Thunder Road Group, which will concentrate on research and rapid response; and the Joint Victory Campaign 2004, a combined fundraising committee.
Malcolm, of Emily's List, said the groups have raised about $75 million, although other Democrats questioned whether all that money is in hand.
The Democratic 527 organizations have drawn support from some wealthy liberals determined to defeat Bush. They include financier George Soros and his wife, Susan Weber Soros, who gave $5 million to ACT and $1.46 million to MoveOn.org; Peter B. Lewis, chief executive of the Progressive Corp., who gave $3 million to ACT and $500,000 to MoveOn; and Linda Pritzker, of the Hyatt hotel family, and her Sustainable World Corp., who gave $4 million to the joint fundraising committee.
The Democratic coalition includes many of the party's most experienced strategists, spokesmen and fundraisers, as well former staffers for Kerry's campaign and the campaigns of several of his rivals. They include Ickes, who was deputy White House chief of staff in the Clinton administration, Steve Rosenthal, a former political director for the AFL-CIO who is executive director of ACT, and Jim Jordan, formerly Kerry's campaign manager, who heads the Thunder Road Group.
Bill Knapp, who did ads for the Gore and Clinton presidential campaigns the past three elections, oversees the advertising operation for the Media Fund. Five pollsters, several with presidential experience, are sharing the coalition's survey research work.
MoveOn.org already has spent millions of dollars on anti-Bush ads. Much of the group's work, according to several Democrats involved in the coalition, will be concentrated in five states that Democrats hope to pick up in November: Florida, Ohio, Missouri, West Virginia and Nevada.
The group ran ads for 10 weeks in those states, including a prescription drug ad that ran for four weeks. Polling conducted by Stan Greenberg, Bill Clinton's 1992 pollster, showed the ad was particularly effective in enlarging the Democrats' advantage on that issue, according to sources familiar with the research. That has convinced Democrats they can move the battlefield in Kerry's direction.
The New Democrat Network, a coalition member, plans a separate $5 million television campaign aimed at Latino voters in four states.
On the organizing front, Rosenthal said he has hired state directors in 10 battleground states modeled on techniques successfully used by organized labor. Labor will be responsible for contacting union members. That will leave ACT free to concentrate on motivating other members of the Democrats' core constituencies, as well as some swing voters, using research from the National Committee for an Effective Congress to build sophisticated precinct vote goals.
Cecile Richards, executive director of America Votes, said her umbrella organization has hired eight state directors, with coordinating efforts beginning in 15 states. Individual organizations, from the Sierra Club to NARAL Pro-Choice America, will conduct their own activities.
But the Democrats hope to avoid a problem of past elections, when groups sent similar direct-mail messages to voters at the same time or concentrated on one area of a state to the exclusion of other areas. "We don't all need to be in Tampa," Richards said.
-------- MILITARY
-------- afghanistan
Military will keep secret report on U.S. raid that killed nine Afghan children
Wednesday March 10, 2004
By STEPHEN GRAHAM
Associated Press Writer
http://cbsnewyork.com/international/Afghan-ChildVictims-ai/resources_news_html
KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) The U.S. military on Wednesday said it would not release the findings of an investigation into an airstrike that killed nine Afghan children last year.
Spokesman Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty said an officer who led the probe concluded that the military followed ``appropriate'' rules of engagement and rules of war in the botched attack, for which its commanders quickly apologized.
But, he said, the report was classified as 'top secret' because of ``the intelligence involved and the targeting involved.''
The children were killed Dec. 6 by an A-10 ground-attack aircraft in a field near a mountain village in Ghazni province. A man also was killed, but the military admitted the suspected Taliban militant targeted in the raid had gotten away.
The deaths and those of six more children in a ground and air assault on a house in neighboring Paktia province the day before drew strong protests from the Afghan government and the United Nations.
They were highlighted again in a report released Monday by Human Rights Watch, which accused the military of using excessive force to arrest suspects in residential areas.
The military has rejected that report, saying it failed to understand that Afghanistan was still a combat zone.
``You can follow all of the laws of land warfare and still, unfortunately, have tragic incidents,'' Hilferty said Wednesday.
The military has already said that it modified its rules of engagement after the December incidents, but has declined to give details.
Hilferty said that silence was to avoid helping militants, which the 13,000-strong U.S.-led force in Afghanistan has vowed to crush this year.
``If they know exactly what we're gonna do, they will have an advantage on us,'' he said.
--------
Militants attack U.S. base in Afghanistan
3/10/2004
Associated Press
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-03-10-afghan-attack_x.htm
KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) - Militants attacked a remote U.S. base in eastern Afghanistan with rockets and heavy machine-guns, sparking a battle that killed a bystander, the military said Wednesday. The main American base in the south also came under rocket assault.
At least a dozen guerrillas assailed the outpost at Nangalam, about 100 miles east of the capital Kabul, in Kunar province early on Tuesday morning.
The attackers shot about 20 rockets then opened fire on the base, which houses about 100 U.S. Marines and special forces, but inflicted no American casualties, military spokesman Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty said.
U.S. forces responded with gunfire and called in an A-10 ground attack aircraft.
"We discovered blood moving into the hills, so it appeared that some of the enemy were wounded," Hilferty said.
Hilferty said an Afghan civilian wounded in the crossfire died in hospital in the provincial capital Asadabad.
Kunar Gov. Fazel Akbar said another man was injured and that investigators were trying to establish if he was a militant.
Kunar is the northernmost of a string of troubled Afghan provinces along the border with Pakistan where the 13,000-strong U.S.-led coalition is focusing its campaign against militants.
At the southern end of that arc, rockets were fired early Wednesday at the U.S. base at the airport near Kandahar, Afghanistan's second city.
Khalid Pashtun, spokesman for the Kandahar provincial government, said three rockets were fired into an empty area of the base grounds.
But Hilferty said there were two rockets and that they landed "several kilometers (miles)" from the airfield.
There were no reports of injuries.
Pashtun blamed remnants of the Taliban regime ousted by a U.S.-led assault in late 2001 for the attack.
Taliban militants are believed to have teamed up with remnants of Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network and fighters loyal to Afghan warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar to fight the U.S.-backed government of Hamid Karzai.
At least 140 people have died in violence in Afghanistan so far this year, including aid workers and government employees as well as Afghan and international troops and militants.
Tuesday's assault was "relatively large-scale" for Kunar, Hilferty said. "The people of that area have liked us very much, but that appears to be an area where Hekmatyar forces are operating."
Kunar and the neighboring Chitral region of Pakistan form an area of deep forested valleys and snowcapped mountains where both Hekmatyar and bin Laden have at times been rumored to hold out.
U.S. commanders have vowed to capture the pair and also Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar this year, and are focusing their efforts along the rugged border regions.
-------- business
Boeing Lax on Hiring By Rules, Review Finds Lapses Risk Conflicts, Report Warns
By Renae Merle
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 10, 2004; Page E02
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44748-2004Mar9.html
Boeing Co.'s hiring policies are followed only sporadically, leaving room for potential conflicts of interest, according to an outside review released yesterday.
But the review by a team led by former senator Warren Rudman did not find more examples of conflicts similar to the one involving Boeing's chief financial officer, Michael M. Sears, and a senior executive hired from the Air Force, Darleen A. Druyun.
Chicago-based Boeing commissioned the three-month review after the company discovered that Sears and Druyun violated its hiring policies and attempted to cover up their actions. Druyun was still overseeing Boeing contracts at the Pentagon when she began discussing a position with Boeing. Both were fired in November.
"The report found room for improvement, as well as inconsistencies in how our policies and procedures are implemented," Boeing Chairman Lewis E. Platt said in a prepared statement. The company has already begun to implement the report's recommendations, including improving recordkeeping, he said.
Before the dismissal of Druyun and Sears, hiring government employees was not considered a "high-risk area" and as a result certain procedures were often not followed, the report said. The report did not reach any conclusions about what caused the ethical lapse in the Druyun case.
"The fact that this team didn't find any other examples doesn't say much," said Danielle Brian, executive director of Project on Government Oversight, a watchdog group. Rudman could not subpoena documents, review e-mail communications or check phone records, she said.
The Rudman report found that while Boeing's written procedures "suggest" a preliminary conflict of interest review before the interview process begins, that was not always done. Sometimes conflict-of-interest review documents, especially for senior executive hires, were not turned in until after a job offer was made, according to the report.
Another gap was found in the online application process, which does not ask whether the applicant has been involved in Boeing-related activities with the government. "This omission creates a potential gap during which a USG [U.S. government] employee has applied for a position with Boeing but may not have disqualified himself or herself from duties related to Boeing," the report said.
Boeing's hires from the Pentagon in recent years include George K. Muellner, who spent more than 30 years in the Air Force. Muellner is senior vice president of Air Force systems for Boeing's defense unit. John A. Lockard, senior vice president of naval systems, joined the firm in 2000 after 36 years with the Navy.
The report recommended that Boeing tighten its procedures because the company cannot rely on government employees to strictly follow all hiring procedures. "There can be considerable risk associated with placing too much faith in government employees and former employees to 'do the right thing' in this area," the report said.
There was "excessive reliance" by Boeing on government employees to comply with the laws, which resulted in a "sporadic adherence to the written policies and procedures that were in place," the report said.
The review process included interviews with dozens of employees and the review of hundreds of personnel files of employees hired from the government within the past five years.
-------- haiti
Haiti's Prime Minister Chosen
Move by U.S.-Backed Council Is Step Toward Interim Government
Associated Press
Wednesday, March 10, 2004; Page A18
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44440-2004Mar9.html
PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti, March 9 -- Haiti's U.S.-backed advisory council named a former government official as the country's new prime minister Tuesday, according to two leading opposition politicians.
The appointment of former foreign minister Gerard Latortue, also reported by Haitian radio stations, was a step toward forming a transitional government and eventually organizing elections to replace Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the exiled president.
Efforts to bring calm to this troubled Caribbean nation were ongoing after a rebel insurgency led to Aristide's departure for the Central African Republic on Feb. 29. At least 130 people were killed in the rebellion; reprisal killings since Aristide's ouster have left at least 300 dead.
A U.S. military officer said Marines will begin helping Haitian police disarm rebel groups. Marine Col. Charles Gurganus called on Haitians to turn in their arms and to inform peacekeepers about who had weapons. "The disarmament will be both active and reactive, but I'm not going to say any more about that," he said.
Gurganus said that Haitian police would lead disarmament efforts, but that peacekeepers would assist in getting "the weapons off the street" starting Wednesday.
The U.S. military also announced the second death of a Haitian shot by U.S. forces, who, with French Legionnaires, form the vanguard of a U.N.-backed peacekeeping mission.
In Washington, officials said Marines in both incidents were acting within orders.
"An individual Marine . . . has an absolute right to defend himself and those around him," said Marine Gen. Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Officials said about 1,600 Marines were in Haiti, assigned to protect key sites, such as government buildings and the airport. Officials said they were not under orders to stop looting, even of American companies, and were not to use force to halt Haitian-on-Haitian violence.
An official announcement on Latortue was expected early Wednesday, but two officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed that he was the choice.
The advisory council was chosen to pick the new prime minister, who along with interim President Boniface Alexandre is to try to build a new government for Haiti. Latortue, who served as foreign minister in 1988 under President Leslie Manigat, was set to replace Prime Minister Yvon Neptune. He still must formally accept the offer, and it was unclear whether he was in Haiti or in Florida, where he had been living.
Neptune stayed in his post even after Aristide fled. Aristide opponents have demanded that Neptune be replaced.
U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said Tuesday that he hoped foreign governments would have the patience and stamina necessary to commit to Haiti "for the long haul. It's going to take time, it's going to take lots of hard work," he told the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. "And we should not expect to do a Band-Aid job for two years or so, and then turn around and leave, only to have to return."
Aristide, meanwhile, has insisted that he is still president and that he was removed by the U.S. government, which U.S. officials deny.
--------
U.S. forces to expand mission in Haiti
3/10/2004
Associated Press
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-03-10-us-haiti_x.htm
WASHINGTON (AP) - American forces will intervene to stop Haitian-against-Haitian violence, the general in charge of U.S. operations there said Wednesday, marking an escalation of the American mission in the Caribbean nation.
"They will intervene to protect life," Gen. James T. Hill, commander of U.S. Southern Command, told reporters at the Pentagon.
He portrayed the change as a natural evolution of the U.S. peacekeeping mission there, saying it required only a clarification of the rules that govern when troops can use force. Those rules cover troops from France, Canada and Chile who are in Haiti, as well.
The expanded mission follows Tuesday's announcement that U.S. forces will join Haitian police in disarming militants.
In addition to taking weapons from people encountered on patrols, Hill said U.S. troops will also develop intelligence and conduct missions aimed specifically at weapons caches owned by any of the violent factions inside the country.
About 1,600 U.S. troops are in Haiti, including about 1,500 Marines. They are joined by more than 510 French, 320 Chilean and 50 Canadian soldiers. An additional 400 Canadians are expected to join the effort shortly, Hill said.
Military leaders say their primary mission is to guard key sites to prepare the way for a U.N. peacekeeping force.
-------- iran
Iran claims U.S. seeks revenge for Iraq failures
Wednesday, March 10, 2004
By ANDREA DUDIKOVA,
ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://newsobserver.com/24hour/world/story/1198710p-8177575c.html
VIENNA, Austria (AP) - Iran's chief delegate to the U.N atomic agency said Wednesday that U.S. failures in Iraq are prompting Washington to seek revenge against his country by persisting with accusations about its nuclear program.
Also Wednesday, the 35-nation board of governors meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency passed a resolution praising Libya for fully meeting its pledge to scrap its nuclear weapons program, clearing the stage to focus on what to do about Iran.
Libya also signed an agreement opening up its nuclear activities to pervasive IAEA perusal, a step that both agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei and Libyan Science Minister Matouq Mohamed Matouq said reflected Tripoli's commitment to scrap its weapons of mass destruction.
That left the focus on Iran, and a draft resolution trying to meld U.S. demands for tough language because of continued evidence of secrecy and European wishes to praise Tehran for the substantial - but not full - openness it has shown.
Iranian delegate Pirouz Hosseini reiterated that Iran's nuclear programs are purely peaceful, despite American assertions to the contrary.
"We have never been involved in any nuclear weapons program ... and the Americans don't want to accept the fact," he told reporters. "The Americans have failed in Iraq, and it seems that it will be very difficult for them to accept a second failure."
The U.N. nuclear watchdog appeared to have moved closer to agreement on Iran Tuesday after the United States and major European powers agreed to praise Tehran's increased openness about its nuclear programs but criticize it for continuing to hide some suspicious activities.
Hosseini criticized the draft, saying the Americans had put "too much pressure" on the Europeans to toughen its language. Additional complications loomed with Iran's announcement Wednesday that it would resume uranium enrichment once its problems with the IAEA are resolved.
"It's our legitimate right to enrich uranium," Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi said Wednesday after a Cabinet meeting in Tehran.
Iran also acknowledged that some centrifuges it produced for enrichment were built by its military industries but asserted this was normal, with the same sector producing parts for television sets and other nonmilitary applications.
Undeclared Iranian enrichment of uranium was one of the reasons behind an IAEA probe of the country's nuclear program. The United States insists uranium enrichment programs conducted clandestinely until their discovery last year, along with plutonium processing and other undeclared tests, point to a nuclear weapons agenda.
Kharrazi also warned that Iran could end nuclear cooperation and called on the Europeans to oppose U.S. efforts to come down hard on Tehran at the Vienna meeting.
In the draft, agreed on Tuesday in Vienna, the United States compromised with Britain, France and Germany to tone down criticism of Iran's continued nuclear secrecy and offer some praise of Tehran's record in opening activities to outside perusal.
The United States had wanted the meeting to condemn Iran for not fully living up to pledges to reveal all past and present nuclear activities. But the Europeans wanted to focus on Iranian cooperation with the IAEA that began only after the discovery last year that Tehran had plans to enrich uranium and secretly conducted other tests with possible weapons applications over nearly two decades.
"We recommend the three European countries ... resist U.S. pressures if they want the project of cooperation between Iran and them to lead to results," Kharrazi said, alluding to agreement that foresees the three providing technology to the Islamic Republic in exchange for a stop to uranium enrichment.
When the issue first came up before the board last year, the United States pushed to have Tehran dragged before the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions, arguing that Iran had violated the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. But it has found little board support for that. The draft text, made available to The Associated Press, made no direct mention of the Security Council, but noted "with the most serious concern" that past declarations made by Iran "did not amount to the correct, complete and final picture of Iran's past and present nuclear program."
It criticized Iran for "failing to resolve all questions" about uranium enrichment, saying it "deplores" this lapse.
Still, it praised Iran for signing an agreement throwing open its nuclear programs to full and pervasive IAEA perusal and for signs of Iran's cooperation with agency investigations.
The resolution on Libya noted that for more than a decade, Libya violated the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in running a weapons program but lauded it for volunteering to have it destroyed under IAEA supervision.
An IAEA report last month accused Tehran of continuing to hide evidence of nuclear experiments and mentioned finds of traces of polonium, a radioactive element that can be used in nuclear weapons. It also expressed concerns with the discovery of a previously undisclosed advanced P-2 uranium centrifuge system.
While praising Tehran for some cooperation, ElBaradei said he was "seriously concerned" about Iran's refusal to declare plans and parts for the P-2 enrichment system, calling it a "setback to Iran's stated policy of transparency."
-------- iraq
Shiites May Demand Lifting of Limits on Their Power
March 10, 2004
By JOHN F. BURNS
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/10/international/middleeast/10IRAQ.html
BAGHDAD, Iraq, March 9 - Iraq's most powerful Shiite leaders kept up the pressure on Tuesday for changes in the interim constitution they signed on Monday, hinting that they may entangle the next phase of the American political timetable here, choosing a transitional government, by continuing their push for fewer constraints on the powers of the country's Shiite majority.
One of several Shiite leaders who voiced his discontent on Tuesday was Abdel Aziz al-Hakim, leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, widely regarded as the most powerful of the contending Shiite clerical groups. Mr. Hakim is backed by a powerful militia known as the Badr Brigade, which was an Iran-based insurgency group during Saddam Hussein's years in power. He is close to Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the Iranian-born cleric who has emerged as the Shiites' behind-the-scenes kingmaker.
At a news conference in a mansion beside the Tigris River that was formerly the home of Tariq Aziz, a Hussein aide who surrendered to the Americans last year, Mr. Hakim spoke of the interim constitution as a watershed for Iraq in moving beyond the "dictatorship" of Mr. Hussein. But the undercurrent of much else he said was that the new charter must be changed to remove impediments to the powers of the Shiite majority, and that the push for this may be renewed in the negotiations over a transitional government.
"In this law, we can see that there is an absence of the people's will," he said.
Another prominent Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Muhammad Taqi al-Modaresi, put the matter more bluntly. In a statement, he said the interim constitution's provision for a decentralized federal system, a move the Americans have said is crucial to preventing the rise of another dictator but which is unpopular with Shiite leaders, would be "a time bomb that will spark a civil war in Iraq if it goes off."
The continuing discontent suggested that the interim constitution, hailed as the first big step toward installing an elected government by the end of 2005, could prove to have been a half-step at best. The disputes go to the core issue in Iraq, how the inevitability of Shiite majority rule can be made palatable to the Sunni minority that has been dominant here since the 1920's, and to other groups, principally the Kurds.
Shiite restiveness has focused on provisions intended to protect minorities. One requires a three-fourths majority in the national assembly to be elected late this year or early next for any change in the interim constitution, as well as a unanimous vote by the three-man presidency council, which is certain to contain at least one, and possibly two, non-Shiites. Another, aimed at protecting Kurds, provides that the adoption of a permanent constitution in 2005 could be blocked by two-thirds of the voters in three Iraqi governorates, a formula that Shiites say could give veto power to fewer than one million voters in this nation of 25 million.
Now, the challenge for the American occupation authority will be to persuade the 25 leaders on the Iraqi Governing Council who were corralled into adopting the interim constitution to move forward to a formula for the transitional government, not back to the disputes over the provisions that protect minorities against constitutional revisions. That dispute has already roiled for months, and threatened to derail the interim constitution in the last days before its adoption.
On Friday, the first date set for the signing, it had to be abandoned, when Shiite leaders refused to sign at the last minute. After weekend consultations in Najaf with Ayatollah Sistani, the Shiite leaders agreed to sign the charter, only to issue new calls for the document to be revised as soon as the ceremony ended. The continuation of those pressures on Tuesday suggested that L. Paul Bremer III, head of the American occupation authority, would find old disputes he hoped were settled dogging him each step of the way as he seeks agreement on the transitional government.
Time is short for those negotiations. American officials acknowledged Tuesday that they have no clear formula for how the transitional government that is to assume power on June 30 should be constructed. Once in office, the transitional leaders will run the country until elections, to be held by Jan. 31 next year, produce a national assembly that will approve a permanent constitution.
Mr. Bremer's spokesman, Dan Senor, said at a news conference on Tuesday that the Americans have "no clear option" for choosing a transitional government. The original American plan was to choose the transitional authority through a system of regional caucuses, but that was scrapped after it was rejected by Ayatollah Sistani, who demanded something the Americans said was impracticable, elections before June 30 that would have assured a strong Shiite majority.
The American position now, Mr. Senor said, was to encourage the governing council members to come forward with their own proposal, and to seek help in the process from the United Nations. The possibilities most widely mooted among American officials are retaining the governing council as it is with its wide mix of ethnic, religious and secular leaders, or to widen the body by drawing in a wider cross-section of Iraqis.
Mr. Bremer turned Tuesday to an issue on which Iraqis have a broader consensus, placing Mr. Hussein on trial. The American met at what used to be Mr. Hussein's Republican Palace with 50 American justice department officials who are to prepare for Mr. Hussein's eventual trial. Mr. Senor said the Americans came as advisers to the Iraqi tribunal set up by the governing council to try Mr. Hussein and his accomplices, not to dictate terms to the Iraqis. "This will be their trial," he said.
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, deputy operations director for the American command, said one issue to be settled is whether Mr. Hussein and officials from his government will be transferred to Iraqi custody after June 30.
--------
US to retain Iraq security role
Wednesday, 10 March, 2004
BBC News
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3499398.stm
The multinational force will be led by a four-star US general A US general will be in charge of all military forces in Iraq even after the end of the occupation, a senior British official said on Wednesday.
American and British forces will remain in Iraq "for at least two years", the official said.
Backed by the interim-government they will be part of a multinational force, for which a UN Security Council mandate will be sought in May.
Power is due to be handed to Iraq's interim government on 30 June.
However the members of the new government are likely to have been selected by the end of April, in time for a new UN Security Council resolution approving the plan, the official said.
Optimistic outlook
The multinational security force will have a unified military command and will incorporate the new Iraqi army and the Iraqi civil defence force. The Iraqi police force is not expected to be part of the structure.
In overall command will be a four-star American general, and under him a three-star American general will be in charge of operations. There will also be a British deputy to the senior officer.
Efforts are focussed on establishing the interim government BBC News Online's world affairs correspondent Paul Reynolds says that despite ongoing security problems in Iraq the British authorities continue to be relatively optimistic about the eventual outcome there.
An agreement on the new security structure is currently being worked out between the Iraqi Governing Council and the occupying powers following Monday's agreement on the interim constitution, known as the Transitional Administrative Law (TAL).
The British representative to the Coalition Provisional Authority Sir Jeremy Greenstock has described the agreement on the TAL as a "significant milestone".
"It is significant that the TAL contains dates and that compromises were made by all sides," he told reporters on a visit to London to brief British government ministers.
Structural change
Priority is now being given to the selection of the interim government itself.
The new government will be run by an Iraqi prime minister, probably under a revolving three-person presidency, and current ministers are expected to stay on in their posts. However, the governing council itself will be wound up.
Outlining the plan to reporters at the UK Foreign Office, the official accepted that the structure would be "less democratic" than the original proposal of selecting a government by a series of meetings around the country. There will instead simply be "consultations" this time.
The caucus system was abandoned after objections from the majority Shia population.
The interim government will be in charge until elections for a transitional national assembly. The assembly will draw up a permanent constitution upon whose basis elections to a full Iraqi government will be held by the end of 2005.
-------- israel / palestine
Gunmen Posing as Police Kill 2 Americans and Iraqi
March 10, 2004
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Iraq.html?hp
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- Gunmen posing as police at a makeshift checkpoint south of Baghdad killed two American civilians and their Iraqi translator -- all employees of the U.S.-led coalition, U.S. officials said Wednesday.
In the northern town of Kirkuk, gunmen wounded three American soldiers near a stadium, the U.S. military said Wednesday.
The gunmen escaped after Monday's attack on soldiers from the Hawaii-based 25th Infantry Division, Army spokesman Maj. Neal O'Brien said. The wounded were airlifted to Baghdad for treatment, he said at the American base in the central city of Tikrit.
In another southern area, four Iraqi policemen died in a shootout with a local militia.
The deaths at the checkpoint came when the gunmen stopped the car Tuesday night outside Hillah, 35 miles south of Baghdad, Polish Col. Robert Strzelecki said. The attackers shot the passengers and then took the vehicle, he said.
Polish troops later intercepted the car, arrested five Iraqis in it and found the bodies inside, said Strzelecki, speaking from the Camp Babylon headquarters of the Polish-led multinational force in Iraq. In Baghdad, a coalition spokesman confirmed the deaths.
Authorities did not immediately release the victims' identities. The Polish News Agency reported that one of those killed worked for the coalition press office.
Checkpoints manned by Iraqis or coalition forces are common on Iraq's main roads, and this appeared to be the first time gunmen have posed as police at a roadblock.
Further south, Iraqi police tried Tuesday night to enter a building where a Shiite militia was holding two civilians in the city of Nasiriyah, a coalition spokesman said. In a shootout, four Iraqi policemen were killed and two wounded.
The standoff finally ended when Italian security forces stormed the building, rescued the civilians and arrested eight militia members, the spokesman said. One Italian Carabinieri officer was slightly injured.
The militia, known as Citizens' Security Group, acts as a security force for a number of Shiite political parties. Such militias, which in some towns try to enforce a brand of Islamic law, often have tense relations with the U.S.-trained Iraqi police force.
In the western town of Qaim, near the Syrian border, gunmen killed two police officers and critically wounded a third Wednesday while the police were having lunch in a restaurant, police said.
Meanwhile, Abul Abbas, the Palestinian mastermind of the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Lauro passenger ship that left a wheelchair-bound American tourist dead, died of natural causes while in American custody in Baghdad, U.S. officials in Iraq said Wednesday.
Abbas, who died Monday, was captured by U.S. forces in April, nearly two decades after being convicted in absentia by an Italian court and sentenced to life in prison for the hijacking.
A statement from the U.S.-led coalition did not elaborate on the cause of death. There was an attempt to revive the 56-year-old Abbas, it said.
Abbas' small Palestine Liberation Front commandeered the Italian cruise ship, demanded the release of 50 Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails and threw an elderly Jewish American tourist, Leon Klinghoffer, overboard after shooting him.
Meanwhile, Iraqi police arrested a prominent member in the northern Iraq-based militant group Ansar al-Islam, an Iraqi Kurd known as Ayoub al-Afghani, in Baghdad late Tuesday and handed him over to coalition forces, a Kurdish security official in Kirkuk said.
Also, the former head of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party in the town of Tarmiya, northwest of Baghdad, surrendered to U.S. troops Tuesday, O'Brien said. He did not comment on whether the official, Waleed al-Ayeesh, was suspected of involvement in anti-U.S. violence.
In Baqouba, northwest of Baghdad, a bomb went off near the offices of Iraq's largest Shiite party, wounding two people, said party spokesman Haithem al-Husseini.
Al-Husseini, of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, or SCIRI, blamed the attack on former Saddam loyalists and terrorists ``trying to spread chaos in the country.''
The Baqouba bombing came a day after Shiite leaders criticized Iraq's interim constitution, clouding national unity ahead of the planned June 30 turnover of power by the coalition to Iraq.
Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani, the most influential cleric to Iraq's Shiite majority, initiated the latest episode of political wrangling. His objections to the interim charter prompted his supporters on the 25-seat Governing Council to refuse to sign the document Friday.
Citing a pressing need to safeguard national unity and push forward the political process, al-Sistani's supporters signed the constitution Monday, but made clear their reservations about parts of the document and their wish to change them.
On Tuesday, another grand ayatollah, Mohammed Taqi al-Modaresi, warned of civil war or dismemberment of Iraq because of the charter's adoption of a federal government system. SCIRI's leader, Governing Council member Abdel-Aziz al-Hakim, said the document encroached on the powers of a future parliament.
-------- pakistan / india
Washington asks Pakistan for fewer missile tests
WASHINGTON (AFP)
Mar 10, 2004
http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040310021028.glg86q50.html
The United States on Tuesday asked Pakistan to scale back its testing after the launch of a ballistic missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead.
"We continue to urge Pakistan and other countries in the region to exercise restraint in their nuclear weapons and missile programs, as part of an ongoing effort to relieve tensions and build confidence in the region," State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said.
"We understand that Pakistan notified neighboring countries before the test."
The test, falling on the eve of India's first cricket tour to Pakistan since 1989 and in the midst of a peace process with its nuclear neighbor, proved Pakistan's intention to maintain a nuclear deterrent, the military said.
The test was the first of the locally-built Shaheen II or Hatf-VI missile, which can carry warheads up to 2,000 kilometers (1,240 miles).
Pakistan and India are currently mending ties after coming to the brink of conflict two years ago.
-------- spies
New C.I.A. Recruiting Video Features 'Alias' Star
March 10, 2004
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/10/politics/10WIRE-CIA.html
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Jennifer Garner, who plays spy Sydney Bristow in the television series "Alias," has turned her talents to recruiting real-life spies to work for the CIA in a video on the agency's employment Web site.
"Although the show 'Alias' is fictional, the character Jennifer Garner plays embodies the integrity, patriotism and intelligence the CIA looks for in its officers," the CIA said on its Web site www.cia.gov.
On ABC's action spy show, Garner's character chases terrorists, wears disguises and dodges danger in hot spots around the world. She even disappeared for two years, and occasionally finds time for romance.
Garner was not paid for the recruiting video, a CIA spokesman said. "She did this out of a sense of patriotism."
On the video, Garner says the CIA needs people with wide-ranging talents, diverse backgrounds, integrity, common sense, patriotism and courage who want to make a difference in the world.
"Right now, the CIA has important, exciting jobs for U.S. citizens, especially those with foreign language skills. Today, the collection of foreign intelligence has never been more vital for national security," Garner says on the video.
--------
C.I.A. Chief Says He's Corrected Cheney Privately
March 10, 2004
By DOUGLAS JEHL
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/10/politics/10INTE.html?pagewanted=all&position=
WASHINGTON, March 9 - George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence, told a Senate committee on Tuesday that he had privately intervened on several occasions to correct what he regarded as public misstatements on intelligence by Vice President Dick Cheney and others, and that he would do so again.
"When I believed that someone was misconstruing intelligence, I said something about it," he said.
Mr. Tenet identified three instances in which he had already corrected public statements by President Bush or Mr. Cheney or would do so, but he left the impression that there had been more.
His comments, in testimony before the Armed Services Committee, came under sharp questioning from some Democrats on the panel, who have criticized him and the White House over prewar intelligence on Iraq. He insisted that he had honored his obligation to play a neutral role as the top intelligence adviser.
In response to a question, he said he did not think the administration had misrepresented facts to justify going to war.
Mr. Tenet said he planned to call Mr. Cheney's attention to a recent misstatement, in a Jan. 9 interview, when the vice president recommended as "your best source of information" on links between Iraq and Al Qaeda the contents of a disputed memorandum by a senior Pentagon official, Douglas J. Feith.
That memorandum, sent last October to the Senate Intelligence Committee, portrayed what was presented as conclusive evidence of collaboration between Saddam Hussein's government and Al Qaeda, but it was never endorsed by intelligence agencies, who objected to Mr. Feith's findings.
Mr. Tenet said he was not aware of Mr. Cheney's comments in that interview, published in The Rocky Mountain News, until Monday night.
In his annual testimony before the committee on threats facing the United States, Mr. Tenet found himself drawn again into the dispute over whether intelligence agencies or policy makers were more to blame for misjudgments and overstatements about Iraq and whether Baghdad had ties to terrorism.
In his testimony, Mr. Tenet hinted at private disputes with policy makers. He disclosed that he had not learned until last week about a highly unusual briefing given in August 2002 by colleagues of Mr. Feith, the under secretary of defense for policy, to senior aides of Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush. The briefing outlined evidence of ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda, contradicting the C.I.A.'s view that such links could not be verified.
According to government officials who have seen copies of the briefing documents, the information was presented to Stephen Hadley, the deputy national security adviser, and I. Lewis Libby, Mr. Cheney's chief of staff, and included slides that were strongly disparaging of C.I.A. analyses.
The other two instances in which Mr. Tenet said he had acted to correct administration statements involved the State of the Union address in January 2002, when he objected after the fact to Mr. Bush's inclusion of disputed intelligence about Iraq's seeking to obtain uranium from Africa, and a Jan. 22 radio interview in which Mr. Cheney portrayed trailers found in Iraq as being for biological weapons, and thus "conclusive evidence" that Iraq "did in fact have programs for weapons of mass destruction."
That was the conclusion initially reached by American intelligence agencies last spring, and it is still on the C.I.A.'s Web site. But it has been disputed since last summer within intelligence agencies, and Mr. Tenet said he had told Mr. Cheney there was "no consensus" among American analysts, with those at the Defense Intelligence Agency in particular arguing that the trailers were for producing hydrogen.
A spokesman for Mr. Cheney, Kevin Kellems, declined to characterize the content of the conversation between Mr. Tenet and Mr. Cheney about the Jan. 22 interview. "It was a private conversation," he said.
An administration official said, "Critics of the administration are misrepresenting what the vice president said in both of those interviews," and added, "I'm going to let the full text of those interviews speak for themselves."
Mr. Tenet has acknowledged that intelligence agencies may have made misjudgments in their prewar assessments of Iraq, which expressed certainty that Mr. Hussein's government possessed chemical and biological weapons and was reconstituting its nuclear program. In the year since the American invasion, no evidence has been found, though Mr. Tenet insisted again on Tuesday that it was too soon to draw firm conclusions about the extent to which intelligence agencies erred.
At the same time, as director of central intelligence, Mr. Tenet, who has been in his post since he was appointed by President Clinton in 1997, is widely seen as having the responsibility to prevent intelligence from being distorted for political purposes, and he seemed intent on defending himself and his agencies in that regard.
Still, he walked a careful line in his answers, and nothing in his comments seemed to suggest that he was walking away from the administration. He has promised President Bush that he will serve at least through this year.
Among the senators who pressed him hardest were two Democrats, Carl Levin of Michigan and Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, who has been an early and active ally of Senator John Kerry, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Mr. Kennedy asked Mr. Tenet if he believed the administration had misrepresented information about Iraq to justify war, to which Mr. Tenet responded, "No, sir, I don't."
When asked whether he had sought to correct certain administration statements, including some that portrayed Iraq's arsenal as carrying the danger of a "mushroom cloud," he said, "I'm not going to sit here today and tell you what my interaction was and what I did or what I didn't do." But he added: "You have the confidence to know that when I believed that somebody was misconstruing intelligence, I said something about it. I don't stand up in public and do it. I do my job the way I did it in two administrations.
"And policy makers - you know, this is a tough road. Policy makers take data. They interpret threat. They assess risk. They put urgency behind it, and sometimes it doesn't uniquely comport with every word of an intelligence estimate."
--------
Lawmakers Seek Answers on Iraq Reports
CIA Director Defends Administration's Stance
By Dana Priest and Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, March 10, 2004; Page A20
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44616-2004Mar9.html
CIA Director George J. Tenet said yesterday that he did not believe the Bush administration misrepresented intelligence to justify going to war in Iraq but said he spoke privately to senior officials when he believed they publicly misconstrued facts they had been given.
In a sometimes contentious hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Tenet defended the administration against charges by Democratic senators that President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other officials exaggerated intelligence reports when they characterized the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons arsenal.
Asked by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) whether he believed the administration misrepresented the prewar intelligence on Iraq, Tenet answered: "No, sir, I don't."
Kennedy followed up by asking Tenet whether he ever told the president or vice president "that they were overstating the case."
"If there are areas where I thought someone said something they shouldn't say, I talked to them about it," the CIA director responded. He cited as one example his taking public blame for Bush's mentioning in the 2003 State of the Union address a discredited allegation that Iraq tried to purchase uranium in Africa.
Kennedy continued to press Tenet, asking, "When you see this intelligence you provide being misrepresented, misstated by the highest authorities, when do you say no?" Kennedy told Tenet he could not tell the panel that the director had "no obligation to correct" inaccurate statements "or didn't even try."
The CIA director shot back: "I'm not going to sit here and tell you what my interaction was" with the president or vice president. "When I believed someone was misconstruing intelligence, I stood up and said something about it. I don't stand up in public and do it. I do my job the way I did it in two administrations," a reference to his four years as director in the Clinton administration.
"Sometimes," Tenet continued, language used by policymakers in public "doesn't uniquely comport" with the complex, more nuanced language of the intelligence community. But, he said, "I lived up to my responsibility."
The tense give-and-take was the latest public step in an intense political and policy debate over prewar Iraq intelligence. Two congressional committees and a White House commission are investigating why the CIA and other intelligence agencies were so far wrong in their assessment that Iraq possessed stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. No such weapons have been found.
Democrats are pressing their argument that the Bush administration consistently exaggerated intelligence reports while failing to acknowledge publicly that they included significant caveats and areas where analysts could not agree.
Yesterday, Democrats questioned why Tenet would not have said so publicly when he disagreed with statements by top administration officials.
"I don't do my job that way," Tenet countered. "If I believed something needs to be corrected, I go correct it."
Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), the ranking minority member of the panel, questioned Tenet about a Cheney interview, published Jan. 9 in the Rocky Mountain News. The vice president, asked about the general relationship between al Qaeda and Iraq, directed the reporter to an article in the Weekly Standard from November that Cheney said was "based on an assessment that was done by the Department of Defense and forwarded to the Senate Intelligence Committee some weeks ago." He went on to describe the article as "your best source of information."
The Weekly Standard article discussed a memo that was classified, drafted in the Pentagon office of Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith in October 2003 using raw, unverified intelligence reports. It was put together in response to questions sent to Feith by a congressional intelligence committee seeking support for his claim of a close relationship between Hussein and Osama bin Laden's network.
Tenet said yesterday that when the CIA learned of the Feith memo in November, it got the Pentagon to retract it "because of our concerns with what the document said." Asked by Levin whether he was going to inform the vice president of the CIA's doubts about the accuracy of the memo, Tenet replied, "I will talk to him about it."
A senior administration official close to the vice president's office said yesterday that Cheney "was merely lending a hand to an interested reporter by mentioning an article that had already been published." He added: "Entirely too much is being made of an offhand reference to an article that was in the public domain."
At one point, Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), chairman of the committee, stepped in to defend Tenet, saying: "There are times when he felt the necessity to express his views, which may well have been at variance with the policymakers. But in the end, he is not their keeper."
Much of Tenet's testimony before the committee mirrored the worldwide threat assessment he gave members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence two weeks ago.
Topics yesterday included Iraq's immediate future. Levin asked whether the CIA expected "civil strife" between Iraqi ethnic and religious groups when the United States transfers sovereignty to an Iraqi government on June 30. Tenet said he could only speculate that there was a "low probability" of that but said much depended on creating an interim government that is "broadly representative."
The CIA director also cautioned that jihadists, particularly Abu Musab Zarqawi, will step up attacks and efforts to create civil disorder as the June 30 handover nears.
"We have to work very, very hard to disrupt this," Tenet said.
--------
CIA's Tenet Defends White House on Iraq
March 10, 2004
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Iraq-Intelligence.html
WASHINGTON (AP) -- CIA Director George Tenet said he spoke to Bush administration officials when he felt inaccurate statements were being made about the threat posed by Iraq, but said he doesn't believe the administration misrepresented facts to justify the war.
``I engage with them every day,'' Tenet told the Senate Armed Services Committee. ``If there are areas where I thought someone said something they shouldn't say, I talk to them about it.''
Under sharp questioning by Democrats on the committee Tuesday, the CIA director did acknowledge that on more than one occasion he has noted questionable statements in defense of war by Vice President Dick Cheney.
Many congressional Democrats have sharply rebuked the administration in recent months, maintaining it overstated the threat posed against the United States by since-deposed leader Saddam Hussein.
Tenet conceded that he had not known until the eve of Tuesday's hearing about a specific reference Cheney made in a newspaper interview in support of his contention of an operational tie between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist network.
In a Jan. 9 interview with the Rocky Mountain News, Cheney had cited an article in The Weekly Standard magazine which was based in large part on a since-discredited -- and classified -- Defense Department document from the office of Assistant Secretary of Defense Douglas Feith. That document contended there was a relationship between Saddam and the al-Qaeda organization.
Tenet revealed that the CIA ``went back to the Department of Defense, who subsequently retracted the document and submitted a correction to you (the Senate committee) because of our concerns with what the document said.''
When asked by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., about Cheney's assertion that the magazine article ``was the best source of information'' about the alleged connection, Tenet replied that he ``learned about his quote last night when I was preparing for this hearing. I was unaware he had said that, and I will talk to him about it.''
At one point, during continued questioning about actions he took in response to administration statements about the war, Tenet declared: ``I'm not going to sit here today and tell you what my interaction was and what I did and what I didn't do, except that you have to have confidence to know that when I believed that somebody was misconstruing intelligence, I said something about it.''
``I don't stand up in public and do it,'' he said.
Tenet told skeptical Democrats he believes policy-makers are entitled to flexibility in how they interpret and describe intelligence and that it is not his role to second-guess them in public. ``At the end of the day, they make policy judgments and they talk about things differently,'' he told the committee.
Tenet appeared before the panel to present his annual worldwide threat assessment, but much of the hearing focused on whether he is responsible for publicly correcting officials who make false or misleading statements on intelligence.
In another area, Tenet disclosed that he had contacted Cheney after the vice president said in a National Public Radio in January that trailers seized in Iraq probably were biological weapons labs. Intelligence agencies now doubt that was the case.
Last month, Tenet said in a speech at Georgetown University that intelligence analysts had not claimed before the war that Iraq was an imminent threat, although they had described how Saddam was continuing programs that could have threatened U.S. interests.
Democratic criticism of the administration's justification for war intensified after the former chief arms inspector, David Kay, said in January that Saddam was unlikely to have had weapons stockpiles or an advanced nuclear program before the war last year.
They particularly fault the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans for allegedly presenting a distorted picture of Saddam's weapons and ties to al-Qaida.
Some of Tuesday's toughest questioning came from Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., who last week chastised Tenet for not coming forward earlier to ``set the record straight.''
``You can't have it both ways, can you, Mr. Tenet?'' Kennedy said, contrasting that speech to Tenet's refusal to describe steps he took to correct statements made by administration officials.
When Tenet said policy-makers don't use precisely the same words as intelligence analysts, Kennedy said, ``I'm not talking about parsing words. We're talking about words that are basically warmongering.''
Kennedy asked if Tenet believed the administration had misrepresented facts to justify the war.
``No, sir, I don't,'' Tenet said.
Levin suggested that Tenet should have been aware earlier of Cheney's statements.
``It seems to me there's got to be someone in your office who is going to say to you, `You know, the vice president said something which just doesn't have our support.''
Tenet replied, ``Sir, it's a fair point.''
Committee Chairman John Warner, R-Va., sought to fend off Democrats' insistence that Tenet monitor and correct the statements of administration officials.
``In the end, he is not their keeper,'' he said.
-------- us
US Iraq war toll stands at 552 dead
WASHINGTON (AFP)
Mar 10, 2004
http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040310040310.z4rf3689.html
The war in Iraq has claimed the lives of 552 US troops, the vast majority since President George W. Bush declared the end of major combat operations on May 1.
The Defense Department reported that 379 US service members were killed by hostile forces and 173 others died in accidents and other non-hostile circumstances since the start of the war on March 20.
Since May 1, 264 US military personnel have been killed by hostile fire and another 150 in deaths unrelated to combat, according to the Pentagon toll.
The number of US wounded in action since the start of hostilities is 2,744. Another 423 have been injured.
The Pentagon figures were compiled as of March 8.
--------
A Rumsfeld Favorite Is Out as Army Secretary Nominee
March 10, 2004
By DAVID STOUT
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/10/politics/10CND-ARMY.html
WASHINGTON, March 10 - The White House is withdrawing the nomination of Air Force Secretary James G. Roche to become secretary of the Army after months of controversy over a sex scandal at the Air Force Academy and a tanker-leasing deal involving the Boeing Company.
"Given the range of issues before the Senate in a busy legislative year, I accept that my nomination is unlikely to be considered this year," Mr. Roche said in a statement issued by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. "In the interest of the Department of Defense, I decided it was best that I withdraw from further consideration."
Mr. Rumsfeld said that Mr. Roche would have been an excellent Army secretary, and that he looked forward to continuing to work with Mr. Roche in his present capacity.
President Bush nominated Mr. Roche to be secretary of the Army last July 7, and he was initially expected to gain speedy confirmation. But two controversies that erupted on his watch as Air Force chief eroded his support on Capitol Hill and, as today's announcement confirmed, made his position politically untenable.
One scandal involved sexual assaults that had been going on for years at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs. A civilian commission that investigated the incidents concluded last September that "since at least 1993, the highest levels of the Air Force leadership have known of serious sexual misconduct problems at the academy" but have failed to take effective action.
Mr. Roche also came under fire because of a $21 billion Air Force deal to lease Boeing 767's for use as aerial refueling tankers. Several government agencies have said the lease will cost up to $6 billion more over the life of the project than if the Air Force buys the planes outright.
Mr. Roche strongly defended the deal, saying that leasing the Boeing 767's would allow it to have the tankers it needs, but cannot afford, and pay for them later.
Senator John S. McCain, Republican of Arizona, denounced the arrangement as a money-waster, as did several other influential senators, including some Republicans. Mr. McCain was so incensed that he put a hold on Mr. Roche's nomination to become Air Force secretary.
The inspector general's office of the Pentagon is investigating several aspects of the tanker deal, including whether a former Air Force official, Darleen Druyun, improperly shared a rival manufacturer's data with Boeing, and whether she recused herself before negotiating with Boeing about a job.
Boeing eventually fired Ms. Druyun and the chief financial officer, Michael Sears, after concluding that they discussed a job while Ms. Druyun was still overseeing the tanker deal, and then tried to cover up their actions.
Mr. Rumsfeld had asked Mr. Roche, a 23-year Navy veteran and former Northrop Grumman official, to head the Army after Mr. Rumsfeld forced out Army Secretary Thomas White for trying to skirt the secretary's decision to kill an $11 billion artillery system.
Mr. Roche graduated from Illinois Institute of Technology in 1960 after studying language, literature and philosophy. He later earned a master's of science degree at the United States Naval Postgraduate School and a doctorate in business administration from Harvard.
People who know Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Roche say Mr. Roche has Mr. Rumsfeld's respect and confidently expresses his views to the defense secretary, and that in any event he was not particularly enthusiastic about leaving his Air Force post.
--------
Rumsfeld Says Full Funding Needed to Continue Terror War
March 10, 2004
By Donna Miles American Forces press Service
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2004/n03102004_200403101.html
WASHINGTON -- Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld warned March 9 here that progress toward democracy in Iraq should not be interpreted as a sign that the terrorist threat is under control and that the military can now endure budget cuts.
Rumsfeld told reporters at a Pentagon briefing that despite this week's signing of an interim constitution in Iraq, the terrorist threat in that country and elsewhere continues, and America must ensure its military is capable of responding to that threat.
"The violence in Iraq last week is another reminder that even as the Iraqis take hold of their country, the war on terrorism continues," Rumsfeld said. "Dangerous adversaries remain in Iraq and elsewhere in the world, whose objective is to kill innocent men, women and children."
Rumsfeld said this ongoing threat reinforces the need for the United States to maintain the highest level of defense capabilities. "We are and remain at war, so it's important that we as a country continue to invest in the defense capabilities that are needed to prevail in that effort," he said.
The defense secretary acknowledged that these investments -- $421 billion President Bush has requested for the Defense Department in fiscal 2005 - "are significant" but said "they pale compared to the cost in lives and treasure of another attack like the one on Sept. 11."
Rumsfeld lauded the Iraqi Governing Council's March 8 signing of an interim constitution that will guide the nation until a permanent constitution is established.
"The leaders of Iraq's governing council have not only enacted a landmark law," he said, "they have shown the world that Iraqis are on the path and have a willingness to do the difficult work of democracies."
Rumsfeld warned that this progress should not be interpreted as a time to water down America's defense.
"This is the time to press forward with transformation of our nation's defenses," he said. "The men and women in uniform who are risking their lives in Iraq, in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the war on terror need our support, and they need the tools to prevail in this war and to prevail and prepare for the next."
--------
Air Force to Study Rape Complaints
Major Inquiry to Focus On Handling of Cases
By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 10, 2004; Page A03
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44827-2004Mar9.html
The Air Force has ordered a major study of how the service handles allegations of rape and other sexual assaults, in the wake of a report by the Air Force's Pacific Forces command that noted flaws in the response to 92 rape cases between 2001 and 2003, Pentagon officials said yesterday.
The Pacific Forces report, inspired by the revelation last summer of poor treatment of rape victims at the Air Force Academy in Colorado, noted that data on sexual assaults were not carefully collected and that some victims were not offered adequate and continuous support. It did not cite deficiencies in prosecution, as was alleged at the academy.
The tally of 34 rape accusations in 2001, 17 in 2002 and 41 in 2003 is "not a promising picture," Air Force Gen. William J. Begert, the Pacific Forces commander, said in a private briefing last month for top Air Force officers and civilian officials, according to a summary of his presentation released by the service yesterday. The allegations were first reported in the New York Times.
"One cannot read the kinds of reports you're referring to and not have a deep concern about the armed forces, because we do hold ourselves to a higher standard," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said yesterday at a news briefing.
The report covered a total of 103 Air Force personnel and three dependents accused of rape at Hickam Air Force Base in Hawaii -- the Pacific Forces command's headquarters -- and at bases in South Korea, Guam, Japan, Singapore, Alaska and Diego Garcia. Its conclusions were first reported by the Gazette of Colorado Springs.
Begert said a study team run by his judge advocate's office had encountered "significant data collection problems" while conducting the survey. The team deliberately excluded lesser sexual offenses, such as sodomy and indecent assaults, because no reliable, comprehensive data for such offenses existed. "That is part of the problem," said Col. Steve Lepper, the staff judge advocate.
Begert said the study also found that, in many instances, victims were shuttled from one office to another as their cases proceeded toward a formal hearing and trial, instead of being put in touch with a team of officials that included treatment specialists. "This is unacceptable," Begert said. He also warned that the Air Force "must avoid dropping victims" after deciding not to prosecute the assailants, noting that they may still need treatment.
The study revealed that fewer of the Air Force rape cases involved the use of physical force or weapons than is typical in the civilian population, Lepper said. Most of the Air Force victims were younger than 25 and were voluntarily present at the locations where the rapes occurred. Alcohol was a factor in more than 60 percent of the encounters.
On Feb. 24, after being briefed on the report, Air Force Gen. T. Michael Moseley, the vice chief of staff, ordered the nine Air Force commands worldwide to prepare an even more exhaustive survey of their sexual assault response programs. He said the service's aim is to "eliminate sexual assault and the climate that fosters it."
In the meantime, Begert demanded the implementation of a nine-point plan to improve his command's response, including separate briefings to male and female personnel when they arrive in the region and required, centralized reporting of all sexual assault cases.
Kate Summers, director of services at the Miles Foundation in Connecticut -- a nonprofit organization that says it has helped treat thousands of assault victims in the military -- said Begert's office had briefed her. "I think the general should be applauded," she said.
But she noted that some Air Force policies will continue to hinder the adequate reporting and treatment of assault cases, including what she described as the service's ban on the confidential reporting of assaults and its refusal to offer victims a choice of whether to pursue charges.
-------- POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS / JUSTICE
Bush Agrees to Answer All of 9/11 Panel's Questions
March 10, 2004
By PHILIP SHENON
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/10/politics/10PANE.html
WASHINGTON, March 9 - The White House said Tuesday that President Bush would privately answer all questions raised by the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks and suggested that the interview might go beyond the one-hour limit originally offered to the panel.
"He's going to answer all the questions they want to raise," said the White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, whose remarks indicated that the White House was softening its negotiating stance toward the bipartisan commission. "Nobody's watching the clock."
Mr. McClellan's comments also suggested that the White House was eager to blunt criticism from Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. Mr. Kerry accused Mr. Bush this week of "stonewalling" the commission, which is focusing in part on law enforcement and intelligence blunders during the Bush and Clinton administrations.
Referring to Mr. Bush's visit to a Houston livestock show and rodeo on Monday, Senator Kerry said, "If the president of the United States can find the time to go to a rodeo, he can find the time to do more than one hour in front of a commission that is investigating what happened to America's intelligence and why we are not stronger today."
After learning Tuesday that Mr. Bush had vowed to answer all of the panel's questions, Mr. Kerry released a statement: "It's good to see that the president has finally found time in his schedule to spend more than an hour with the 9/11 commission to investigate the greatest intelligence failure in our nation's history. I think all Americans hope that his cooperation with the commission will lead to real answers instead of more stonewalling."
Mr. McClellan criticized Senator Kerry, saying, "I don't think he's someone who lets the facts get in the way of his campaign." He added that the president remained committed to full cooperation with the independent commission.
Mr. McClellan said the White House still hoped to abide by the one-hour limit, calling it "a reasonable period of time to set aside for a sitting president of the United States."
"Believe me, you can answer a lot of questions in one hour," he said. "Many of the questions have already been asked and answered at this point in their investigation, in the commission's work."
Mr. McClellan also said the White House continued to want to restrict the interview to the commission's chairman, Thomas H. Kean, a former Republican governor of New Jersey, and its vice chairman, Lee H. Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana. The White House has rejected a request from the commission that all 10 members of the panel be allowed to join in the questioning, which is expected to take place in the next several weeks.
The White House has had a strained relationship with the commission, known formally as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, since Congress created it in 2002 over the initial objections of the Bush administration.
There have been repeated disputes with the White House over the panel's access to classified documents and to witnesses, including the president's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice. Mr. McClellan indicated on Tuesday that the White House would not reconsider its refusal to allow Ms. Rice to testify in public, as the panel has requested.
"This is not her personal preference," he said. "There is a separation of powers issue involved here. Historically, White House staffers do not testify before legislative bodies. So it's a matter of principle."
Mr. McClellan's remarks about Mr. Bush's willingness to answer questions were welcomed cautiously by a spokesman for the commission, Al Felzenberg, who said in an interview that the president's offer was "reassuring."
"There was always the hope that the commission would be able to ask all the questions it had, and I take this as a sign of flexibility," Mr. Felzenberg said.
He added that the commission would continue to press the White House to allow the full panel to participate in the interview. "There's still a hope that they will reconsider and meet with all members of the commission," Mr. Felzenberg said.
The commission announced this week that it planned to hold eight days of hearings through mid-June, focusing on the events of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the nation's counterterrorism policies and federal crisis management.
Commission officials say the hearings will include testimony under oath from many of the highest-ranking officials in the Bush and Clinton administrations, including Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, and George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence.
The commission has also scheduled private interviews with former President Bill Clinton and former Vice President Al Gore, who have agreed to meet with the full panel.
The commission won Congressional approval this month for a 60-day extension of its deadline for a final report, which is now due July 26. The extension was granted despite an initial effort by Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, Republican of Illinois, to block the move. He had argued that a midsummer deadline would turn the commission's final report into a "political football" in the presidential campaign.
--------
Bush Backs Off Limit on 9/11 Questioning
Talk to Panel Leaders to Be Open-Ended
By Mike Allen and Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, March 10, 2004; Page A03
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44408-2004Mar9.html
President Bush backed off yesterday from one of the major limitations he had set for cooperating with the independent commission looking into the terrorist attacks of 2001 and will now submit to open-ended questioning instead of setting a one-hour limit.
The reversal came 36 hours after his opponent, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), seized on the restriction in remarks that accused Bush of "stonewalling and resisting the investigation into what happened and why we had the greatest security failure in the history of our country."
The new flexibility, which White House press secretary Scott McClellan acknowledged under questioning at two briefings, came as Bush argued that Kerry tried to undermine the intelligence services during his 19 years in the Senate.
McClellan said the White House still considers a single hour before the commission to be "reasonable," but he pledged that Bush "is going to answer all the questions that they want to raise."
"Nobody is watching the clock," McClellan said.
Asked whether Bush was responding to Kerry's charges, McClellan said, "I don't think [Kerry is] someone who lets the facts get in the way of his campaign."
The time limit for submitting to questioning had become a symbolic issue as Bush embarked on his campaign. Democrats have complained that Bush is seeking to capitalize on the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, including authorizing an ad that uses a glimpse of a firefighter's remains being recovered from the World Trade Center, while withholding assistance from investigators.
Kerry, who had mocked Bush's trip to a Texas rodeo, said in a statement that it was "good to see that the president has finally found time in his schedule to spend more than an hour with the 9/11 commission to investigate the greatest intelligence failure in our nation's history."
The commission has clashed with the White House, which initially opposed the panel's formation and weathered two subpoena threats over access to presidential intelligence briefings. The administration eventually agreed to give a small group of commission representatives access to some of the documents, known as the President's Daily Brief, but would allow only an edited 17-page summary to be circulated to the rest of the commission.
Bush did not yield on other issues that are important to the commissioners. He still insists that his conversation occur only with Chairman Thomas H. Kean and Vice Chairman Lee H. Hamilton instead of with the entire panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.
Vice President Cheney also planned to limit his testimony to an hour, and has said he will meet only with Kean and Hamilton. His staff would not say whether he will answer all the commission's questions, regardless of the clock.
Al Felzenberg, the group's spokesman, said the panel would welcome more time to interview Bush and Cheney but would like them to meet with the full commission instead of just the chairman and vice chairman.
Timothy J. Roemer, a commission member who is a former Democratic congressman from Indiana, called Bush's stance "a little bit of progress" but said it "certainly isn't full cooperation."
Bush's defenders argue that he has provided unprecedented cooperation to the panel. McClellan expressed frustration with news accounts of the restrictions Bush is imposing, and said people "need to quit reading some of the coverage and look at the facts."
"We've provided more than 2 million pages of documents," McClellan said. "We've provided more than 60 compact discs of radar, flight and other information; more than 800 audiocassette tapes of interviews and other materials; more than 100 briefings, including at the head-of-agency level; more than 560 interviews."
The White House initially opposed a commission request for a 60-day extension of its May 27 deadline, which the panel feared could not be met because of delays caused by the battles over documents. After Bush relented, Congress last week approved a new deadline of July 26 for a completed public report.
-------- prisons / prisoners
Palestinian group says U.S. assassinated Abul Abbas
3/10/2004
Associated Press
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-03-10-abbas-widow_x.htm
BEIRUT (AP) - A Palestinian guerrilla group accused the United States of assassinating its leader, Abul Abbas, and his widow said Wednesday that America must account for his death since he was in its custody.
An aide to Israel's prime minister called Abbas' death "poetic justice."
Abbas, 56, died Monday in U.S. detention in Iraq. He was the mastermind of the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Lauro passenger ship, during which a wheelchair-bound Jewish American tourist, Leon Klinghoffer, was thrown overboard after being shot.
Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said Abbas died "apparently ... of natural causes" and an autopsy was planned.
"We certainly expect to confirm that Mr. Abbas died of natural causes," said Maj. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, the U.S. deputy chief of operations in Iraq.
The Palestine Liberation Front said in a statement from Beirut that U.S. forces of assassinating Abbas.
"The assassination of commander Abul Abbas by the U.S. occupation forces in Iraq after arresting him without any legal justification since the first days of their occupation of Iraq confirms beyond any doubt their absolute hostility to our people and exposes their designs which conform with the Zionist entity," the statement said.
Other Palestinian officials also blamed the United States.
"I think that when the Americans arrested him and he died now in their jail, it's a crime and the Americans are responsible for the death of Abul Abbas," said Jibril Rajoub, security adviser to Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.
Abbas was convicted in absentia by an Italian court for the hijacking and sentenced to life in prison in 1986, but never served any time. Abbas, whose given name was Mohammed Abbas, was captured in Baghdad by U.S. forces last April and spent the last 11 months in American custody.
His death was reported Wednesday by Palestinian officials.
His widow, Reem Nimer, said she wanted the Americans to explain how he died.
"Abul Abbas was in their detention centers. Since he was detained by them (U.S. forces), they are directly responsible for him," Nimer said in an interview with Associated Press Television News.
"They know how Abul Abbas died a martyr. Was he deprived of a medicine which led to a deterioration of his health? Or did he suffer a sudden stroke? Or was he tortured? We have the right to ask all these questions and they (Americans) must answer them," Nimer said, tears in her eyes.
"The Americans are responsible for him - morally and physically. They are the only ones who know how Abul Abbas died," she added.
Nimer lives with her son Ali, 20, in a Beirut apartment. She rejected the labeling of her husband as a terrorist, saying he fought for his homeland, Palestine.
"The Zionist and American propaganda accused him of being a terrorist while he was a patriotic man committed to his national cause," Nimer said. "He was not a terrorist. He was a fighter who struggled for the liberation of his country."
Nimer has met an official of the International Committee of the Red Cross to discuss how to retrieve his body for burial in the Palestinian territories. If Israel rejected that, she said, "we will look for any Arab country."
Abbas' eldest son, Ali, described his father as "a brave man who taught me manhood."
Ali said he planned to follow in his father's footsteps: "I don't know if I will use the same method. But we must do something because our country is occupied by the Jews."
Ali said he last saw his father when he visited Iraq shortly before the U.S.-led invasion began in March 2003.
Omar Shibli, Abbas' deputy in the PLF, said he had received letters from Abbas in recent months and that Abbas had never complained of ill health.
"Abul Abbas' detention was illegal and his condition in the jail was very bad," Shibli said. "The Americans treated him in a way that led to his death in his prison cell."
About 20 mourners congregated in Shibli's Gaza City office, as somber Koranic verses played in the background. A large picture of Abbas hung on the wall, surrounded by flowers sent by former Palestinian security chief Mohammed Dahlan.
Shibli said that formal mourning rites for Abbas would be conducted in the Palestinian territories, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan beginning Thursday.
Wednesday's session of the Palestinian Legislative Council in the West Bank city of Ramallah began with a moment of silence in his honor.
In Jerusalem, Raanan Gissin, a senior aide to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, called Abbas' death "poetic justice."
"The man who began his operation in Iraq as a proxy of Saddam Hussein ... finds his death in a prison cell in Iraq under the control of the American forces," he said. "I think this brings full circle the story, the saga, of the arch-terrorist called Abul Abbas."
In Lebanon's largest Palestinian refugee camp, Ein el-Hilweh, outside the southern city of Sidon, PLF members received condolences.
In Syria, two radical groups, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, also blamed the United States for Abbas' death.
--------
Hijacker of Achille Lauro Dies in U.S. Custody in Iraq
Associated Press
Wednesday, March 10, 2004
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44441-2004Mar9.html
RAMALLAH, West Bank, March 9 -- Mohammed Abbas, the Palestinian who directed the 1985 hijacking of the passenger ship Achille Lauro in which an American tourist was killed, has died in U.S. custody in Iraq, Palestinian and U.S. officials said Tuesday. He was 56.
Abbas's small faction, the Palestine Liberation Front, commandeered the Italian cruise ship, demanded the release of 50 Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails and threw an elderly Jewish American tourist, Leon Klinghoffer, overboard after shooting him in his wheelchair.
Abbas, also known as Abu Abbas, was captured in southern Baghdad by U.S. forces in a raid in April and lived the last 11 months of his life in U.S. custody. His death was initially announced by officials in the office of the Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat.
No cause of death was given either by the Palestinians or the Americans.
Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, said that Abbas died Monday, "apparently . . . of natural causes." Whitman said there would be an autopsy, but he declined to answer further questions, including whether Abbas was being interrogated in the period before his death.
Abbas was born in 1948 in Yarmouk, a Palestinian refugee camp in Syria, after his family fled from their home in Tira, near Haifa, when the state of Israel was created.
He attended Damascus University and graduated with a degree in Arab literature. He fought as a guerrilla, as often against rival Palestinian factions as the Israelis.
Convicted in absentia by an Italian court for the Achille Lauro hijacking and sentenced to life in prison in 1986, Abbas never served any time.
After Klinghoffer was killed, the other passengers were released and the commandos surrendered to Egyptian authorities, who put them on a flight to Arafat's headquarters, then in Tunisia. U.S. Navy fighters forced the plane down in Sicily, but Abbas was allowed to flee before a U.S. warrant could be served.
--------
Indonesian Court Cuts Term of Terror Suspect
By Alan Sipress
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, March 10, 2004; Page A22
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43369-2004Mar9.html
JAKARTA, Indonesia, March 9 -- The Indonesian Supreme Court has reduced the jail sentence for Abubakar Baasyir, a Muslim cleric named by security officials as the leader of a Southeast Asian terrorist network, allowing him to go free by early next month, a court official said Tuesday.
Without explanation, the judges slashed in half the three-year prison sentence imposed by a lower court.
Baasyir was first detained in October 2002 after the bombing of two nightclubs on the island of Bali that killed 202 people, most of them foreign tourists. That attack was blamed by Indonesian investigators on Jemaah Islamiah, a radical Muslim underground group linked to al Qaeda, and several of its members have admitted that the group was involved.
But Baasyir, 65, the founder of a religious boarding school in central Java attended by several leading militants, has repeatedly denied allegations by Indonesian and U.S. officials that he is the spiritual head of Jemaah Islamiah or that the group even exists.
When he was brought to trial in Jakarta last year, judges rejected the main accusation against him -- that he was the emir, or commander, of the network -- on the grounds that prosecutors had failed to prove their case.
Instead, Baasyir was convicted in September of a lesser charge of treason for involvement with Jemaah Islamiah, and on unrelated immigration and forgery offenses. The original five-judge panel sentenced him to four years in prison, far less than prosecutors had sought.
While some U.S., Australian and Asian diplomats said at the time that Indonesia's determination to root out terrorism was slipping, other officials said the treason conviction offered some reason for optimism. Only a year earlier, the Indonesian government had routinely denied that an international terrorist group was active on its soil.
But in December, the initial ruling was softened further when an appeals court threw out the treason conviction and reduced Baasyir's sentence to three years.
Now, after the latest Supreme Court decision, Baasyir could walk free by April 4, according to Moegihardjo, a court official who uses only one name.
In Washington, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher was quoted by the Associated Press as saying: "We've not yet seen an official verdict or a rationale for a judgment of reduction of sentences, but I think it's safe to say we'd be extremely disappointed were the Supreme Court to reduce" the sentence.
The ruling was welcomed with chants of "Allah Akbar," or "God is Great," from several hundred of Baasyir's followers, who clustered around the courthouse. His supporters have consistently claimed that Indonesian authorities prosecuted him only because they were under U.S. pressure. While Baasyir's arrest and trial provoked wide public interest in Indonesia, the disclosure of the ruling received much less attention in a country that is preoccupied with a national election campaign that is officially scheduled to begin Thursday.
-------- ENERGY AND OTHER
-------- environment
Toxic Dumping Ground Looks to Spread the Pain
March 10, 2004
By ANTHONY DePALMA
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/10/nyregion/10toxic.html?pagewanted=all&position=
MODEL CITY, N.Y. - The trucks roll in way before sunrise, when few lights are on and almost no one is awake. But people around here, even those who cannot hear the trucks grinding past with their toxic cargo, say they are always aware of where the convoy is going.
The trucks come here, as they have for decades, to dump the stuff almost no one wants in this place that almost no one seems to care about. There are 20, 30, sometimes 40 loads a day, enough to build a mound 110 feet tall right in the middle of what old-timers remember was an orchard of sweet Niagara County peaches.
Now, where those trees once quivered in breezes from Lake Ontario, the 710-acre Chemical Waste Management landfill towers above every building for miles. People here do not like to say so but they have the distinction of having the only hazardous waste landfill left in the Northeastern United States, a sprawling toxic stockyard of acids, chemicals and other hazards, including the desk Tom Brokaw was using when his office was contaminated with anthrax.
For a long time, residents have hoped that state environmental officials would recognize how unfair it is to keep asking them to be the toxic dumping ground for the whole region. They have waited 16 years for the New York Department of Environmental Conservation to comply with a legislative order to spread the burden throughout the state. Finally, last November, a draft report was released, and they were disappointed again.
The 50-page draft left locals feeling certain the state wants them to keep the dump and the toxic trucks for some time to come. Not only that, but there could be more - lots more - on the way.
"I guess what they're telling us is 'You have it, nobody else wants it, so you're going to have to keep it,' " said Merton K. Wiepert, supervisor of the town of Porter, where Model City and part of the landfill are situated. "And that's not fair."
Environmental experts say that the state's inactivity was prompted not by cold feet but by the cold reality of handling hazardous wastes today. More than a decade of consolidation has left just a handful of commercial hazardous waste landfills in the country, which, they say, is not necessarily a bad thing. Those that remain are big, well financed and easier for regulators to watch.
But after Love Canal - 10 miles south of here - focused attention on the danger of chemical dumping in the early 1980's, it has become nearly impossible to find a community willing to accept even a well-designed and environmentally sound landfill.
That often leaves expanding existing landfills the easiest option.
"New York is thrilled not to have to look for another site," said Michael B. Gerrard, an environmental lawyer in New York. "I'm not a bit surprised that the department hasn't come up with an alternative."
Federal officials say the Model City landfill is generally well run, and they consider the thick layer of clay beneath it to be well suited for containing toxic waste over the long haul.
State officials also welcome the landfill, which accepts waste from more than 2,000 manufacturers through the Northeast and eases the way for New York to export some of its wastes to other states. Michael Fraser, spokesman for the Department of Environmental Conservation, defended the new draft plan, saying it was never intended to select alternative sites.
"The task at D.E.C.," Mr. Fraser said, "was to prepare a siting plan to establish a framework to guide the state agencies," which would have to approve new landfills. He declined to make further comment.
For some of the 25,000 people who live in this flatland of family farms and gracious homes near the Niagara River, the plan is proof the state has written them off.
"People here are so defeated," said Amy Witryol, a retired bank executive in nearby Lewiston. "No matter what we do, it seems the government is not going to try to help us."
The federal government itself bequeathed a legacy even more menacing.
A few hundred yards from the landfill, and about half a mile from the 2,500-student campus of the Lewiston-Porter Central School District, lie tons of radioactive material left over from the Manhattan Project, the World War II effort that created the first atomic bomb. It is here because early in the war, the Army took control of 7,567 acres of orchards in Porter and Lewiston to build a huge TNT factory, officially known as the Lake Ontario Ordnance Works.
Years earlier, in 1893, an entrepreneur, William T. Love, planned an ideal community powered by water brought by canal from Niagara Falls. Before his plan collapsed, Mr. Love built a section of his canal in the city of Niagara Falls, which later become surrounded by the chemical plants that created the poisonous cesspool known as Love Canal.
On the other end of the uncompleted canal, Mr. Love built a score of houses and stores at a crossroads he called Model City.
"And now," said D. James Langlois, a Lewiston councilman, "it's become a model of how things shouldn't be done."
"The TNT" as it was known to local residents, turned out more explosives than the Army needed and was shut down after nine months. The Army then used the vast property to store radioactive waste left over from the Manhattan Project in nearby Tonawanada. Some was stored in a concrete water tower. The rest was simply spilled onto the ground.
After the war, more than half the 7,567 acres was sold to private owners. Radioactive waste continued to be dumped on land still in government hands and in 1966, hundreds of these acres were sold to various businesses. Years later, a commercial landfill was opened.
In the 1980's, the water tower holding radioactive residue was demolished. Its contents were transferred to the basement of a nearby war-era building and covered with five and a half feet of clay and topsoil.
Ann Roberts, a chemist whose four children attended the Lewiston-Porter schools, has spent the last three years trying to piece together the extent of the contamination. She found records showing large areas outside the current government storage site had once contained radioactive material.
"To my mind, if you have a site that is contaminated with radioactive wastes, you do as little as possible to disturb it," Ms. Roberts said. But, she said, the contaminated land used by CWM had places where "they are continually digging up soil and bringing in more wastes."
A few residents live within a mile of the 191-acre nuclear dump, officially called the Niagara Falls Storage Site. It contains 25,000 cubic yards of radioactive residue - including radium, thorium and uranium - and an additional 235,000 cubic yards of less-radioactive material. The Army Corps of Engineers now oversees its cleanup.
Abutting the nuclear burial ground is the CWM landfill, one of the largest in the country, which has the capacity to receive as much as 425,000 tons of hazardous waste a year from 30 states and Puerto Rico.
The draft plan estimates that the CWM landfill will top out next year, but despite that says it is "not practical or relevant" to recommend an alternative site.
But executives at CWM, a subsidiary of Waste Management, a $12 billion national company, said they expected to use the current landfill for six more years, especially if they were permitted to add 10 feet to the height of the mound. They have applied for permits for other landfills on the same property.
"We'd like to continue to operate the facility for another 40 years, or more," said Richard D. Sturges, CWM's district manager.
Mr. Sturges said CWM had invested $50 million in the Model City operation since buying it in 1984. Two state monitors are supposed to be on site every day to make sure it operates safely. Although the landfill pays from $1 million to $3 million a year in gross receipts taxes to local towns, many residents said they would gladly pay higher property taxes if it were closed. CWM officials say residents have it all wrong.
"We ought to be applauded for what we do out there, but instead we're always being spit on," said George H. Spira, a former general manager of the landfill. Mr. Spira, who also is chairman of the planning board of Porter, in 2001 abstained from voting on a zoning change allowing CWM to expand. The rezoning passed but is being challenged in court.William Choboy, a Porter councilman who until last month was president of Residents for Responsible Government, which opposes the landfill, said it was difficult to fight a company with powerful political connections like CWM. Dennis C. Vacco, a former New York attorney general, was a regional vice president for CWM's parent, Waste Management, until last September, when he joined an Albany lobbying firm that represents the company.
Mr. Choboy worries that toxic dumping over the last 60 years has made this an unhealthy place to live. He hands out copies of State Department of Health surveys showing elevated levels of thyroid cancer among women, and higher-than-expected levels of bladder, prostate and colorectal cancer among men.
But state health officials have never directly linked those cancer rates to the landfill or the radioactive wastes.
The question of providing environmental justice by dispersing hazardous waste landfills throughout the state was first raised by the Legislature in 1987. The town of Porter considered the first draft plan inadequate and challenged it in court. A state Supreme Court judge ordered it redone "with all deliberate speed."
That was in 1994.
Legislators have greeted this latest draft coolly. State Senator George D. Maziarz, a Republican of North Tonawanda, said he expected the Legislature to reject the plan because it did not offer alternative sites or address upcoming projects like dredging PCB-contaminated mud from the Hudson River.
That project - one of the largest industrial cleanups in history - would generate 2.65 million cubic yards of mud. Model City is one of the few places in the Northeast where it could be dumped.
Walter E. Mugdan, regional director of the division of environmental planning and protection in the federal Environmental Protection Agency, said no decision had yet been made. It is possible, he said, that the mud could be shipped out of state.
But others, like Susan L. Senecah, an associate professor of environmental decision-making who works with Senator Maziarz, are certain that this latest mess is headed for the former peach orchards of Model City. "This is not environmental justice," she said. "It's perpetual injustice."
-------- imf / world bank / wto
Argentina Agrees to Pay IMF
Pledge to Negotiate With Bondholders Keeps Loans Flowing to Buenos Aires
By Paul Blustein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 10, 2004; Page E01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44486-2004Mar9.html
Stepping back from the biggest default in history to an international lending agency, Argentina agreed yesterday to pay money it owes to the International Monetary Fund, and the IMF promised to keep lending to Argentina.
The accord came after the two sides compromised on how Argentina will deal with its private creditors, a highly sensitive political issue for President Nestor Kirchner. Argentina has already defaulted on about $90 billion in obligations to those creditors, many of whom are bondholders in the United States, Europe and Japan.
The pact was reached a few hours before the evening deadline for a $3.1 billion payment that Argentina owed the IMF. Had Argentina gone into default to the fund, both sides would have faced enormous potential costs -- for Buenos Aires, a deeper isolation from the international community; and for the fund, steep losses on loans that represent about 15 percent of its portfolio.
Averting that scenario allows Argentina and the IMF to maintain a tenuous partnership that is aimed at gradually bringing Argentina back from its collapse in early 2002, when it defaulted on its bonds and was forced to devalue its currency. Under their current agreement, the IMF lends Argentina only enough to ensure that Buenos Aires can repay the fund what it owes -- an arrangement that keeps the country from becoming even more of an international pariah than it already is. Countries that fail to pay the IMF become ineligible for all sorts of aid, including World Bank loans. That list consists mostly of "failed states" such as Sudan and Somalia.
The arrangement has been increasingly strained in recent months because the IMF is supposed to lend to countries in default only when they are negotiating in good faith with their private creditors, and Argentina's creditors protested that condition was not being met. Kirchner's government has taken a very tough line with the creditors, announcing last year that it will repay about 25 cents on the dollar on the defaulted bonds and can afford no more in light of persistently high unemployment and poverty since the 2002 crash. That stance has made Kirchner hugely popular with the Argentine public, but it has outraged bondholders who argue that the offer is closer in value to just eight cents on the dollar once unpaid interest is included.
The details of yesterday's agreement were not announced, but sources familiar with the accord said Argentina has agreed to "negotiations" with its creditors after months of insisting that it would conduct only "discussions." That is a subtle but important distinction that implies some willingness by Buenos Aires to be flexible on the repayment terms -- though how flexible is left unstated, sources said. The Argentines also agreed to aim for acceptance of the terms by a reasonably sizable percentage of its bondholders -- though precise figures were not spelled out. In addition, the Argentines agreed to recognize the Global Committee of Argentina Bondholders, a group claiming to represent a large number of bondholders whose legitimacy has been questioned by officials in Buenos Aires.
Officials in Washington and Buenos Aires were quick to suggest that the other side had blinked after a tense confrontation over the past several days during which Kirchner repeatedly vowed he would default to the IMF rather than deprive his government of the resources it needs to meet pressing social needs. Kirchner's wife, Sen. Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, told Argentine television that the government had rejected IMF demands for "things that were outside of the original accord" signed last year. "Argentina hasn't signed up for anything that we cannot fulfill, which is what we always promised," she said, according to wire service reports.
But in Washington, officials portrayed the agreement as containing enough important concessions by Argentina to attract the support of major governments that have derided previous accords as too weak. Last autumn, eight members of the 24-member IMF executive board took the unusual step of abstaining from approval of Argentina's program. Included in that group were three members of the Group of Seven major industrialized nations -- Italy and Japan, where many individuals holding Argentine bonds reside, and Britain.
"Argentina has agreed to negotiate with established creditor groups in order to get broad participation in its debt restructuring," said a source who agreed to be identified only as a G-7 official. "This is significant and it represents progress. . . . There is a great deal of unanimity among the G-7 on this issue."
But one high-ranking IMF source, while welcoming the agreement as preferable to a breakdown, noted that two years have passed since Argentina defaulted on its bonds and it is now only agreeing to negotiate. The source also pointed out that Argentina may continue to take a hard line whether it is "negotiating" or "discussing."
"This isn't a victory to be celebrated with champagne -- only beer," the IMF source said.
Whatever the current agreement says, more confrontations loom down the road, because if Argentina is perceived by the G-7 as being unreasonable with creditors, pressure will arise anew for a cutoff of IMF lending when the next Argentine payment comes due in June. At the same time, Kirchner also faces tremendous pressure to limit concessions to the bondholders.
"If Argentina makes a payment now, it will have another period of three months in which it will try to convince the world that it is earnestly trying to resolve the issue of the debt," said Federico Thomsen, an independent economist in Buenos Aires. "I would keep it separate from what Argentina is actually offering, which is always going to be something irritating to bondholders because there is not much to offer."
Special correspondent Brian Byrnes contributed to this report.
-------- ACTIVISTS
Political Groups Spend Millions to Take on Bush in Ad Campaign
March 10, 2004
By GLEN JUSTICE and JIM RUTENBERG
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/10/politics/campaign/10FINA.html?pagewanted=all&position=
WASHINGTON, March 9 - Three advertising campaigns by political groups harshly critical of President Bush are getting under way in 17 states, in an effort to counter Republican commercials that began showing last week.
The largest campaign opens on Wednesday, paid with $5 million in unlimited donations that political parties can no longer collect. Republicans say the tactic is an illegal way to support Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, contending that it violates campaign finance laws.
Stepping in to help Mr. Kerry's campaign offset what has been Mr. Bush's 10-to-1 fund-raising advantage, these groups are part of a handful of committees that some critics call a "shadow" political party.
The groups, two of which say they already have a total of $70 million in pledges, have moved to set up expansive voter drives while at the same time fighting the president on television using issues like jobs, the deficit and health care policy.
The advertising campaign beginning on Wednesday goes so far as to hit the president with a broadside, saying that "George Bush's priorities are eroding the American dream." This campaign, run by Harold M. Ickes, the former deputy White House chief of staff for President Bill Clinton, comes just days after Mr. Bush went on the air with his own $11 million ad campaign.
It also comes as President Bush has begun leading an orchestrated barrage of Republican criticism of Mr. Kerry intended to undercut him and define him as a waffler who is weak on security issues. The attacks are coming from an array of Republican elected officials and are to be amplified by an imminent sweep of hard-hitting television advertisements.
Mr. Kerry's advisers say they welcome harsh critiques of the president being broadcast by Democrats. But there is concern that because federal rules forbid the campaign or the Democratic Party to coordinate with these groups, the independent advertising could at times run counter to Mr. Kerry's own themes. "If their first flight of TV ads goes up and they are terrible and off-message, that would be a problem," a Kerry adviser said. "But it's a problem we can't do anything about."
On Tuesday night, Mr. Bush's campaign lawyers said they had filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission saying some of these commercials are illegal because they effectively oppose Mr. Bush, and were paid for with unlimited or "soft money" donations, which they say is a violation of campaign finance laws. They are calling for an investigation into Mr. Ickes's group, the Media Fund. "This is a blatant violation," said Tom Josefiak, Mr. Bush's general counsel.
Mr. Ickes calls those accusations baseless, saying: "Politically, we are trying to really highlight, underscore and push into sharp focus the policies of the Republicans. That may have a certain effect on the Bush or the Kerry campaign, but we are not involved in electing or defeating people. We are raising issues."
The debate over what these groups can legally do dates back to last year. Republicans in Congress have investigated them while other Republicans have appealed to the Federal Election Commission. But when it issued an advisory opinion last month, the commission put off any final decision until later this year, and its members have a full range of alternatives before them.
Several Republican officials said they would be watching closely for illegal coordination between the Kerry campaign and these groups. Officials with the groups said in interviews that they were keeping their distance from the Kerry campaign, and that they were by no means working in coordination with it.
"Everyone here is abiding by the prohibition against coordination with the campaign or party committees," said Jim Jordan, who was forced out as Mr. Kerry's campaign manager in the fall and who is now a consultant to Mr. Ickes's Media Fund.
Mr. Bush is getting his own outside help - from Republican and conservative groups - though not nearly at Mr. Kerry's level. One group, called Citizens United and headed by a former Republican Congressional aide who investigated President Clinton's 1996 fund-raising, David N. Bossie, began advertising this week. Mr. Bossie would say only that the ad campaign was costing in the low six figures. Another conservative group, Club for Growth, is expected to run advertisements against Mr. Kerry soon.
For their part, the fund-raising groups helping Mr. Kerry say they plan to continue their campaigns until an election commission ruling says otherwise. Already, the groups have brought together some of the best organizers in their fields. And some are literally under the same roof in a building just blocks from the White House.
For example, Ellen Malcolm founded Emily's List, the powerful abortion-rights political action committee. Steve Rosenthal was the top political organizer for the A.F.L.-C.I.O., the largest labor organization in the country. The two teamed up to form America Coming Together, commonly known as ACT, an organization that is building a vast voter outreach network in the 17 battleground states.
The group is recruiting an army of people like Sean McDonald, a 31-year-old who left his job installing carpet to make $8 an hour as a door knocker in Massillon, Ohio, near his hometown, Canton. The goal is simple: Find out what issues are on the minds of potential voters.
At some houses, he thrusts a palm computer in the door to show a 16-second video clip of a steelworker talking about losing his job. It is an icebreaker, and Mr. McDonald dutifully records the answers.
Ultimately, the information he collects is fed into ACT computers to create a huge database of potential voters who can now be singled out according to their interests. In the months ahead, the organization will hit these voters with mail, telephone calls and perhaps a few more knocks on the door.
ACT has become the best known of all of these fund-raising groups, known as 527 committees, for the part of the Tax Code that established them. It often captures headlines, like the time George Soros, the financier and a major Democratic donor, pledged $10 million.
The Media Fund anticipated that the Democratic nominee would emerge with little money only to face Mr. Bush, who has more than $100 million banked.
ACT and the Media Fund, raising money jointly, say they have pledges for $70 million, far more than campaign finance reports show they had in December.
The Media Fund's advertising campaign comes on top of two others that began late last week, at the same time that Mr. Bush's first advertisements hit the air in the 17 states expected to be the most closely contested, among them Florida, Ohio, Arizona and Nevada.
One campaign, by a Democratic advocacy group called the New Democrat Network, includes two Spanish-language advertisements that accuse Mr. Bush of letting down Latinos. The group, which has the former Clinton housing secretary Henry Cisneros on its advisory board and Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico as another adviser, said it was paying $5 million to run spots through Labor Day in cities with large Spanish-speaking populations like Orlando, Albuquerque, Phoenix and Las Vegas. In one of the spots an announcer says in Spanish: "When he wanted to reach the White House, George Bush promised to be a friend of the Latino community and do what's best for our children. He has not kept his promise."
The MoveOn.org Voter Fund, which has been running commercials against Mr. Bush for months now, began one of its biggest campaigns yet on Thursday, paying about $3 million for two weeks of ads against the president in all 17 states where he is advertising. In most of those states the group is running a new spot in which a visibly beaten-down factory worker laments job losses and proposed limits to overtime pay and says, "Face it, George Bush is not on our side."
Mr. Ickes says his organization coordinates with the MoveOn.org Voter Fund and the New Democrat Network in choosing which media markets to cover. "The object is to make sure we stretch resources as far as possible," he said.
Mr. Ickes said his organization, which used soft money to finance the 30-second spots that began this week, hoped to continue advertising in the weeks ahead.
"It will really be a function of money," he said.
--------
March 20: The World Still Says No to War
United for Peace and Justice
http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=2136
MOMENTUM BUILDS FOR GLOBAL DAY OF ACTION OUTREACH MATERIALS • UPDATES • ENDORSERS CALENDAR OF MARCH 20 EVENTS • NEW YORK CITY PROTEST
Over 200 U.S. Events Planned
Protests in More Than 50 Countries
Over 500 Groups Endorse Call to Action
• Join List of Endorsers
• List Your March 20 Event
• Receive Mobilization Updates
Momentum is building around the world for the Global Day of Action against War and Occupation on March 20, the one-year anniversary of the U.S. bombing and invasion of Iraq.
On that day, people on every continent will take to the streets to say YES to peace and NO to pre-emptive war and occupation. Joining with growing numbers of military families and soldiers, we will call for an end to the occupation of Iraq and Bush's militaristic foreign policies, and highlight the linkages between the occupations of Iraq and Palestine. March 20 will be the first time the world's "other superpower," as The New York Times described us, will take center stage since February 15, when more than 15 million people across the globe expressed their opposition to Bush's looming war on Iraq.
The March 20 Global Day of Action has been endorsed by the Global Assembly of the Anti-War Movement, the World Social Forum, and the 3rd Hemispheric Forum Against the FTAA. A vast and diverse array of organizations worldwide are hard at work mobilizing for the day.
In the United States, there will be a massive protest in New York City plus dozens of local and regional demonstrations across the country, including a major protest in Fayetteville, NC, the home of Fort Bragg.
Politically, the U.S. protests will also take on the domestic impact of Bush's foreign policies-what some people call "the war at home." We will express the growing opposition to the USA PATRIOT Act, which has authorized political arrests, indefinite detentions, domestic spying, and religious and racial profiling. We will call for an end to the mass detentions and deportations of innocent immigrants in the name of fighting terrorism. We will say no to massive military spending amidst vast cuts in vital domestic social and economic programs.
HAVE YOUR GROUP ENDORSE MARCH 20 Click here or call UFPJ (212-868-5545) to let us know your group is on board.
BEGIN PLANNING LOCAL MARCH 20 ACTIONS Bring together local groups to plan March 20 actions in your community. Be sure to list your plans on our calendar so we can help publicize your event to the media and to people in your community.
--------
Pilger on the US and terrorism Australian Broadcasting Corporation
TV PROGRAM TRANSCRIPT
10/03/2004
ABC (Au)
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2004/s1063309.htm
TONY JONES: Now to the issue which has divided the political left and the Iraq anti-war movement.
Now that the die has been cast, the regime deposed and the coalition forces are occupying the country, how should they regard those who are still attacking the occupiers and targeting anyone they consider to be assisting the United States?
The veteran journalist John Pilger has no doubts.
He claims that, what he calls "the resistance" is "incredibly important" and that the world now "depends" on it to win.
"I think," he says, "if the US military machine" and the Bush administration can suffer something like a defeat "in Iraq, they can be stopped."
By which he means stopped from invading other countries.
Mr Pilger is in Australia at the moment speaking regularly at political rallies and at screenings of his film Breaking the Silence.
I spoke to him earlier this evening.
TONY JONES: John Pilger, do you still maintain that the world depends on what you call "the Iraqi resistance" to inflict a military defeat on the coalition forces?
JOHN PILGER: Well, certainly, historically, we've always depended on resistances to get rid of occupiers, to get rid of invaders.
And what we have in Iraq now is I suppose the equivalent of a kind of Vichy Government being set up.
And a resistance is always atrocious, it's always bloody.
It always involves terrorism.
You can imagine if Australia was occupied by the Japanese during the Second World War the kind of resistance there would have been, and so on.
We've seen that all over the world.
Now, I think the situation in Iraq is so dire that unless the United States is defeated there that we're likely to see an attack on Iran, we're likely to see an attack on North Korea and all the way down the road it could be even an attack on China within a decade, so I think what happens in Iraq now is incredibly important.
TONY JONES: You mean defeated militarily?
JOHN PILGER: Yes.
TONY JONES: What does that mean in terms of the resistance, and who is the resistance?
Are we talking about the remnants of the Baathist regime, or are we talking around foreign mujahadeen? Are we talking about anyone that's prepared to pick up a gun or set off a bomb?
JOHN PILGER: Why do we have a different standard of looking at what a resistance is in Iraq as it is anywhere else?
TONY JONES: Well, what do you compare it to?
JOHN PILGER: There are 12 groups.
Only three of them - and we went through the nonsense that they were all Saddam remnants for a long time, now Saddam has been captured, the resistance has actually intensified.
There are 12 groups, they're all very different, there are groups within the Shia, but what they're all united about, quite clearly, is getting rid of a foreign invader and occupier from Iraq.
And as I say, historically, be it in Algeria or in Vietnam, or France during the Second World War, it is going to be atrocious and bloody.
Now, are they Baathist?
Well, there's a greet irony here because what the United States is doing now is retraining, or rather rehiring, 10,000 of Saddam Hussein's most vicious security people.
The CIA are training these people to actually put the finger on who the resistance are, so you have - what you have going on in Iraq now is a kind of re-Nazification, the same sort of thing that went on in Germany after the Second World War.
TONY JONES: On that score, let me ask you this - is it legitimate for the resistance then to target young Iraqi men queuing up to join the Iraqi police, which you describe as a sort of Gestapo?
JOHN PILGER: You know, all resistances have said if you're going to collaborate, then you are a target.
Well, of course, the killing of innocent people can't be condoned under any circumstances.
But in all resistances, it happens.
TONY JONES: It sounds, however, like you were saying these young men, about to join this Gestapo-like police force, are not innocent?
JOHN PILGER: Well, they're not...
It's nice that you call them 'these young men'.
They're among some of the most vicious creatures.
I mean, most of them will be led by people who the Americans would have slapped into Guantanamo Bay had they - if they didn't have another duty to perform for them.
The United States has singled out all of Saddam Hussein's top security and intelligence people.
He ran one of the most effective security, yes, Gestapo's in the Middle East.
They've taken them and these people are now training 10,000, paid for by the CIA, to effectively do unto the Americans what they did under Saddam Hussein.
That's what they did in Vietnam...
TONY JONES: But are you saying that those men, outside police stations, looking to be recruited to get a job in a dire economic climate, are legitimate targets?
JOHN PILGER: No, I'm not saying they're legitimate targets but, to a resistance, they are legitimate targets, yes.
TONY JONES: But the resistance is a resistance you say we should be backing?
JOHN PILGER: JOHN PILGER: Ah, no, c'mon.
I'm not saying we should be backing.
I'm saying that we depend.
If the rest of us watching this, those who worry about what a rampant United States is going to do next - and we should all be worried about that. The evidence is there, it's all clear - if we're concerned about that, we ask ourselves, and millions of people all over the world have asked themselves - how can that be stopped?
Well, one place where it is going to be stopped, or at least entrapped, or something will deter it, is, unfortunately, and I repeat unfortunately, in Iraq, because although Americans will be killed, most of the people killed, as you rightly point out, are going to be Iraqis, and that happened in Algeria, it happened in Vietnam, especially in Vietnam.
It's happened all over the world when there has been a powerful invader, has come into the country.
It's not the invader that - well, the invader has suffered as the Americans clearly are - but it is the local people who will suffer.
TONY JONES: But you're saying, effectively, that the rest of the world now must depend upon a resistance which is prepared to send a truck bomb into the United Nations, which is prepared to bomb civilians who are celebrating on their holiest day in holy cities like Karbala, Shiites, which is prepared to condone, indeed to promote, the whole concept of a civil war in Iraq.
Why do you appear to be suggesting that that resistance is a good thing?
JOHN PILGER: But you missed out the source of all this violence.
In that litany, that's very interesting, you're quite right.
But the source of all this is the invasion, an unprovoked and illegal invasion, and a bloody invasion, by the US and Britain which has caused the deaths of, in the latest conservative estimate, is between 21,000 and 55,000, which causes the deaths every month of 1,000 children from cluster bombs, which is causing the most pervasive contamination from a variety of toxic weapons such as depleted uranium, which has destroyed people's lives.
That's the source, that is the main violence in Iraq.
Yes, there is that violence, but the violence that you describe is a reaction to that.
Haven't you got it round the wrong way?
TONY JONES: Well, you can put it that way and you're making your case but what I'm saying is how can anyone back a resistance which resorts to the killing of innocent people?
How can anyone suggest the world, in fact, depends on such a resistance which resorts to the killing of innocent people, as you say, mostly Iraqis?
JOHN PILGER: A lot of people depended on a resistance movement to get rid of invaders, virtually since the beginning of history.
When Caesar went up to Gaul, when finally they crossed the Rubicon - which the Americans have done in modern terms - there was a dependence on a resistance.
TONY JONES: There are other forms of resistance.
There is peaceful resistance, to start with.
Mahatma Ghandi did not resort to bombing?
JOHN PILGER: Tony, do tell me - how do you mount a peaceful resistance to an invading force, which Human Rights Watch this week described as out of control, as rapacious, which has bought a kind of murderous street fighting, which is - and I've just said - has killed, you know, in their 'Shock and Awe', they killed up to 55,000 people.
Robert Fisk, the independent correspondent, reckons that something like between 500 and 1,000 Iraqis are killed indirectly as a result of the American presence every week in that country.
Now, how do you say they should all sit down and say to the Americans: "You must go."
"It should be a peaceful resistance."
There are a lot of people actually opposing it peacefully and, if it was reported...
You know, I follow the reports of a number of human rights observers in Baghdad.
There's an enormous amount of peaceful resistance but on the other side of the resistance - and it's one resistance - there is also fire being fought with fire.
I don't think one has to approve that.
In fact, you can't approve, under any circumstances, in my opinion, the killing of innocent people.
But you have to understand why it happens.
In the same way that we have to understand why September 11 happened.
TONY JONES: Can you approve in that context the killing of American, British or Australian troops who are in the occupying forces?
JOHN PILGER: Well yes, they're legitimate targets.
They're illegally occupying a country.
And I would have thought from an Iraqi's point of view they are legitimate targets, they'd have to be, sure.
TONY JONES: So Australian troops you would regard in Iraq as legitimate targets?
JOHN PILGER: Excuse me but, really, that's an unbecoming question.
I've just said that any foreign occupier of a country, military occupier, be they Germans in France, Americans in Vietnam, the French in Algeria, wherever, the Americans in Latin America, I would have thought, from the point of view of the local people - and as I mentioned, be they Australians in Australia - if Australia had been invaded and occupied by the Japanese, then the occupying forces, from the point of view of the people of that country, are legitimate targets.
TONY JONES: The Shiites have so far refused to engage in this crusade against the United States, by and large.
They have huge militias who are armed and quite well trained whom they could turn against the Americans if they so wished.
They have not done so because they're looking for a peaceful solution.
They're looking still for a role in a new government in Iraq.
Why not back them, rather than the resistance which is killing their civilians?
JOHN PILGER: Well, my... you're interested into why I would back the Shia.
What the Shia are doing I think is far more interesting actually.
The Shia have long been a very patient group.
And you only have to look at Iran, under the shah of Iran, it took a long time during that whole period of oppression in Iran before it exploded in 1979 in a revolution.
And my understanding of what the Shia are doing in Iraq is something very similar, that they, yes, are building a militia army and they're doing it patiently and they're doing it in a very ordered way.
There is a certain commitment to a peaceful resistance among the Shia actually, and they're the majority in the country.
But when you have such daily provocation coming from the invader, coming from the Americans, who are the principal force in that country, when you have the kind of murderous presence, the use of well, just simply, the very fact of a military and violent occupation, when you have that provocation, day upon day, then the whole notion of a peaceful resistance, whether it will come from the Shia with their patience or from the Sunni or anywhere else, really goes out the window, I would have thought.
TONY JONES: Do you acknowledge that huge human rights abuses, not perhaps on the same scale as Pol Pot, but quite close to it, happened under Saddam Hussein's regime...
JOHN PILGER: Absolutely.
TONY JONES: ...that hundreds of thousands of mass graves have since been unearthed...
JOHN PILGER: Well, I can tell you when they...
TONY JONES: ...in the south of Iraq?
JOHN PILGER: I'm glad you've raised that.
TONY JONES: But just let me finish that question.
Can there not be a moral case made for deposing the dictator who was killing hundreds and thousands of his opponents?
JOHN PILGER: Absolutely.
By the Iraqi people.
And I believe had there not been 10 years of a medieval siege imposed on Iraq by the United States, effectively, with Britain, that has caused the death, according to two Assistant Secretary-Generals of the United Nations who were in charge of humanitarian aid up to 1 million people in Iraq - had there not been that extraordinary pressure, that actually strengthened the regime in Baghdad - then, almost certainly, there would have been the kind of uprising that happened in early 1991, and I think we might have had the parallel we might be drawing, would have been with Romania.
The Romanians got rid of their tyrant who was very similar to the tyrant of Saddam Hussein.
They did it by themselves.
Now, we stopped them.
When I say "we" I'm talking about the West.
TONY JONES: The United States in particular... there is a strong point to be made there, they were betrayed.
JOHN PILGER: In 1991, they stopped them.
And the other point you made about that Saddam Hussein is guilty of the most terrible human rights abuses, the great majority of the reign of terror of Saddam Hussein and the worst human rights abuses were committed by him when he was being supplied by us, when he was being supported by the United States with biological weapons and weapons of mass destruction in the 1980s.
It's rather important actually, because...
TONY JONES: We're nearly out of time, that's all.
Please continue.
JOHN PILGER: Saddam Hussein's strength - he drew his strength principally from Washington, also from London, and the hypocrisy talked about Saddam Hussein being the great tyrant that we have the moral right to overthrow I would have thought is now evident to most people.
TONY JONES: John Pilger, we will have to leave it there.
The clock has beaten us.
We thank you for coming in to have your ideas tested at least.
-------
------- OneList (submissions from subscribers)
------- Depleted Uranium Keeps On Killing!
-----------
Posted
without profit or payment for research and educational
purposes only,
in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107.