Archive By Date | Today's Links to Search By
Activists' News | Nuclear | Depleted Uranium | Military | Police
Alternative Energy Etc. | From Subscribers
NUCLEAR
Gorbachev: 'We All Lost Cold War'
Thyroid cancer has increased 12-fold in women since Chernobyl
BNFL losses widen to £303m
British nuclear losses continue to rise
India to prioritise nuclear issue in talks with Pakistan
INDIA - Communists Stymie Plans to Send Troops to Iraq
Cleric warns against obstructing Iran nuke
Iran labels G8 criticism of N-program irrational
Iran Seeks Changes to IAEA Text on Nuclear Aims
Iran Seeks Changes to Draft Nuclear Text-Diplomats
Missile engine find stirs concern over Iraq proliferation
Discussion of Nuclear Weapons No Longer Taboo in Japan
China doubts US claims about N Korean nuke programme
US says China shares concerns over North Korean nuclear program
How Israel Denied Saddam the Bomb
Russia Hails G-8 Summit As Security Boost
Internet Nukes
G8 Nations to Stem Nuclear Proliferation, Encourage Recycling
Too Slow on Nukes
The Eight spoke loudly, and did little
West must cut its N-arsenals
No new nukes
Washington: Energy Dept. Extends Contract Of Nuclear Lab
Test Site takes on security role
Yucca Mountain Hits Budgetary Stumbling Block
Sandia computer lab links with scientists across the country
Officials Praise Performance in Disaster Drill at Indian Point
MILITARY
Taliban Suspected in Killing of 11 Chinese Workers
South Africa to send 10 military observers to Sudan
Congo Guards Mount Apparent Coup Bid
Coup Attempt in Congo Put Down by Troops
South Koreans Mixed Over Pullout Plan
S. Korea to Deploy 3,600 Troops to Iraq
U.S., Bosnia Sign Agreement on Military Cooperation
Labour suffers election 'kicking' There was little to cheer Labour
US probes Halliburton payments to Nigeria
Spyware law delay sought in Utah
Panama Canal operating smoothly
50,000 troops in Gulf illness scare
'Fears over Gulf War chemicals'
An Antidote for Chemicals Is Out of Reach
Kurds Find U.S. Alliance Is Built on Shifting Sands
Cleric's Aide Backs New Iraq Government; Clashes Continue
Rebel Cleric's Fighters Seize a Police Station in Najaf
Gunmen Raid Police Station Near Baghdad
Israel to Offer Compensation if Settlers Leave Now
Israel Settler Payments Could Start Soon
Alleged Plot to Kill Saudi Ruler Detailed
Ukraine accuses NATO assembly of interfering in its affairs
Bush Doesn't Expect NATO to Provide Troops for Iraq
Bush says training may be NATO role
US Has Big Military Plans for Small Pacific Island
Remote Facility in Iraq Shows New Face of U.S. Prison System
Use of Dogs to Scare Prisoners Was Authorized
Key shift in Russia military command
6 Acquitted in Killing of Russian Journalist
Cassini Spacecraft Bears Down on Saturn
Biggest U.S. Military Exercise since the Cold War
Venezuelan Police Find Arms at TV Station's Offices
Bosnian Serbs Admit Massacre of Muslims
Serbs admit to 1995 massacre
POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS / JUSTICE
Use Caution in the Pursuit of Security
Capitol Hill Evacuation
Security camera network planned
Cameras as Weapons Against Injustice
Europe Knows It Needs a Lot of Immigrants. But It Also Fears Them.
A Longer Wait for Citizenship and the Ballot in New York
U.S. Charges an Australian With Fighting for Taliban
U.S. charges Guantanamo Bay detainee
Remote Facility in Iraq Shows New Face of U.S. Prison System
Terror Suspect in Italy Linked to More Plots
White House Warned On Torture Rules
Iraq dog use 'ordered by US intelligence'
POLITICS
Congress Backs Pentagon Budget Heavy on Future Weapons
False memories and friends
How Reagan Beat the Neocons
Tricky Dick Cheney
Poll: Voters say Iraq didn't merit war
League of Women Voters Is Split
How Reagan Beat the Neocons
Undecided Voter Is Becoming the Focus of Both Political Parties
OTHER
Southeast Asian nations are becoming dumping ground
Weeds Overlooked as Medicinal Sources
ACTIVISTS
Japan: Released Hostages Represent Country's New Generation
U.S. Religious Figures Offer Abuse Apology on Arab TV
Refugees, AIDS Activists Protest Reagan
Activists Ponder Small Turnout at Summit
-------- NUCLEAR
Gorbachev: 'We All Lost Cold War'
By Robert G. Kaiser
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 11, 2004; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32927-2004Jun10.html
In the throngs of mourners passing through the Capitol yesterday afternoon, one stood out -- a vigorous senior citizen with a distinctive birthmark on his bald pate, whose tight gestures and bright eyes brought back memories of some of Ronald Reagan's greatest moments. Mikhail Gorbachev had flown from Moscow to pay respects to Nancy Reagan and to the man with whom he changed the course of history. "I gave him a pat," Gorbachev said later, reenacting the fond caress he had given Reagan's coffin.
Last evening, in an ornate conference room at the Russian Embassy on Wisconsin Avenue NW, Gorbachev gave a kind of personal eulogy to his first and most important American friend. It combined emotion, rigorous historical analysis and an interesting appraisal of Reagan's place in American life and history.
Reagan, said Gorbachev, 73, was "an extraordinary political leader" who decided "to be a peacemaker" at just the right moment -- the moment when Gorbachev had come to power in Moscow. He, too, wanted to be a peacemaker, so "our interests coincided." Reagan's second term began in January 1985; two months later, Gorbachev was elected general secretary of the Soviet Communist Party.
But if he had warm, appreciative words for Reagan, Gorbachev brusquely dismissed the suggestion that Reagan had intimidated either him or the Soviet Union, or forced them to make concessions. Was it accurate to say that Reagan won the Cold War? "That's not serious," Gorbachev said, using the same words several times. "I think we all lost the Cold War, particularly the Soviet Union. We each lost $10 trillion," he said, referring to the money Russians and Americans spent on an arms race that lasted more than four decades. "We only won when the Cold War ended."
By Gorbachev's account, it was his early successes on the world stage that convinced the Americans that they had to deal with him and to match his fervor for arms control and other agreements that could reduce East-West tensions. "We had an intelligence report from Washington in 1987," he said, "reporting on a meeting of the National Security Council." Senior U.S. officials had concluded that Gorbachev's "growing credibility and prestige did not serve the interests of the United States" and had to be countered. A desire in Washington not to let him make too good an impression on the world did more to promote subsequent Soviet-American agreements than any American intimidation, he said. "They wanted to look good in terms of making peace and achieving arms control," he said of the Reagan administration.
The changes he wrought in the Soviet Union, from ending much of the official censorship to sweeping political and economic reforms, were undertaken not because of any foreign pressure or concern, Gorbachev said, but because Russia was dying under the weight of the Stalinist system. "The country was being stifled by the lack of freedom," he said. "We were increasingly behind the West, which . . . was achieving a new technological era, a new kind of productivity. . . . And I was ashamed for my country -- perhaps the country with the richest resources on Earth, and we couldn't provide toothpaste for our people."
Reagan had been a kind of reformer in the United States, Gorbachev suggested. His first term as president "came at a time when the American nation was in a very difficult situation -- not just in socio-economic terms, but psychologically, too," because of "the consequences of Vietnam and Watergate" and turmoil at home. Reagan rose to the occasion and "restored America's self-confidence. . . . This is what he accomplished."
"He was a person committed to certain values and traditions," Gorbachev continued. "For him the American dream was not just rhetoric. It was something he felt in his heart. In that sense he was an idealistic American."
By the end of that first term, Reagan was "the preeminent anti-communist," Gorbachev said. "Many people in our country, and in your country, regarded him as the quintessential hawk."
Did Reagan's success in his first term, and the huge build-up of military power that he persuaded Congress to finance, affect the decision of the Soviet Politburo to choose a young and vigorous new leader in 1985 -- someone who could, in effect, stand up to Reagan? "No, I think there was really no connection," he replied, chuckling. He said he was chosen for purely internal reasons that had nothing to do with the United States.
"All that talk that somehow Reagan's arms race forced Gorbachev to look for some arms reductions, etc., that's not serious. The Soviet Union could have withstood any arms race. The Soviet Union could have actually decided not to build more weapons, because the weapons we had were more than enough."
The big change was in Washington, Gorbachev said. "When he [Reagan] was elected to a second term, he, and especially the people close to him, began to think about how he would complete his second term -- by producing more and more nuclear weapons . . . and conducting 'special operations' around the world, etc. etc."
The Soviet leadership, Gorbachev said, evidently referring to himself, concluded that instead, Reagan would "want to go down in history as a peacemaker" and would work with Moscow to do so. "A particularly positive influence on him -- more than anyone else -- was Nancy Reagan," Gorbachev said. "She deserves a lot of credit for that."
Once Reagan decided to try to make peace, he found an eager partner in Moscow, Gorbachev said. "The new Soviet leadership wanted to transform the country, to modernize the country, and we needed stability, we needed cooperation with other countries. . . . And we both knew what kind of weapons we each had. There were mountains of nuclear weapons. A war could start not because of a political decision, but just because of some technical failure. . . .
"A lot of forces on both sides had an interest in prolonging the arms race," Gorbachev added, including military-industrial lobbies on both sides. His predecessors in Moscow had concluded that continuing the race was the only way they could achieve security for the Soviet Union.
But by his new calculation in 1985, the situation was ripe for change. He and his comrades concluded that it was really inconceivable that anyone in the White House actually wanted to blow up the Soviet Union, just as they ruled out the possibility of ever deliberately trying to destroy the United States. So it would make more sense "to find ways to cooperate."
His first meeting with Reagan in Geneva in November 1985, "confirmed the correctness of our assessment of the situation," he continued. This was the first Soviet-American summit in seven years, and it did not begin well. After the first session, he recounted, his comrades asked for his impressions of Reagan. "He's a real dinosaur," Gorbachev quoted himself as saying. "And then I learned," he added, "there was a leak from the American delegation, that . . . Reagan [described] Gorbachev as 'a die-hard Communist.' "
But just a day and a half later, the two men signed an agreement that stated their mutual conviction that nuclear war was unthinkable. They initiated a batch of new cooperative enterprises intended to improve relations. "That was the beginning of hope," Gorbachev said.
At subsequent meetings at Reykjavik the next year, in Washington in 1987 and in Moscow in 1988, relations got better and better. By the time he came to Moscow in 1988, Gorbachev recalled with evident satisfaction, Reagan had changed his views.
"An American reporter asked President Reagan, while we were taking a walk . . . 'Mr. President, do you still regard the Soviet Union as an evil empire?' And Reagan said no."
Staff writer David E. Hoffman contributed to this report.
-------- accidents and safety
Thyroid cancer has increased 12-fold in women since Chernobyl
Roger Dobson,
June 11, 2004
BMJ
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/328/7453/1394-a
Abergavenny - Rates of thyroid cancer among women in Belarus have increased up to 12-fold since the explosion at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, near Kiev, Ukraine, in April 1986.
Among young women aged under 14 in higher risk areas of the republic the rates have increased almost 30-fold since the disaster, new research has shown.
"This study documents dramatic increases in the incidence of thyroid cancer among both higher exposure and lower exposure areas within the republic of Belarus and among all age groups studied," says an "advance access" report of the study published online on 27 May in the International Journal of Epidemiology (www.ije.oupjournals.org ( doi: 10.1093/ije/dyh201[Abstract/Free Full Text])).
It adds: "The magnitude of increases observed is remarkable given the relatively limited time interval since Chernobyl and argues for continued surveillance in Belarus as well as other affected areas."
The explosion at Chernobyl resulted in the release of substantial amounts of radioactive materials over western regions of what was then the Soviet Union, including radioisotopes of iodine, caesium, strontium, and plutonium. The most significant contamination was in Belarus and Ukraine, as well as the western region of the Russian Federation.
The report says that although previous studies of the incidence of thyroid cancer in Belarus have shown an increase since the Chernobyl explosion, the size of the increase is not well quantified.
The authors, from the Roswell Park Cancer Institute, New York, and the Institute of Oncology, Minsk, used data from the Belarus national cancer registry and trends in average annual incidence of thyroid cancer.
The data show big increases since 1986. Between 1980 and 1986, for example, there were 0.15 cases per 100 000 diagnosed in girls aged under 14 in high risk areas. By the period 1997-2001, the rate had gone up to 43.84. Among males of the same age, the rate went up from 0.08 to 18.81.
-------- britain
BNFL losses widen to £303m
David Gow, industrial editor
Friday June 11, 2004
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/nuclear/article/0,2763,1236346,00.html
Losses at BNFL increased last year to £303m after the state-owned nuclear firm was forced to buy mixed oxide fuel from Belgium to meet an order because of problems at its own plant, it emerged yesterday.
John Edwards, finance director, said the purchases from Belgonucléaire and increased equipment spending on the controversial £437m Mox plant had cost BNFL tens of millions. The group made a pre-tax loss of £261m a year earlier.
The plant, which produces fuel from spent plutonium and depleted uranium, was supposed to be up and running in 1996 but has been held up by several judicial reviews and has yet to be commissioned.
But Mike Parker, chief executive, said the plant - which has German and Swiss clients but has yet to win an order from Japan, the biggest user of the fuel - had already produced fuel pellets and rods. "I am hopeful that we will have a good year in commissioning activities on Mox but so far we have not had the revenues from it and have had to spend more on equipment," he said.
Mr Parker, brought in 10 months ago from Dow Chemical, said the increased losses - including an extra £510m spent on clean-up liabilities at Sellafield, the main BNFL site, and more costs at Westinghouse, the US-based nuclear reactor manufacturer - were "disappointing". But he insisted that the group had shown a "dramatic" improvement in its operating performance at several businesses, including at Sellafield.
The bulk of these - and nuclear liabilities of more than £40bn - are due to pass to the government's nuclear decommissioning authority (NDA) next year.
Mr Parker said the Thorp reprocessing plant had handled 671 tonnes last year compared with 502 in 2002-2003 while the Magnox reprocessing plant had handled 1038 tonnes, almost double the previous year's level. Another controversial Sellafield plant, which vitrifies high-level nuclear waste, had dealt with 341 containers against 120 two years ago.
With electricity output from the remaining five Magnox nuclear power stations, due to be closed by 2010, exceeding targets by 5%, Mr Edwards said the operating performance was the best for a decade.
BNFL, in the throes of a corporate restructuring which will see it eventually change its name, will run the Sellafield site and other plants for the NDA but will eventually face competition from the US and Europe.
Last year the rump BNFL, including Westinghouse and excluding what will be NDA-owned businesses, made an operating profit of £200m. Mr Edwards said BNFL could soon be back in profit with positive cashflow and start repaying dividends to the government.
Ministers have scrapped plans to partly privatise BNFL and Mr Parker said there were no proposals yet to sell or float Westinghouse, which made £95m profit and won £1.5bn of new orders. But he indicated this could happen once its balance sheet was stronger.
Sources suggested that ministers might sanction an injection of private equity into New BNFL within two or three years but Greenpeace reiterated its demand for loss-making businesses to be shut. Campaigner Jean McSorley accused BNFL of blaming its losses on historic liabilities when operations, including reprocessing, were simply adding to its liabilities.
----
British nuclear losses continue to rise
June 11, 2004
Bellona (Russia)
http://www.bellona.no/en/energy/nuclear/sellafield/34485.html
British Nuclear Fuels plc, or BNFL, reported this week even larger annual losses-totalling £303m-saying that the cost of running its operations, which include the Sellafield plant in north-western England, have increased.
BNFL claimes start-up costs at the controversial Sellafield MOX Plant is to be blamed for some of the groups economic losses last year. Photo: BNFL Erik Martiniussen, 2004-06-11 14:42
BNFL announced in a Thursday statement that it was posting a loss of £303m for fiscal year 2003-2004-up £42m from fiscal year 2002-2003's posted loss of £261m. Of the £303m loss for 2003-2004, the largest expense-£142m-came from running the group's five oldest Magnox nuclear power stations, all of which are due to close by 2010.
BNFL also blames its loss on start-up costs at the controversial mixed plutonium and uranium oxide, or MOX, fuel manufacturing plant at the Sellafield industrial complex, as well as rising nuclear clean-up costs.
Biggest Challenges
In yesterday's statement, BNFL Group Chief Executive Michael Parker said: "The period since last summer has been one of the most challenging in BNFL's history. The loss sustained by the Group in 2003-2004 is disappointing, but the financial position will change dramatically once the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) takes responsibility for a significant portion of our assets and liabilities as well as the legacy issues."
The total loss for BNFL the previous year was £1.09bn after exceptional charges of £827m, including £415m of extra provisions to cover future decommissioning costs. The scale of the last year's deficits explains why the government of the United Kingdom has decided to take over the group's nuclear decommissioning liabilities.
Next April the NDA will be established as a separate body to provide overall management of clean up at nuclear sites in the UK. More than 40 nuclear reactors have been in operation in the UK, and it is the future decommissioning and clean-up work at these sites, including Sellafield, that the NDA will take charge of.
BNFL has thus established a new stand-alone company to bid for British and international decommissioning contracts, a market estimated to be worth about £3billion a year.
"We've jointly reviewed our strategy with our shareholder (Her Majesty's Government) and welcome the chance to operate in the new competitive UK clean-up marketplace," Parker said in the statement.
Westinghouse, the BNFL group's US nuclear reactor designer and builder, will also be run as a stand-alone company. This will leave it free to be sold, or floated, if the government decides it does not want to retain nuclear construction capacity.
Parker, though, denies that there are plans to sell or float Westinghouse, which last year made a profit of £95million on sales of £1.05billion.
MOX-headache
The prestigious Sellafield MOX Plant, or SMP, is still, however, a headache for the giant state-owned nuclear firm. More than two years after it was commissioned the SMP has yet to produce a single fuel assembly of MOX fuel.
This year BNFL was forced to buy MOX from Belgian nuclear company Belgonucléaire to meet a Swiss contract. John Edwards, finance director at BNFL, told The Guardian today that purchases from Belgonucléaire and increased equipment spending on the £437m MOX plant had cost BNFL tens of millions.
The THORP reprocessing plant at Sellafield has also been highlighted the last three years for a bad performance. Repeated delays in the reprocessing activities at THORP have represented a lasting annoyance to BNFL's customers. Last year THORP handled 671 tonnes of spent nuclear fuel compared with 502 tonnes in 2002-2003. That's an improvement, but the facility is supposed to handle much more if BNFL is to reach customer targets.
-------- india / pakistan
India to prioritise nuclear issue in talks with Pakistan
Friday June 11, 2004
News International, Pakistan
http://jang.com.pk/thenews/jun2004-daily/11-06-2004/main/main6.htm
NEW DELHI: India would give high priority to discussions on the nuclear issues and building confidence with Pakistan during upcoming meetings, Foreign Minister Natwar Singh said on Thursday.
"To me personally, the most important thing on our agenda should be the nuclear dimension because when we (Congress) remitted office in 1996 we (India) were not a nuclear power," Singh said in BBC World's Hardtalk India programme, when asked if the Kashmir dispute was one of the main issues between India and Pakistan.
Singh called for a "new beginning" in bilateral ties. "I would only say that we will appeal and request them (Pakistan) that this road we have travelled over 57 years hasn't produced the results that you want, the results that we want," he said when asked about Pakistan's view that Kashmir should be solved first. "Let's make a new beginning."
Singh said a mutually acceptable solution to Kashmir should be possible despite the difficulties in resolving the problem. "I think it (the solution to the Kashmir dispute) should be, given the goodwill on both sides. I think there should be attempt by both countries, both foreign offices, leaders of both the countries to try and address this thing and say that we have gone on with this for 57 years, at least let's clear the climate. I think public opinion of both countries is far ahead of the governments, that's my own feeling", the minister said.
Responding to a query if the government was open to considering the possibility of alteration of the borders to resolve the Kashmir issue, Singh said "You know we will cross the bridge when we come to it".
On the US role in Indo-Pak context, Singh stated that New Delhi was not averse "to any helpful role" but was against any mediation. "...All we have said (is) that the bedrock of our (Indo-Pak) relations is the Simla agreement and subsequent agreements and this is a bilateral matter". When asked if he considered the US to be a natural ally of India, the minister said: "In many ways yes they could be our ally. We are two democracies, we speak the same language".
Singh described his Pakistani counterpart Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri, with whom he had spoken several times since taking office on May 24, as an "engaging personality and with a great sense of humour". "And he's very forthcoming and I liked his disarming candour."
----
INDIA - Communists Stymie Plans to Send Troops to Iraq
Jun 11, 2004
Ranjit Devraj,
(IPS)
http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=24150
NEW DELHI - Any plan by the Congress Party-led minority government of India to change earlier decisions not to send troops to Iraq have been nipped in the bud by its communist allies, which oppose U.S. dominance in the occupied country.
''There is no change in the situation in Iraq whatsoever. Iraq has been under American occupation for the last 14 months. There is a popular uprising against the brutal occupation,'' said Prakash Karat, member of the politburo of the Marxist Communist Part of India (CPI-M).
Said D Raja, national secretary of the Communist Part of India (CPI), another major component of the powerful Left Front: ''We are clear that Indian troops cannot be allowed to serve under U.S. command.''
For them, the new government scheduled to take over Iraq after Jun. 30 is a 'puppet government'.
The Left Front, which controls 59 seats in India's 543-member Lok Sabha or lower house of Parliament, is not a part of the Congress-led coalition government of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
But it provides it critical support with the specific purpose of keeping the pro-Hindu Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its allies - which ruled India's central government until the April and May elections -- out of power.
Together with the Left Front, the Congress Party had opposed plans by the pro-U.S. government led by the BJP to oblige requests from U.S. President George W Bush last year to send 17,000 Indian troops to bolster the Washington-led effort in Iraq.
Indeed, the Congress Party and its communist friends, while in the opposition, had also compelled Parliament to pass a resolution in April 2003 condemning the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
Soon after taking charge, India's new Foreign Minister Natwar Singh had let it be known that India would be willing to consider sending troops to Iraq under a clear U.N. mandate.
According to news reports, Singh, in Washington to attend the memorial service for former U.S. President Ronald Reagan, indicated to U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell Thursday that New Delhi would review the situation following a U.N. resolution for a ''sovereign interim government'' in Iraq.
''There is a resolution unanimously passed in the United Nations and there are Arab members in it. We will look at it very carefully,'' Singh was quoted as saying at a joint press conference after he and Power emerged from an hour-long meeting. .
Singh, however, did qualify his statement by adding, ''it would be premature for me to say aye or nay''.
As it turned out, Singh's caution was justified. There are now calls for Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to clear all ambiguity on India's position on sending troops to Iraq.
''The government must make it clear that there is no question of sending Indian troops to Iraq to bolster the American occupation," said a CPI-M statement.
Karat said in explanation that the U.N. Security Council resolution for the stationing of a multinational force in Iraq till 2006 did not quite mean that there would be a blue-helmet U.N. peacekeeping force there.
"The U.N. Resolution talks of a multinational force under U.S. command. We want the U.S. and British troops to leave Iraq and the United Nations to take over,'' Karat said.
Karat also pointed out that countries like France, Germany, Russia and Canada have announced they would not be participating in this force.
''There have been no elections and the Iraqis have had no say in the composition of the new government,'' he said.
Singh also came under criticism from Yashwant Sinha, his predecessor as foreign minister. "The Congress (Party) always accused us (BJP) of not having an independent foreign policy, now the people of India have to decide whether or not this is bowing to American pressure," Sinha said.
Any decision by India to send troops to a U.S.-controlled Iraq is also likely to be opposed by human rights groups. They have condemned Washington's policy against that country since the first 1991 Gulf war, when Iraq came under crippling sanctions that affected the health and well-being of the civilian population.
Said P V Unnikrishnan, spokesman for the international People's Health Movement, that is based in the southern Indian city of Bangalore: ''We are appalled by the callous use of depleted uranium (DU) shells in both the wars against Iraq and the authorisation to use torture in a country they (U.S. troops) were supposed to be liberating.''
According to Rajan Abhyankar, a top official in India's foreign ministry and an expert on Iraq, any deployment of Indian troops in Iraq would have to take into account historical contacts between the two countries.
More than 20,000 Indian troops died in Mesopotamia (modern Iraq) in 1915-16 as part of efforts by the colonial British forces to effect a ''regime change'' in what was then a part of the Turkish Ottoman empire.
India is also home to the world's second large Muslim population of 125 million and cannot ignore the sentiments of the large Shiite segment in northern Uttar Pradesh state, members of which regularly undertake pilgrimages to the holy cities of Najaf and Karbala in Iraq.
During the Saddam Hussein regime, cooperation by India included provision of training for Iraqi military officers and fighter pilots. Both countries sourced their weapon platforms from the former Soviet Union.
Wrote commentator on public affairs Saeed Naqvi in an editorial in the 'Indian Express' Friday: ''No other nationality has as much acceptability in Iraq as Indians do. We have friends behind the Green Zone, in the old Baathist establishment, among the Kurds and Southern (Shiites).''
-------- iran
Cleric warns against obstructing Iran nuke
June 11, 2004
Washington Times
http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20040611-112229-7528r.htm
Tehran, Iran, Jun. 11 (UPI) -- One of Iran's most influential ruling clerics said Iran will not give up its right to use peaceful nuclear technology.
"No official in a country like Iran will dare or give himself the right to deprive his people from the benefits of such an important science and great technology, which is a legitimate right," Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani said during a Friday sermon.
"The Islamic Republic of Iran will not yield to blackmail and will not make any concessions on that issue," the Iranian News Agency, IRNA, quoted him as saying.
He said the draft resolution prepared by France, Germany and Britain and the statement by the G8 countries rebuking Iran over its nuclear program "indicate that Europe and the United States agreed on one point and that is to deprive Iran of peaceful nuclear technology."
"If European countries and America decide to deprive Iran of this technology they will regret it for sure," he warned.
Rafsanjani, chairman of the "Assembly to Discern the Interests of the State," is the Islamic Republic's number two man after Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
----
Iran labels G8 criticism of N-program irrational
Friday June 11, 2004
News International, Pakistan
http://jang.com.pk/thenews/jun2004-daily/11-06-2004/world/w5.htm
TEHRAN: Iran labelled as irrational and unreasonable Thursday claims by leaders at the Group of Eight summit that Tehran is failing to fully disclose its nuclear program. Foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Assefi said: "So far, no deviation has been observed in Iran's peaceful nuclear activities, and what is being raised these days about Iran's activities (is aimed) at creating pressures and a climate for propaganda.
"Iran has practically demonstrated its full commitment to the (nuclear) Non-Proliferation Treaty and its safeguard clauses. Iran's broad and transparent cooperation with the (International Atomic Energy Agency) confirms this." He reiterated Tehran's insistence that "the peaceful use of nuclear energy is a legitimate right of Iran.
The Group of Eight nations must not expect Iran to give up this right; rather they should provide Iran with the necessary means to make use of this technology. "These stances are irrational and contradict the realities." At their meeting in Sea Island, Georgia on Wednesday, G8 leaders cited "serious concerns" about North Korea and chastised Iran as they unveiled measures meant to halt the spread of weapons of mass destruction.
The measures aim to curb transfers of nuclear technology; enhance the powers of the IAEA and step up abilities to prevent and respond to biological weapons attacks. The leaders said they were "deeply concerned" about Iran's compliance with IAEA requirements and stressed: "We deplore Iran's delays, deficiencies in cooperation, and inadequate disclosures."
The IAEA board of governors is expected to rap Iran for hiding sensitive atomic activities when it meets in Vienna next week, but not provoke a showdown over Tehran's alleged secret weapons program, diplomats said. The United States looks ready to sign on this time to a British-French-German draft resolution that sharply criticizes Iran for failing to answer questions about alleged nuclear weapons activities but presses for continued cooperation with Tehran, diplomats said.
----
Iran Seeks Changes to IAEA Text on Nuclear Aims
Reuters
Friday, June 11, 2004; 6:23 AM
By Louis Charbonneau
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A33727-2004Jun11?language=printer
VIENNA (Reuters) - Iran said on Friday it wanted changes to a tough draft resolution to be put to the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog rebuking Tehran for failing to cooperate fully with the body.
The United States says Iran's nuclear program is a front to build an atomic bomb, but Tehran denies this. The draft resolution is to be submitted to a meeting of the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) next week.
The draft deplores Iran's failure to cooperate fully with a U.N. investigation into suspicions that Tehran might have a covert nuclear weapons program. Diplomats said Iran wants the word "deplores" removed.
"The draft reflects American and some European countries' stances," Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Hassan Rohani told Iranian state television on Friday.
"If the board does not make necessary changes, it means the Europeans are ignoring their commitments," Rohani said before the meeting of the 35-nation IAEA board starting on Monday. "It will influence Iran's decision (on cooperation)."
But several diplomats said the Iranians were pleased the text contained no trigger mechanism for the board to report Tehran to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions in the event Iran's cooperation remained sluggish.
Iran insists its nuclear ambitions are limited to generating electricity and wants a softening of the draft, which France, Britain and Germany prepared for next week's board meeting. The draft was sent to IAEA board members earlier this week.
Diplomats said Iran also wants to remove a section that calls on Iran to end operation of a uranium conversion facility and reverse its decision to begin construction of a heavy water research reactor that would produce weapons-useable plutonium.
NO DEADLINE
A non-aligned diplomat told Reuters that Iran will have a tough time convincing the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) to soften the resolution, given it is based almost verbatim on a report on Iran prepared by IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei -- although Iran's Rohani denied this.
"We can't be seen to be contradicting (ElBaradei's) report," said the diplomat. European and NAM states make up the majority of the 35-member board.
The diplomats said Washington would probably back the text but disliked the lack of a Security Council trigger or deadlines that would keep up the pressure on Tehran.
Further undermining Iran's support on the board are revelations that Tehran's advanced P-2 centrifuge program may have been planned on a massive scale and not as a tiny "research and development" project as Iran insists, diplomats said.
A senior U.N. inspector told the IAEA board on Thursday that a private Iranian company had expressed interest in "tens of thousands" of magnets for P-2 centrifuges from a European black marketeer, diplomats on the board told Reuters.
The diplomats said "tens of thousands" meant the Iranian firm considered buying at least 20,000.
Since two magnets are required for a single centrifuge, which purifies uranium for use as fuel for power plants or weapons by spinning at supersonic speeds, this would have been enough for at least 10,000 P-2 centrifuges, diplomats said.
"This could produce a significant amount of weapons grade uranium," said one diplomat, adding it would be enough for at least several nuclear warheads a year.
"If it was a small-scale research program, why were they interested in thousands of centrifuges?" another diplomat said.
Iran says the unresolved P-2 question is a "minor" issue.
French, German and British foreign ministers last year struck a deal in Tehran under which Iran agreed to suspend enrichment activities and accept more intrusive, snap IAEA inspections of its nuclear facilities in exchange for a possible exchange of technology.
(Additional reporting by Parisa Hafezi in Tehran)
--------
Iran Seeks Changes to Draft Nuclear Text-Diplomats
Reuters
Friday, June 11, 2004; 5:31 AM
By Louis Charbonneau
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33683-2004Jun11.html
VIENNA (Reuters) - Iran wants changes to a tough draft resolution to be put to the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog rebuking Tehran for failing to cooperate fully with the body, diplomats said on Friday.
The United States says Iran's atomic program is a front to build an atomic bomb, but Tehran denies this. The draft resolution is to be submitted to a meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) next week.
"The Iranians aren't very happy with the draft resolution," said a diplomat from an IAEA governing board member state who attended a meeting with the Iranian delegation on Thursday.
The draft deplores Iran's failure to cooperate fully with a U.N. investigation into suspicions that Tehran might have a covert nuclear weapons program. The diplomats said Iran wants the word "deplores" removed.
But several diplomats said the Iranians were pleased the text contained no trigger mechanism for the board to report Tehran to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions in the event Iran's cooperation remained sluggish.
Iran insists its nuclear ambitions are limited to generating electricity and wants a softening of the draft, which France, Britain and Germany prepared for next week's board meeting.
The draft by the European Union's three biggest states was sent to the 35 nations on the IAEA board earlier this week.
Top Iranian officials in Tehran and Vienna have been publicly silent about the text. The head of Iran's delegation repeatedly declined to comment on the text.
Diplomats said Iran also wants to remove a section that calls on Iran to end operation of a uranium conversion facility and reverse its decision to begin construction of a heavy water research reactor that would produce weapons-useable plutonium.
NO DEADLINE
A non-aligned diplomat told Reuters that Iran will have a tough time convincing the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) to soften the resolution, given it is based almost verbatim on a report on Iran prepared by IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei.
"We can't be seen to be contradicting (ElBaradei's) report," said the diplomat. European and NAM states make up the majority of the 35-member board.
The diplomats said Washington would probably back the text but disliked the lack of a Security Council trigger or deadlines that would keep up the pressure on Tehran.
Further undermining Iran's support on the board are revelations that Tehran's advanced P-2 centrifuge program may have been planned on a massive scale and not as a tiny "research and development" project as Iran insists, diplomats said.
A senior U.N. inspector told the IAEA board on Thursday that a private Iranian company had expressed interest in "tens of thousands" of magnets for P-2 centrifuges from a European black marketeer, diplomats on the board told Reuters.
The diplomats said "tens of thousands" meant the Iranian firm considered buying at least 20,000.
Since two magnets are required for a single centrifuge, which purifies uranium for use as fuel for power plants or weapons by spinning at supersonic speeds, this would have been enough for at least 10,000 P-2 centrifuges, diplomats said.
"This could produce a significant amount of weapons grade uranium," said one diplomat, adding it would be enough for at least several nuclear warheads a year.
"If it was a small-scale research program, why were they interested in thousands of centrifuges?" another diplomat said.
Iran says the unresolved P-2 question is a "minor" issue.
-------- iraq / inspections
Missile engine find stirs concern over Iraq proliferation
ASSOCIATED PRESS
By Edith M. Lederer
June 11, 2004
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20040610-103512-5542r.htm
NEW YORK - Twenty engines from banned Iraqi missiles were found in a Jordanian scrap yard with other equipment that could be used for weapons of mass destruction, a U.N. official said, raising new security questions about Iraq's scrap metal sales since the fall of Saddam Hussein.
Acting chief United Nations inspector Demetrius Perricos revealed the discoveries to the U.N. Security Council in a closed-door briefing Wednesday.
The U.N. team that found the 20 engines was following up on a discovery of a similar al-Samoud 2 engine in a scrap yard in the Dutch port of Rotterdam. Mr. Perricos said inspectors also want to check in Turkey, which also has received scrap metal from Iraq.
Mr. Perricos suggested that the interim Iraqi government, which will assume sovereignty of the country on June 30, may want to reconsider policies for exporting scrap metal that apparently began in mid-2003. The sales are regulated by the U.S.-led coalition.
"The removal of these materials from Iraq raises concerns with regard to proliferation risks ... thereby also rendering the task of the disarmament of Iraq and its eventual confirmation more difficult," Mr. Perricos said.
The missile engines and some other equipment discovered in the scrap yards had been tagged by U.N. weapons monitors because of their potential dual use in legitimate civilian activities as well as banned-weapons production.
Mr. Perricos said in his briefing to the Security Council that U.N. inspectors do not know how much material has been removed from Iraq. But he later told reporters that up to a thousand tons of scrap metal was leaving Iraq every day.
"The only controls at the borders are for the weight of the scrap metal, and to check whether there are any explosive or radioactive materials within the scrap," he said in the briefing.
U.N. inspectors were pulled out of Iraq just before the war began in March 2003, and the United States has refused to allow them to return. Instead, it deployed its own teams to search for weapons of mass destruction.
Mr. Perricos told the council that the 20 SA-2 missile engines were discovered when U.N. experts visited "relevant scrap yards" in Jordan last week.
The U.N. team also discovered some processing equipment with U.N. tags - which show that it was being monitored - including heat exchangers, and a solid propellant mixer bowl to make missile fuel, he said. It also discovered "a large number of other processing equipment without tags, in very good condition."
-------- japan
Discussion of Nuclear Weapons No Longer Taboo in Japan
11 Jun 2004
Steve Herman,
Voice of America
http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=6DB2332A-CAA4-43A0-9EE1AE02822ACC3E
Tokyo - Japan, as the first and only nation to be the target of wartime atomic weapons, has long had what is called a "nuclear allergy." The country has vowed never to produce, introduce or possess nuclear weapons. But recently there has been debate about whether Japan should one day cure itself of that allergy and abandon its post-World War II pacifism.
It had long been taboo for any Japanese politician to discuss the possibility of Japan going nuclear, especially with the country sitting under the protection of the U.S. nuclear umbrella.
As recently as 1999, Defense Agency vice minister, Shingo Nishimura was fired for suggesting there might be nuclear weapons in Japan's future.
In recent years such comments have not been career-ending utterances. And among those making the once taboo statements are not just hawkish members of the conservative governing coalition, but some leading lawmakers in the main opposition party, as well.
The change has come in wake of what are regarded here as hostile intentions by North Korea, its nuclear weapons development program, the test firing of missiles over Japan and clashes between the Japanese Coast Guard and North Korean spy ships.
There is also a rising mood that Japan eventually might not be able to or should not rely on the American nuclear umbrella.
The director of policy studies at Japan's National Institute for Research Advancement, Akiko Fukushima, is an advocate of discussing the nuclear option.
"We shouldn't negate our option to go nuclear," said Akiko Fukushima. "But I do not see any reasonable reasons for Japan to go nuclear at this point of time. If U.S. decides not to provide nuclear deterrence to Japan then [at] that time we have to make a very difficult decision."
Some analysts say the contemporary discussion about a nuclear-armed Japan also results from the perception that countries without such weapons are not being taken seriously on the world stage. Professor Matake Kamiya teaches at Japan's National Defense Academy.
"That kind of attitude taken by major powers in the world could drastically alter the calculation in the minds of the Japanese people," he said.
Public opinion surveys have consistently indicated that around 80 percent of Japanese oppose their country going nuclear, even if the security alliance between Tokyo and Washington were to end.
When he was chief cabinet secretary, Yasuo Fukuda - a longtime confidant of Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi - once commented that "depending upon the world situation, circumstances and public opinion could require Japan to possess nuclear weapons."
Experts have little doubt Japan could quickly produce its own nuclear arsenal, perhaps within a year. Japan's domestic atomic power program is based on reprocessed plutonium. Technology and capital would also not be a problem for the world's second largest economy.
Lawmaker Ichiro Ozawa, now a leading figure in the opposition Democratic Party, has previously warned if China were to be perceived as a nuclear threat to Japan then Tokyo could respond by making "several thousand" nuclear weapons, making the country an unbeatable military power.
But professor Kamiya says despite the potential nuclear threats in the region, there would be little for Japan to gain by having its own such weapons.
"For this country, even militarily, nuclear weapons actually don't bring much benefit," he said. "Because of my argument like this I have been strongly criticized by so-called right wing conservative people in this country."
Professor Kamiya and others argue if Japan turned its back on the nuclear proliferation treaty - which it ratified in 1976 - that would totally destroy its diplomatic legacy of advocating the abolition of such weapons. But there is a loophole in the treaty, allowing a signatory state to withdraw if "extraordinary events" jeopardize its "supreme interests."
Yoshihide Soeya, a professor of political science at Keio University who has been consulting on Japan's 21st century defense goals, agrees there is little point for Japan to have nuclear weapons.
"I can't think of any possibility of Japan actually going nuclear, even though I understand the topic will remain, perhaps, real in the minds of many people," he said.
Japan's government, at least behind the scenes, seems to have less of an aversion to nuclear weapons than stated in its non-nuclear principles. In recent years, secret agreements have been uncovered by researchers showing Tokyo has permitted U.S. nuclear warheads to be kept on Japanese territory and unloaded at American naval bases in the country.
This seeming contradiction can be best explained if one understands the Japanese concepts of "honne" and "tatemae", which are integral parts of social behavior here. Honne is the actual truth of a matter, which is not expressed openly to maintain tranquility. Tatemae is a kind of polite or tactical facade but without the negative ramifications in this society of what non-Japanese might consider deception.
Proponents of the nuclear option seem to be quietly biding their time awaiting changes in the geopolitical situation.
Those on all sides of the argument acknowledge raising the issue in parliament prematurely would polarize the public and paralyze the domestic political process. There is also little doubt it would also ignite a huge diplomatic row with Japan's neighbors and possibly be the catalyst for the likes of South Korea and Taiwan to join a new nuclear arms race.
-------- korea
China doubts US claims about N Korean nuke programme
Friday June 11, 2004
News International, Pakistan
http://jang.com.pk/thenews/jun2004-daily/11-06-2004/world/w2.htm
WASHINGTON: The United States maintained Wednesday that North Korea had been trying to build nuclear bombs using uranium, despite doubts expressed by China. Deputy Chinese foreign minister Zhou Wenzhong in an interview with the New York Times published Wednesday said he doubted US claims that North Korea had an enriched uranium programme and urged Washington to stop using the allegations to hold up nuclear talks.
He said the United States had yet to persuade China that North Korea had both uranium and plutonium programmes to develop fuel for nuclear bombs. The US State Department described Zhou's statement as "puzzling. "We saw the story and, frankly, we find the assistant foreign minister's comments somewhat puzzling," State Department spokesman Richard Boucher told reporters. "We have made clear over time that there is very conclusive information that North Korea has a covert uranium enrichment programme," he said. North Korea had itself acknowledged previously that it was pursuing uranium enrichment, Boucher said.
"They have asserted their so-called right to develop nuclear weapons," he said. "North Korean's nuclear activities represent a clear threat and they violate several important international agreements as well as the commitments that North Korea has made in the past," Boucher said. He pointed out that it was up to the North Koreans to demonstrate that they were willing to "completely and irreversibly abandon their nuclear programmes through a verifiable dismantlement of all the elements of those efforts."
North Korea has acknowledged having a plutonium programme but denies that it is enriching uranium to make nuclear fuel. "We know nothing about the uranium programme," Zhou told the New York Times. "We don't know whether it exists. So far the US has not presented convincing evidence of this programme."
China is hosting key talks to resolve the nuclear crisis in the Korean peninsula. It had hosted two rounds of six-party talks on North Korea's nuclear programme and is preparing to convene a third. Zhou's comments represent a potentially important shift in Beijing's approach to the talks, which China has sought to keep afloat despite scant evidence of progress, the New York Times said.
Though China has longstanding ties to North Korea, it had previously adopted a strongly neutral position in the negotiations, which have now stretched over a year, the newspaper said.
----
US says China shares concerns over North Korean nuclear program
WASHINGTON (AFP)
Jun 11, 2004
http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040611214632.k85ge1l5.html
US Secretary of State Colin Powell voiced concern Friday over North Korea's nuclear program, in a meeting with his Chinese counterpart ahead of multilateral talks to break a 20-month impasse, a US official said.
"We expressed concern about the North Korean nuclear program and China shared those concerns," the official told AFP, speaking on condition of anonymity, after Powell's meeting with Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing.
Li, who has played a key role in China's hosting of two rounds of talks to break the deadlock on the North Korean nuclear question, was in Washington to represent Beijing at the funeral of former US president Ronald Reagan.
"There was a good exchange of views" between the two ministers amid "the strong bilateral relations and excellent partnership," said the official, who listed Taiwan and trade as other key issues in the talks.
Beijing had recently expressed doubts over US claims that North Korea had been trying to build nuclear bombs.
Though China has longstanding ties with North Korea, it had previously adopted a strongly neutral position in the negotiations, which have now stretched over a year.
North Korea has acknowledged having a plutonium program but denies that it is enriching uranium to make nuclear fuel.
Without citing the nuclear issue, a statement issued by the Chinese embassy in Washington noted "effective" consultations and coordination between the United States and China on major regional and international issues.
It quoted Powell as saying at the meeting that "the American side attaches great importance to the important and constructive role China played in international affairs."
Li said "the development of China-US relations is in the common interest of the two countries and conducive to peace and stability of Asia-Pacific and the world at large," the statement said.
The Li-Powell discussions came ahead of a flurry of meetings over the coming days to lay the groundwork for a third round of six-party talks aimed at ending North Korea's nuclear weapons drive, seen as Asia-Pacific's top security threat.
Aside from China, the United States and North Korea, the three other participants in the multilateral talks are Russia, Japan and South Korea.
The nuclear impasse erupted in October 2002 when Washington said North Korea had broken a 1994 nuclear freeze by launching a secret nuclear weapons program.
Pyongyang had reiterated a demand that it be rewarded for giving up its nuclear program, while the US government wants a clear-cut commitment from the North for a complete dismantlement before any compensation can be considered.
Two rounds of six-party talks to defuse the crisis have so far failed to narrow differences.
A third round of talks was expected before the end of this month, ahead of which senior officials from the United States, Japan and South Korea will meet in Washington for "informal consultations," the State Department said.
It said the meetings on Sunday and Monday were "to coordinate positions" for a six-party working group meeting before the main talks.
-------- mideast
How Israel Denied Saddam the Bomb
By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com
June 11, 2004
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13682
Frontpage Interview's guest today is Rodger W. Claire, author of the new book Raid on the Sun - Inside Israel's Secret Campaign that Denied Saddam the Bomb. Mr. Claire tells the story of Israel's elimination of Saddam Hussein's Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981, a reactor undoubtedly constructed for the purpose of creating nuclear weapons. Visit his website at RaidontheSun.com.
FP: Mr. Claire, welcome to Frontpage Interview.
Claire: Thank you for the opportunity to talk to you and your readers.
FP: You are the first author allowed access to the eight pilots and supporting staff involved in the raid. Summarize for us briefly your new findings.
Claire: Well, there were many, many new findings. Most interesting was the pilots' heartbreaking disappointment when the first mission in April was killed at literally the last moment as they were ready for take-off on the runway. The lead wingman Yadlin described it as a knife through the heart. Of course, the mission had been compromised by a rival of Prime Minister Menachem Begin in the Labor Party. Also, it had never been revealed that the mission leader Zev Raz overshot his IP, or the point at which the pilots begin their attack run because the marker was an island in a lake in Western Iraq which had flooded and, thus, was underwater. Also, it was never reported that Israel's most reknowned fighter pilot, Iftach Spector, was suffering from the flu and blacked out over the target, missing the Osirak reactor on his bombing run.
FP: How did you first become interested in this subject?
Claire: I had first learned the details about the raid on Osirak some years after the mission, from a contact I had in the defense industry here in Southern California while I was a senior editor for Los Angeles magazine. I was told that not only had the IAF exceeded design specs for the F-16 during the mission, but that the attack had indeed put an end to Saddam Hussein's ambitions to create an "Arab" bomb.
FP: The Israeli Air Force is famously secretive about its operations. How did you become the first person allowed to interview the pilots and officials involved with the raid?
Claire: Yes, the mission remained classified for nearly two decades, until I saw a short piece in the Los Angeles Times in June 2001 on the 20th anniversary of the raid. I thought then that perhaps the IDF was ready to talk, so I contacted the mission's planner, General David Ivry, who was now the Israeli Ambassador to the United States in Washington, D.C., told him of my background and long interest in the mission and asked if I could interview him for a book. He said yes, and we set up a meeting for September 6 & 7, 2001. I held some eight hours of interviews with Ivry and managed to ask enough intelligent questions to establish a rapport. The Israeli Press secretary, Mark Regev, then suggested I talk to Brig. Gen. Rani Falk, the embassy military attaché, who turned out to be one of the backup mission pilots. Gen. Falk eventually put me in touch with mission commander Zev Raz who supplied me with the telephone numbers of all eight pilots. I contacted all the pilots and booked a flight to Israel.
FP: Certain Ronald Reagan cabinet members were outraged that the Israelis used American-made F-16s for the raid. Why? And how did Reagan react?
Claire: Yes, Secretary of State Alexander Haig, who called the raid "reckless" and Defense Sec Caspar Weinberger both thought Israel should be subject to some kind of official rebuke. U.N. Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick approved a U.N. resolution condemning the attack. In the end, further F-16 sales to Israel were suspended (at least for a few months). As for Reagan, he rolled his eyes as his cabinet ministers railed about the raid and, when he saw the satellite photographs of the pinpoint destruction of the Osirak reactor, he declared, "What a terrific piece of bombing."
FP: You encountered difficulty selling the publication rights in Europe. What happened?
Claire: Every European publisher, including Britain, France, Italy, and Spain, passed on the rights to the book, having never even seen the galleys. Stunned, my agents, The Robbins Office, made inquiries and were told that European readers shied away from anything that put Israeli in a positive light. The publishers were not so much pro-Palestinian as anti-Israeli. But it is no secret that a new wave of anti-Semitism is moving through Europe, fuelled by the European Left and the huge Muslim immigrant populations. Obviously, my book became a victim of that. It is not a political book, it is an exciting, pulse-pounding military tale, revealing what incredible feats a human being can accomplish in the most impossible of circumstances, and that faith and teamwork and duty can overcome almost any obstacle - or any tyrant.
FP: Why do you think anti-Semitism is sweeping through Europe again? And why do you think Jew-hatred has become the new call of the Left?
FP: Why do you think anti-Semitism is sweeping through Europe again? And why do you think Jew-hatred has become the new call of the Left?
Claire: Two reasons: First, the European Left sees the Palestinians as an oppressed and occupied people - and Israel as a bully state that has killed far too many civilians. The socialists have always gravitated to the Arab side, seeing the region as being exploited by imperialist powers which prop up dictatorships and kingdoms. Of course, they don't take into account that tribal groups being governed by strongmen or principalities has been a millennia old reality in Arabian politics, in existence long before the West came to the Middle East. It also fails to realize that the so-called Palestinian street supports terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah who both have committed to eliminating the "Zionist" state and, thus, have brought any talk of a two-state settlement to a halt.
Furthermore, it can be easily argued that Europe's so-called intelligentsia has long been mildly anti-Semitic, drawing from a strain of mistrusting the Jews which dates back to the Middle Ages. Both Vichy France and Nazi Germany exposed the underbelly of this long festering prejudice. In addition, the influx of Middle Eastern emigrants into Europe has also sparked local acts of anti-Semitism, conducted by groups who have brought their long hatred of Israel with them into the West.
Ironically, my background is French Catholic. But the truth is the truth, regardless of your ethnic and religious background.
FP: What exactly was the relationship between French President Jacques Chirac and Saddam Hussein?
Claire: Their relationship reached back 30 years, when Chirac was French Prime Minister. He first visited Baghdad in 1974, when he and the Iraqi leader worked out a far-reaching trade agreement which made France Iraq's number one trading partner, along with the Soviet Union, later Russia.
The initial deal called for France to sell Iraq a state-of-the-art nuclear reactor that produced enriched uranium as a by-product and which could easily be converted to weapons-grade plutonium. Iraq agreed to pay twice the "list price" for the Osiris reactor, or $300 million. In return, Iraq would sell France 70 million barrels of oil a year at fixed market price, buy 100,000 Peugots and Citroens, in lots of 50,000, hundreds of Mirage fighter planes, sophisticated French radar and anti-aircraft systems. A side agreement also contracted French developers to build a billion dollar resort on the lake at Habbaniya. The deal was sealed when Hussein visited France in 1975, feted as an esteemed internation leader by the French Republic.
The military sales to Iraq would continue up until the Coalition invaded Iraq in March 2003.
FP: How would the world look if the Israelis did not destroy the Osirak reactor?
Claire: The first coalition may have been much more reluctant to come to the aid of Kuwait in '91 had Saddam Hussein had a nuclear bomb. There is no question he was mad enough to use it. He certainly could have used a threat of a bomb to intimate Saudi Arabia, Iran and other neighbors, changing the balance of power in the Middle East. Would Israel have then let him build more bombs, or would they feel threatened enough to cause a nuclear stand-off? They ramifications are chilling, the options all deadly.
FP: What strategy do you think the U.S. should now pursue in the War on Terror in general and the war in Iraq in particular?
Claire: I believe the solution is two-fold. Number one, we need to defeat the present terrorist cells militarily, both in Iraq and Afghanistan. We need to pressure Pakistan to do even more on its Western tribal frontiers, which harbor al-Qaeda and Taliban militants, perhaps as many as a thousand. Number two, in the long run, we need to engage the European community and the Middle Eastern rulers to reform the madrassas and radical mosques, where extreme Muslim fundamentalism is taught, almost by rote, and instilled into each succeeding generation, creating a breeding ground of new terrorist recruits. This will call for some liberalization of educational doctrine, loosening governments' tight control on the press and media and reforming the autocracy of nations like Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, the Arab Emirates, Yemen, et. al.
FP: Mr. Clarie, we are out of time. Thank you for joining us.
Claire: Thank you as well Jamie.
-------- russia
Russia Hails G-8 Summit As Security Boost
By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV
The Associated Press
Friday, June 11, 2004; 4:02 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34813-2004Jun11.html
MOSCOW - Russia's Foreign Ministry on Friday hailed the summit of the Group of Eight top industrialized nations, saying its decisions would strengthen global security.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Yakovenko said the G-8's decisions on combating global terrorism and preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction were of particular importance. At the G-8 summit on Sea Island, Ga., the United States won agreement for a one-year freeze on the sale of enrichment equipment that can be used for making nuclear weapons.
"The leaders made important decisions in the context of strengthening the nonproliferation regime," Yakovenko said.
At the same time, Yakovenko reaffirmed Russia's intention to continue nuclear cooperation in Iran.
Russia's $800 million contract to build the Bushehr reactor in southern Iran has drawn years of protests from the United States, which fears the project could help the country build nuclear weapons.
Moscow has dismissed the U.S. concerns, but says it will not ship fuel for the reactor until it signs an agreement with Iran on the return of all spent fuel back to Russia - a measure aimed at preventing it being reprocessed into material for nuclear weapons.
Retired Gen. Vladimir Dvorkin, a top nuclear arms expert during Soviet times, said Russia couldn't drop the Bushehr contract for political reasons.
"Abandoning cooperation with Iran would very badly hurt Russian President Vladimir Putin's authority, and that is even more significant than economic losses," Dvorkin said at a conference.
Alexei Arbatov, a prominent Russian military expert who heads the Center for Global Security, said the international community must reach a deal with Iran to fully dismantle its uranium enrichment program in exchange for keeping the Bushehr nuclear plant and getting Western investments.
Arbatov said global nonproliferation controls had been undermined by commercial interests, which led to leaks of sensitive technologies to countries aspiring to become nuclear powers.
He said controls must be tightened by forcing all non-nuclear nations that signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to open their territories to unlimited inspections by United Nations nuclear experts.
-------- terrorism
Internet Nukes
by Gordon Prather,
June 11, 2004
Antiwar.com
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/prather.php?articleid=2796
Two years ago Jose Padilla was arrested for allegedly being sent back here by al-Qaeda "to reconnoiter potential sites" for detonating a radiological dispersal device - sometimes referred to as a "dirty bomb." President Bush promptly designated Padilla an "enemy combatant" and he has been confined to a military prison ever since.
Because the issue of Padilla's confinement is now before the Supreme Court, Deputy Attorney General Comey decided he'd better "brief" the rest of us - including Justice Sandra Day O'Connor - on what military interrogators have got their imprisoned "enemy combatant" to reveal about his sojourn with Al-Qaeda.
According to Comey;
"At that border, Padilla met Abu Zubaida for the first time. Abu Zubaida, one of the most important and powerful members of al-Qaeda, was in charge at that border of sorting fighters into two groups: those who should continue on and be relocated to Pakistan and those who should be sent back into Afghanistan.
"Padilla says it was at the place in Faisalabad that he and a new accomplice, a new partner, approached Abu Zubaida with an operation in which they proposed to travel to the United States to detonate a nuclear improvised bomb that they had learned to make from research on the Internet.
"Padilla says Zubaida was skeptical about the idea of them building and deploying a nuclear bomb, but nonetheless told them he would send them on to see Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, also known as KSM, the operational leader of al-Qaeda and the mastermind behind September 11.
"We know separately that Zubaida did think the nuclear bomb idea was not feasible but he did think as well that another kind of radiological device was very feasible: uranium wrapped with explosives to create a dirty bomb. Zubaida believed this was feasible and encouraged Padilla and his accomplice to pursue it."
Now that you know that, think back a year, to a Washington Times report that sent shock waves across the country and around the world, headlined "CIA says al-Qaeda ready to use nukes."
The accompanying story by investigative reporter Bill Gertz was even more frightening than the headline. Gertz began, "Al-Qaeda terrorists and related groups are set to use chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in deadly strikes, according to a new CIA report."
Wow! It wasn't just al-Qaeda. And it wasn't just getting nuked in our jammies. There were other "related" terrorist groups out there, ready to strike us with chemical and biological weapons, as well as nukes.
Of course, Gertz never tells us where he gets his "secret" information. He claims his "sources" insist on remaining anonymous. But if he says he read it in a "CIA report" - presumably highly classified - then you've just got to believe that Gertz actually read the report and understood what it said.
Certainly no CIA official could have been expected to come forward to either confirm or deny what Gertz had reported. If classified, that would be against the law.
Unfortunately for Gertz, he based his story last year on a CIA document that was not classified and his characterization of what it said was wildly inaccurate.
So wildly inaccurate that, later that same day, the CIA posted the entire document - "Terrorist CBRN: Materials and Effects" - on its website, with the following disclaimer at the top and bottom:
"Please note: This pamphlet contains a summary of typical agents and CBRN [Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear] devices available to al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. It is not intended to be a summary of the overall threat from al-Qaeda's CBRN program."
So, this particular CIA document was just an information pamphlet. It was undated. Unclassified. The sort of thing that was intended to be passed out at "homeland security" public meetings.
Here is what the pamphlet says about Al-Qaeda and 'dirty bombs':
"Al-Qaeda is interested in radiological dispersal devices (RDDs) or 'dirty bombs.' Construction of an RDD is well within its capabilities as radiological materials are relatively easy to acquire from industrial or medical sources."
Nowhere did it say - as Gertz said it did - that "al-Qaeda terrorists and related groups are set to use chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in deadly strikes."
Why bring up this embarrassing and discrediting report by Gertz, now? Well, one of the things the CIA information pamphlet actually did say was, "A document recovered from an al-Qaeda facility in Afghanistan contained a sketch of a crude nuclear device."
Now who do you suppose made that sketch?
-------- treaties
G8 Nations to Stem Nuclear Proliferation, Encourage Recycling
June 11, 2004
SAVANNAH, Georgia, (ENS)
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2004/2004-06-11-02.asp
While much of this year's G8 summit on Sea Island, Georgia concerned Iraq and combatting terrorism, the leaders of the world's eight most industrialized nations signed off on several measures to safeguard the environment and stop the spread of nuclear materials. The leaders of the United States, Germany, France, Japan, Italy, Canada, United Kingdom, and Russia pledged to reduce waste, encourage recycling, and reduce trade barriers for recycled and remanufactured products.
Winding up their meeting on Thursday, the G8 leaders adopted an action plan on nuclear nonproliferation that advances what they called "an ambitious global nonproliferation agenda."
President George W. Bush said, "G8 nations have agreed to my proposal to establish a special committee within the International Atomic Energy Agency that will focus intensively on safeguards and verification. We're calling on all nations to sign and implement the additional protocol which will expand the IAEA's ability to inspect nuclear activities and facilities."
"We agreed that over the next year, our nations will not initiate any new transfers of uranium enrichment and reprocessing technology to additional nations, as we work toward a permanent means to keep these materials out of the hands of outlaw nations seeking nuclear weapons," the President said.
"And the G8 agreed for the first time," he said, "to take concrete steps to expand national and international capabilities to prevent, protect, and respond to attacks with biological weapons."
The G8 Leaders committed to:
- Expand the work of the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), which now includes all G8 members, to disrupt and dismantle proliferation networks, such as that of A.Q. Khan, and coordinate enforcement efforts
- Refrain for one year from initiating new transfers of enrichment and reprocessing equipment and technology to additional states, while working to implement permanent controls before the 2005 G8 Summit to keep this equipment from terrorists or states seeking to use it to manufacture nuclear weapons.
- Support full implementation of the U.N. Security Council Resolution 1540 to criminalize proliferation activities, establish effective export controls, and protect proliferation-sensitive materials. The resolution was proposed by President Bush in September 2003, and passed unanimously in April 2004.
The G8 leaders said they will strengthen International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) by supporting universal adoption of the IAEA Additional Protocol, which expands the UN agency's tools to verify nuclear activity, and making it an essential new standard for nuclear supply.
The leaders support establishment of a new Special Committee of the IAEA Board of Governors to focus on safeguards and verification; and they urged states under IAEA investigation not to participate in decisions regarding their cases.
The G8 agreed to expand the Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction by welcoming Australia, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Ireland, New Zealand, and the Republic of Korea as new donors and reaffirming the commitment to provide up to $20 billion for the Global Partnership through 2012.
They will be working to bring other former Soviet states into the Global Partnership, and using the Global Partnership to coordinate nonproliferation projects in Libya, Iraq, and other countries.
Three countries were considered to be "nonproliferation challenges" that the G8 leaders stated common positions on:
- North Korea : the G8 called for the complete, verifiable, and irreversible dismantlement of North Korea 's nuclear programs, and expressed support for the Six-Party Process.
- Iran : the G8 were united in urging Iran to comply fully with its Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty obligations and all IAEA Board requirements.
- Libya : the G8 welcomed Libya 's strategic decision to eliminate its WMD and longer-range missile programs.
And for the first time, the G8 declared that they will take concerted action against bioterrorism and radiological weapons. They intend to expand and improve national and international capabilities to detect, prevent, and respond to biological attacks. And they will be strengthening export and import controls on radioactive sources that could be used to make a "dirty bomb," they stated.
The G8 leaders met with the heads of government from six African nations to discuss their ongoing work to improve health care, institute reform and build prosperity for their peoples, as reflected in their commitment to the New Partnership for Africa's Development.
Wrapping up the summit, President Bush told reporters Thursday, "We moved forward on our common efforts to make the world not only safer, but better. We launched a new effort to train and equip 75,000 peacekeepers over the next five years to help bring stability and security to troubled regions, with an initial focus on the continent of Africa.
The G8 agreed to establish the Global HIV Vaccine Enterprise to accelerate the efforts of scientists to defeat HIV/AIDS, and pledged to rid the world of polio, which this year surged back into African countries from which it had been eradicated.
The G8 leaders pledged to break the cycle of famine in the Horn of Africa where civil strife, and cycles of drought and flooding have created an ongoing sitution of food insecurity.
"Over the long-term," said President Bush, "trade is the most certain path to lasting prosperity. Free and fair trade is the key engine of growth in the world. And as with spur growth in our own countries, we must continue to reduce the trade barriers that are an obstacle to growth in the developing world."
"G8 nations reaffirmed our commitment to the success of the Doha Round of WTO trade negotiations," the President said. "We directed our trade ministers to take action to get the negotiations back on track toward a successful conclusion."
The G8 leaders say they will launch a plan in 2005 that will encourage the more efficient use of resources and materials.
The "Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle Initiative" will seek to reduce waste, encourage recycling, reduce barriers to trade in goods and materials for recycled and remanufactured products, and promote science and technology on these transformation technologies, the G8 said in a statement issued Thursday.
The initiative will be formally launched next spring at a ministerial meeting hosted by the government of Japan.
The leaders will encourage their peoples to reduce waste, reuse and recycle resources and products "to the extent economically feasible," they said in a statement. They pledged to promote science and technology that will further the 3Rs.
They stated their intention to reduce barriers to the international flow of goods and materials for recycling and remanufacturing, recycled and remanufactured products, and cleaner, more efficient technologies, as long as these measures are consistent with existing environmental and trade obligations.
Cooperation among central governments, local governments, the private sector, NGOs and communities will be encouraged, including voluntary and market-based activities.
These leaders of wealthy countries promised to cooperate with developing countries in such areas as capacity building, raising public awareness, human resource development and implementation of recycling projects.
The leaders noted progress made over the last year on their previous commitments to encourage cleaner and more efficient energy, eliminate trade barriers to environmental goods and services, and provide global solutions to global agricultural problems.
In the year since their last summit at Evian, France in 2003, the G8 leaders said they have made progress towards sustainability.
They have: # Launched the International Partnership for a Hydrogen Economy (IPHE). Developing and implementing IPHE Implementation-Liaison Committee work plan.
# Launched the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum (CSLF).
# Working to approve first set of CSLF projects, taking into account environmental assessments, and various countries' developing or supporting complementary technologies for low emission or zero emission coal-fired power plants.
# Supported and advanced international cooperation to facilitate wider use of renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies through such initiatives as the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership (REEEP) and the Bonn International Conference for Renewable Energies.
# Those countries that will continue to use nuclear energy and that are members of the Generation IV International Forum (GIF) drafted multilateral arrangements on next-generation nuclear energy technologies. Work continuing on six high priority next generation nuclear energy systems.
The leaders said they intend to work ongoing through the World Trade Organization's Doha Development Agenda to reduce or eliminate trade barriers to environmental goods and services.
The Global Observation System is considered a powerful tool for gathering environmental information. In the year since the last G8 summit, much has been done.
# They have held the First and Second Earth Observation Summits and adopted a Framework document on a Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS).
The G8 nations, among other countries, are planning to adopt a final 10 year strategic implementation plan on GEOSS at the Third Earth Observation Summit in 2005 and are working to identify the international mechanism to pr
ovide coordination and oversight for a Global Earth Observation System of Systems. In matters of agriculture and biodiversity, the leaders say they have made progress such the Evian Summit. They have:
- Provided technical solutions to global agricultural problems at the Ministerial Conference and Expo on Agriculture Science and Technology. Action on partnerships, policies and applications are planned for the Ministerial Conference on Harnessing Science and Technology to Improve Agricultural Productivity in Africa.
- Partnered with the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research, African Agricultural Technology Forum, and other existing structures at different levels, to improve agricultural technology use and productivity in Africa and other poor regions so as to promote "hardier crops for healthier people" respecting biodiversity protection.
- Brought the International Treaty for Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture into force. Seeking to accelerate negotiations over a standard material transfer agreement to facilitate the treaty's implementation.
- Made preparations for the Paris Conference on Biodiversity to be held in January 2005.
- Promoted sustainable forest management and control of illegal logging through Asia Forest Partnership, Congo Basin Forest Partnership among others.
The G8 began with a 1975 Summit in France of six countries - France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, the United States. Canada joined the group at the San Juan Summit of 1976, and the European Community began participation at the London Summit of 1977. Starting with the 1994 Naples Summit, Russia attended the political sessions and at the 1998 Birmingham Summit, Russia began participating in all sessions.
The Presidency of the G8, and responsibility of hosting the G8 Summit, rotates each year. Italy hosted the G8 Summit in Genoa in 2001, Canada hosted in Kananaskis in 2002, and France hosted in Evian in 2003. The United Kingdom will host the G8 Summit in 2005 and Russia will host in 2006.
----
Too Slow on Nukes
Friday, June 11, 2004
Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A33101-2004Jun10?language=printer
THE GROUP OF EIGHT industrialized nations took a couple of steps at their summit meeting in Georgia this week to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Urged on by the Bush administration, the leaders of Europe, Japan, Canada and Russia agreed to a one-year moratorium on supplying equipment for producing fissile material to countries that do not already have it. Mr. Bush seeks a permanent ban, which will be discussed in the coming months. The G-8 also announced seven new participants in its program for funding the securing of nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union and agreed to press more non-nuclear countries to accept expanded inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The various initiatives followed several recent steps by the Bush administration -- including a new $450 million program to collect enriched uranium and plutonium from 40 countries around the world -- that have added momentum to its efforts to prevent the spread of nukes to nations or terrorist groups.
This progress nevertheless looks paltry in comparison with recent developments in the opposite direction. Both North Korea and Iran appear to be continuing with nuclear weapons development, overcoming ineffective containment efforts by the Bush administration and oft-divided groups of its allies. Next week the IAEA board will meet to consider a report that a formal Iranian commitment to freeze work on enriching uranium was never honored. It's not clear that all the nuclear equipment secretly produced and traded by the Pakistan-based network of Abdul Qadeer Khan has been tracked down: Some seems to have disappeared. Evidence has emerged, meanwhile, that North Korea already has exported nuclear technology, to Libya. Though Libya is dismantling its program, there is an obvious danger that North Korea will sell bombs or the technology for them to others. It's easy to fault the ineffective strategies for these threats pursued by the Bush administration or, in the case of Iran, by European governments. But it's also unclear whether any approach, from negotiation to military action, would succeed -- though the effort at containment must go on.
What's odd in such circumstances is the relative sluggishness with which the world has attacked the part of the nuclear menace that is relatively easier to deal with, if equally frightening: that of "loose nukes" and the materials needed to make them. All the elements needed to manufacture a nuclear weapon are readily available in global markets, save the fissile core of highly enriched uranium or plutonium -- and hundreds of tons of these materials are stored under insecure conditions in the nations of the former Soviet Union and other countries. A decade-old U.S. program has safeguarded only 20 percent of the material in Russia and less than that elsewhere. According to a recent report by a team of Harvard University researchers, less fissile material was secured in the two years after Sept. 11, 2001, than in the two years before the attacks.
Though it is working harder at securing the loose nukes, the Bush administration is still giving this effort a fraction of the resources it is spending to deploy a missile defense system against a threat -- a rogue state with an intercontinental missile -- that does not currently exist. At the current rate of work, it will take 13 years to secure the remaining bomb-grade material in the former Soviet Union and more than a decade to collect it from other countries. Mr. Bush's challenger, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), has laid out a plan to complete the same job within four years. The president could help his own political cause as well as U.S. security by matching that commitment.
----
The Eight spoke loudly, and did little
Friday, June 11, 2004
Graham Allison
IHT
http://www.iht.com/articles/524499.html
Loose nukes
CAMBRIDGE , Massachusetts The summit meeting of the Group of Eight leaders was declared a success by the White House, as measured by its own yardsticks. In a week that began with a UN Security Council resolution endorsing the transfer of sovereignty to the new Iraqi leadership, the G-8 meeting gave an impression of solidarity and seriousness as leaders addressed the world's most important challenges.
The image of Ronald Reagan overshadowed the event. As president, Reagan identified his overriding challenge as preventing nuclear war. In his oft-quoted one-liner: "A nuclear war cannot be won and must therefore never be fought." Following that insight, he pursued a strategy for victory in the cold war without the nuclear war of which Americans would have been among the first victims.
At their meeting two years ago in Canada, the G-8 leaders identified the post-cold war equivalent of Reagan's specter, declaring the nexus of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction "the pre-eminent threat to international security." To combat this threat, they established a "Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction." Other G-8 members pledged $1 billion a year over the next decade to match U.S. commitments to secure nuclear weapons and materials in Russia. At their summit meeting last year in France, the G-8 nations reaffirmed this pledge and announced an action plan to move the effort forward.
At Sea Island, Georgia, the leaders unveiled a new initiative to freeze for one year transfers of enrichment and reprocessing technology to Iran, but they ducked the issue of measures of their performance in fulfilling pledges made in the previous two years. The press compliantly accepted its assigned role as Greek chorus, reporting what the leaders said without comparing rhetoric to real action. Had they done so, their report card on the G-8 would show poor performance:
Fewer former Soviet "near-nukes" - lumps of highly enriched uranium and plutonium from which a terrorist could make a nuclear weapon - have been secured in the two years since Sept. 11, 2001, than in the two years before that date.
Only one-fifth of Russia's weapons-usable fissile material has been adequately secured.
Of Russia's fissile material stockpile, 57 percent - enough for more than 20,000 nuclear weapons - has not received the most basic security upgrades.
Hundreds of potential nuclear weapons of highly enriched uranium will remain at risk in developing and transitional countries for the next 10 years.
Responsible leaders who actually believed that a threat was "pre-eminent" would move on the fastest technically feasible timetable to combat it. In contrast, the actions taken by G-8 nations since announcing their global partnership two years ago have been lackadaisical and unfocused.
Two measures of urgency - money and personal presidential attention - demonstrate this worrisome reality. The 2002 global partnership pledged $20 billion over 10 years, one half from the United States, the other half from other members. That amounts to $2 billion per year from countries that produce 70 percent of the world's gross domestic product. Even by that standard, the global partnership has yet to reach its goal of $20 billion in pledges, and has spent less than half a billion, excluding the existing U.S. programs. Compare this with the more than $100 billion that the United States has spent on Iraq in the past year.
The absence of direct personal involvement by Presidents George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin and other G-8 leaders belies any sense of priority. None of these men has sent a lightning bolt through his own bureaucracy or actively engaged his counterparts to resolve bureaucratic logjams.
In 2000, for instance, the United States and Russia signed an agreement to remove the threat of 68 tons of Russian weapons-grade plutonium. In the three years since the agreement, how many tons have been destroyed? Zero. Liability and access disputes continue to hold up the project, and less than half of the $2 billion required to do the job has been pledged.
At the current rate, the global partnership will not secure Russia's loose nukes until 2017. If the material for the terrorist bomb that blows up in Paris or Moscow or New York in 2005 is scheduled to be secured in 2008, voters will look back at the elegant language of multiple G-8 summit meetings and wonder why it was so hard to translate those words into action.
Graham Allison is director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government.
CAMBRIDGE , Massachusetts The summit meeting of the Group of Eight leaders was declared a success by the White House, as measured by its own yardsticks. In a week that began with a UN Security Council resolution endorsing the transfer of sovereignty to the new Iraqi leadership, the G-8 meeting gave an impression of solidarity and seriousness as leaders addressed the world's most important challenges.
The image of Ronald Reagan overshadowed the event. As president, Reagan identified his overriding challenge as preventing nuclear war. In his oft-quoted one-liner: "A nuclear war cannot be won and must therefore never be fought." Following that insight, he pursued a strategy for victory in the cold war without the nuclear war of which Americans would have been among the first victims.
At their meeting two years ago in Canada, the G-8 leaders identified the post-cold war equivalent of Reagan's specter, declaring the nexus of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction "the pre-eminent threat to international security." To combat this threat, they established a "Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction." Other G-8 members pledged $1 billion a year over the next decade to match U.S. commitments to secure nuclear weapons and materials in Russia. At their summit meeting last year in France, the G-8 nations reaffirmed this pledge and announced an action plan to move the effort forward.
At Sea Island, Georgia, the leaders unveiled a new initiative to freeze for one year transfers of enrichment and reprocessing technology to Iran, but they ducked the issue of measures of their performance in fulfilling pledges made in the previous two years. The press compliantly accepted its assigned role as Greek chorus, reporting what the leaders said without comparing rhetoric to real action. Had they done so, their report card on the G-8 would show poor performance:
Fewer former Soviet "near-nukes" - lumps of highly enriched uranium and plutonium from which a terrorist could make a nuclear weapon - have been secured in the two years since Sept. 11, 2001, than in the two years before that date.
Only one-fifth of Russia's weapons-usable fissile material has been adequately secured.
Of Russia's fissile material stockpile, 57 percent - enough for more than 20,000 nuclear weapons - has not received the most basic security upgrades.
Hundreds of potential nuclear weapons of highly enriched uranium will remain at risk in developing and transitional countries for the next 10 years.
Responsible leaders who actually believed that a threat was "pre-eminent" would move on the fastest technically feasible timetable to combat it. In contrast, the actions taken by G-8 nations since announcing their global partnership two years ago have been lackadaisical and unfocused.
Two measures of urgency - money and personal presidential attention - demonstrate this worrisome reality. The 2002 global partnership pledged $20 billion over 10 years, one half from the United States, the other half from other members. That amounts to $2 billion per year from countries that produce 70 percent of the world's gross domestic product. Even by that standard, the global partnership has yet to reach its goal of $20 billion in pledges, and has spent less than half a billion, excluding the existing U.S. programs. Compare this with the more than $100 billion that the United States has spent on Iraq in the past year.
The absence of direct personal involvement by Presidents George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin and other G-8 leaders belies any sense of priority. None of these men has sent a lightning bolt through his own bureaucracy or actively engaged his counterparts to resolve bureaucratic logjams.
In 2000, for instance, the United States and Russia signed an agreement to remove the threat of 68 tons of Russian weapons-grade plutonium. In the three years since the agreement, how many tons have been destroyed? Zero. Liability and access disputes continue to hold up the project, and less than half of the $2 billion required to do the job has been pledged.
At the current rate, the global partnership will not secure Russia's loose nukes until 2017. If the material for the terrorist bomb that blows up in Paris or Moscow or New York in 2005 is scheduled to be secured in 2008, voters will look back at the elegant language of multiple G-8 summit meetings and wonder why it was so hard to translate those words into action.
Graham Allison is director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government.
-------- u.s. nuc weapons
West must cut its N-arsenals
By Madeleine Albright & Robin Cook
June 11 2004
Hi Pakistan
http://www.hipakistan.com/en/detail.php?newsId=en67478&F_catID=&f_type=source
The time has come to prevent the nightmare scenario of a nuclear attack. The rhetoric of international leaders about the spread of nuclear weapons and materials has not been matched by enough concrete action , even as Osama bin Laden declares that it is his "religious duty" to acquire and use a nuclear weapon against the west.
As the G8 leaders meet in Sea Island, Georgia, we urge them to put aside their differences over Iraq and unite to implement a comprehensive non-proliferation strategy that includes concrete steps and increased financial commitments to control the spread of bomb-making materials and thwart the ambitions of those who would acquire them.
First, the G8 nations - Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, Britain and the United States - must fulfil their pledge to raise $20bn to fund the G8 global partnership against the spread of weapons and materials of mass destruction.
Still $3bn short, this important effort helps Russia and other countries safely store and dispose of chemical and nuclear weapon materials. Even if the pledges were fulfilled, there still would not be enough money to get the job done.
Securing the nuclear legacy of Russia alone will cost $30bn, and there are other stockpiles of inadequately secured highly enriched uranium and weapons-grade plutonium around the world.
Presidents George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin have launched a programme designed to secure fissile materials across the globe. But their plan will take 10 years to complete, during which time terrorists will still be able to collect fissile materials for a bomb.
Our second recommendation therefore is that the G8 should commit itself to a far more aggressive timetable - within the next four or five years - for completing this important work.
Third, the G8 nations must bring to bear all the incentives and sanctions they have at their disposal to stop proliferation. This includes closing the nuclear nonproliferation treaty loophole that enables states like North Korea to develop nuclear weapons under the cover of programmes to produce nuclear energy.
Fourth, the G8 leaders should pledge themselves to active, person-to-person diplomacy that can help reduce the regional tensions that could lead to the use of nuclear weapons.
For example, the scaling back of the nuclear threat between India and Pakistan may have opened the door to further steps to reduce the risks of a nuclear exchange.
Fifth, the leaders must commit their nations to develop and maintain a global network linking intelligence and export control efforts with border, port and airport security to ensure that nuclear materials and technology cannot be moved undetected.
Finally, although France, Russia, Britain and the United States have taken good steps to reduce their nuclear arsenals, more must be done. A failure in this regard would encourage states that do not have nuclear weapons to rebel against non- proliferation norms out of dissatisfaction with what they perceive to be a double standard: some states get nuclear weapons, while others do not.
We call on President Bush and the United States, therefore, to stop developing new nuclear weapons such as the so-called bunker-buster. The United States should also sign the comprehensive test ban treaty.
Together, the United States and Britain should support a fissile materials cut-off treaty that would end the production of fissile materials for use in nuclear weapons.
Given their nuclear weapons capacities, the US and European countries have a special responsibility to ensure that these terrible weapons do not spread further. Before they can fulfil this responsibility, however, they must be seen as credible proponents of nuclear non-proliferation.
The steps described here would help restore credibility to the calls for global nuclear non-proliferation, and enable the US and Europe to exercise the leadership that is so desperately needed to fight proliferation.
Imagine the G8 meeting that would follow a nuclear incident. The leaders of the industrialized world would be compelled to explain how such a terrible tragedy could have happened. It is their challenge - and responsibility - to take the necessary steps now to protect us all. -Dawn/The Guardian News Service.
(These proposals were developed by Building Global Alliances for the 21st Century; the article first appeared in the Los Angeles Times. Madeleine Albright is a former US secretary of state, Robin Cook, British MP, resigned as foreign secretary over the Iraq war).
----
No new nukes
June 11, 2004
NY Daily Journal News
http://www.thejournalnews.com/newsroom/061104/11ednukes.html
A House of Representatives panel was right to eliminate funding for new nuclear weapons and testing. How can the United States continue to press for global nonproliferation of nuclear weapons while developing new ones itself?
An Appropriations subcommittee Wednesday cut funding that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld wanted for:
• Research at $27.6 million to develop a bunker-buster bomb - called a "robust nuclear earth penetrator - to reach deeply buried targets. Rumsfeld said he could not name a specific battlefield use for the weapon, USA Today reported. Then why build it? The bomb would be six times more powerful than the A-bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. The world needs no more Hiroshimas.
• Research at $9 million for "advanced concepts" to design a low-yield "mini-nuke" warhead. Given the evolution of sympathy for the United States after 9/11 into enmity over Iraq, the global perception would be that the United States is preparing for so-called limited nuclear strikes. The U.S. image abroad needn't plummet any further.
• Preparation for accelerated testing of nuclear weapons at $30 million, although the National Nuclear Security Administration said it had no plans to test such weapons. Then why prepare to do so?
The House panel made another cut that was not prudent. It slashed nearly in half the Bush administration's request for $368 million to continue a joint program with Russia to convert excess plutonium in both countries' weapons programs into commercial reactor fuel. The program is intended to keep plutonium out of the hands of rogue nations and terrorists, and is underfunded as it is. Osama bin Laden has made no secret that he wants nuclear weapons for his al-Qaida terrorist network.
When the Senate takes up its version of the defense bill next week, it should OK funds for plutonium conversion and follow the House on nuclear funding elimination. The United States has a nuclear stockpile. Adding to it now would only encourage nuclear ambitions in other nations.
-------- u.s. nuc facilities
-------- california
NATIONAL DESK
Washington: Energy Dept. Extends Contract Of Nuclear Lab
National Briefing
June 10, 2004, Thursday
The New York Times
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A06E2DD1430F933A25755C0A9629C8B63
The University of California contract to run the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory will extend for at least two years beyond its expiration next year, federal officials said. The extension will let the Energy Department conduct separate competitions for contractors to operate Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, the other nuclear weapons laboratory that the university manages. Officials of the department said the decision did not signal a change in their plan to force the university to compete for the first time to operate the laboratories. That policy emerged last year, after management lapses, at the labs, mostly involving sloppy business practices.
-------- nevada
Test Site takes on security role
By STEVE TETREAULT,
Pahrump Valley Times WASHINGTON BUREAU,
June 11, 2004
http://www.pahrumpvalleytimes.com/2004/06/11/news/ymp.html
WASHINGTON - The government is preparing sites in the Nevada desert to build mock border stations, a simulated airline inspection terminal and even a seaport - without the water - to train agents how to spot nuclear materials being smuggled into the country.
As part of this new role in border protection, planners envision the Nevada Test Site as home to a test bed where new generations of radiological sensors could be run through sophisticated evaluations.
Test Site contractors expect to break ground in the fall on the new homeland security mission, officials said Tuesday. The effort underscores an expanding homeland security role for the Test Site beyond its historical mission of developing and evaluating the nuclear weapons stockpile.
Instructors on the remote and sprawling range have trained thousands of counter-terrorism specialists and rescue personnel in weapons response programs that have grown steeply since the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
"I view this as a perfect match for the unique capabilities of the Nevada Test Site," Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in a statement.
It also illustrates the government's concerns about tightening the nation's points of entry against terrorists trying to spirit dirty bombs and radiological weapons past border controls.
The Department of Homeland Security has allocated $13 million this year to design eight or more training venues at the Test Site, such as a realistically functional border crossing with three to five traffic lanes and inspection booths, according to an assessment completed last month.
Another venue would recreate portions of an international airport terminal where mail, cargo and baggage would be inspected, and "arriving passengers" screened.
Details of the project are contained in a draft environmental assessment made public in the past week by the National Nuclear Security Administration, which manages the Test Site.
For the simulated seaport, planners envision placement of "a freighter type ship in some shape or form," said Darwin Morgan, an NNSA spokesman.
"It can be in partial pieces or a replica, but it would be enough of a ship to do gantry-type operations," Morgan said. One of the goals there is to develop powerful sensing equipment to detect radiological materials smugglers might hide deep inside giant containers of cargo, he said.
About $60 million has been budgeted over the next five years, Morgan said. Some facilities are expected to be operational by next summer, while construction on other segments will continue to 2007, he said.
"What this does is gives us the actual facilities where people are looking for weapons of mass destruction or illicit radioactive material you might find at border crossings and seaports," Morgan said.
About 100 acres has been set aside in Area 6, in the east-central section of the Test Site about 30 miles northwest of Pahrump. The location is north of Barren Wash and south of the Device Assembly Facility, a massive bunker where radiological devices used in testing and training can be stored, Morgan said.
A project report stated up to 110 pounds of radioactive plutonium and highly enriched uranium would be utilized, with amounts "expected to be used on a frequent basis, perhaps daily during certain operational campaigns."
Morgan said that is a substantial amount of highly controlled radiological material, "but if you are talking about what we are trying to do here, you would want a realistic amount of material."
Plans also call for construction of test bays and specially outfitted stretches of road track, the agency report said. Technicians plan to evaluate sensors built into the roadways that might detect radiological sources within vehicles speeding above.
For comment or questions, please e-mail webmaster@pahrumpvalleytimes.com
----
Yucca Mountain Hits Budgetary Stumbling Block
June 11, 2004
WASHINGTON, DC, (ENS)
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2004/2004-06-11-09.asp#anchor1
A House subcommittee Wednesday passed a budget cut for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in Nevada, leaving the project short of money for development at the time that Energy Department officials are preparing to submit extensive licensing documentation to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Congressman Dave Hobson, an Ohio Republican who chairs the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, scolded the Bush administration for assuming that the House and Senate would reclassify fees paid into the Nuclear Waste Fund by nuclear power plant operators for the Yucca Mountain budget.
"The Committee funds the Yucca Mountain repository at the administration's net budget request of $131 million," said Hobson, "and does not include the proposed authorization language to reclassify the fees paid into the Nuclear Waste Fund."
Hobson said the White House Office of Management and Budget "played Russian roulette" when they assumed the House and Senate would pass the proposed reclassification language that would have allowed $749 million to be spent on Yucca Mountain.
The underground repository for high-level nuclear waste from power plants and weapons manufacturing is located 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The Energy Department aims to have Yucca Mountain operational by the year 2010. Waste in casks would be transported by rail and truck from locations in 39 states to the repository for burial.
Yucca Mountain has been approved by Congress and by President George W. Bush, but it is opposed by the Nevada Congressional Delegation and by the State of Nevada, which has filed several lawsuits against the facility due to be heard this summer.
A report released May 3 by the General Accounting Office (GAO), the investigative arm of Congress, found that the Energy Department is failing to conduct quality scientific work at Yucca Mountain.
Nevada Senators Harry Reid, a Democrat, and John Ensign, a Republican, requested the investigation when whistleblowers who worked at Yucca Mountain were either fired or transferred after publicly raising concerns more than a year ago. Reid and Ensign held a Senate hearing to follow up on the whistleblowers' accusations, but "the employees were intimidated into not appearing," Reid said.
The GAO report verifies the accusations by the whistleblowers and adds new substance to claims by Reid and Ensign that the outcome of studies at Yucca Mountain are "politically, not scientifically, motivated," Reid said.
Still, the licensing procedure is moving forward. On Thursday, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued new requirements for the electronic filing of documents connected with the licensing of Yucca Mountain, a process that NRC Chairman Nils Diaz said could take three to four years.
To ensure wide public access to the Yucca Mountain licensing proceedings, the NRC will establish an electronic docket to contain the official record materials in searchable full text, or, for material that is not suitable for entry in searchable full text, by header and image. The NRC established this rule to accomodate large complex documents and reduce the time that it takes to serve filings by substituting electronic transmission for the physical mailing of filings typically used in NRC licensing proceedings.
The Department of Energy must make its material available six months in advance of submitting its license application to the NRC to receive and possess high-level radioactive waste at the Yucca Mountain geologic operations area.
The NRC must make its material available no later than 30 days after the DOE certification of compliance with the submittal requirement. Other potential parties must make their material available no later than 90 days after the Department of Energy certification.
The Yucca Mountain documents will be accessible on the Licensing Support Network website at: http://www.lsnnet.gov.
-------- new mexico
Sandia computer lab links with scientists across the country
Operation pulls data from around the nation in collaboration with academia, private industry
By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER
Friday, June 11, 2004
Tri-Valley Herald
http://www.trivalleyherald.com/Stories/0,1413,86~10671~2206552,00.html
LIVERMORE -- FOR the first time, the millions of details and scientific insight built into the nation's nuclear arsenal in the Cold War are being tied together in a single California laboratory designed to speed upgrades to thermonuclear bombs and warheads. Federal weapons executives said Sandia National Laboratories' new weapons computing lab, which opened Thursday, is an experiment in pulling data from across the nation and analyzing it in a novel collaboration with academia and private industry.
David Crandall, head of research and development for the National Nuclear Security Administration, said, "It's a real nice feeling to come here, kick the tires" on the new Distributed Information Systems Laboratory at Sandia-California.
"This is part of a leading edge of what we call responsive infrastructure. What is means is being able to respond, to design new capabilities into the (nuclear weapons) stockpile ... without nuclear testing," Crandall told a crowd of about 400 gathered in the building's grassy courtyard.
The $38 million lab will bring Sandia weapons scientists, engineers and computer-simulation and networking experts together in a building that's half classified and half unclassified.
University professors, students and private industry
computing experts will share offices in the unclassified half, encouraging a freer sharing of scientific and technical ideas across the traditional walls and fences of the nuclear weapons world.
"You can do top-secret, classified work but also collaborate with academic and industry partners," said Patty Wagner, manager of the NNSA's Sandia Site Office in Albuquerque, N.M., which oversees the New Mexico and California sites of Sandia.
In years past, weapons scientists and computer scientists at Sandia worked in separate organizations and usually separate buildings. Sandia weaponeers use software to design the non-nuclear components that turn thermonuclear explosives designed at Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore labs into actual warheads and bombs, including safing, firing and radar systems, as well as myriad safety features to lessen chances of accidents or unauthorized use of a stolen weapon.
Sandia-California computing chief Ken Washington and weapons chief Doug Henson now will share executive offices in the new lab, with room elsewhere for about 130 of their staff and 30 visitors. Data pipelines will link Sandia's lab with the other weapons labs' databases and supercomputers; factories such as Savannah River National Laboratory in South Carolina; and Pantex assembly-disassembly plant in Amarillo, Texas, and NNSA offices in Washington, D.C.
"The idea is enabling lots of local and distance collaboration between people and information," said Tom Hunter, head of Sandia labs' weapons program.
Mim John, Sandia vice president and head of Sandia's lab in Livermore said the melding of science, engineering and computer simulation in one building offers greater efficiency in adding new features to U.S. weapons.
"What now takes a multi-year process, we hope to shrink down to months or a year, depending on what's being asked of us," she said.
Dennis Beyer, a mechanical engineer who oversaw the new lab project, said the building will be fully equipped next spring with its supercomputer cluster, known as Catalyst, and a new visualization center, sporting a 27-screen central display and six ancillary displays. One mounted in the rear of the room allows a presenter to conduct a video conference without turning his back on his audience.
The essence of the lab is sharing ideas, if sometimes to a limited degree.
"The whole building is designed for suites, so you can 'suite-off' (several rooms) for need to know and all of the suites are soundproof," Beyer said.
Contact Ian Hoffman at ihoffman@angnewspapers.com
-------- new york
Officials Praise Performance in Disaster Drill at Indian Point
By MAREK FUCHS
June 11, 2004
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/11/nyregion/11indian.html
HARRISON, N.Y., June 10 - Federal officials said on Thursday that a drill at the Indian Point nuclear plant this week showed polished and prudent reactions by county, state and plant officials. But critics of the plant were skeptical.
The officials said a more detailed final report will be released in about 90 days. The drill involved faking the deliberate crash of a plane into the plant, but it was limited to communications drills, without live road blockades or attempts to simulate evacuations in the outside world.
Officials of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Federal Emergency Management Agency said at a news conference that more than 20 problem areas noted in past drills were handled well this time.
Several new concerns, such as Westchester's communication with Bergen County, the availability of public information in Spanish and the need for press releases to be sent to neighboring states, cropped up, they said.
Critics of the plant and its evacuation plan called the drill nothing more than hollow play-acting and said it was unlikely that a plane crash would have resulted in no radiation being released outside the plant, as the drill specifiedl.
But Hubert J. Miller, a regional administrator of the regulatory commission, said that "sophisticated and state-of-the-art" studies showed that no radioactive plumes would result. "You can't ignore the science," he said.
-------- MILITARY
-------- afghanistan
Taliban Suspected in Killing of 11 Chinese Workers
June 11, 2004
By CARLOTTA GALL
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/11/international/asia/11afgh.html
KANDAHAR, Afghanistan, June 10 - The massacre of 11 Chinese road construction workers and an Afghan guard as they slept in their tents early Thursday was the deadliest against foreigners since the fall of the Taliban and dealt a setback to United States efforts to stabilize the country ahead of elections scheduled for September.
The men were among more than 100 Chinese engineers and construction workers who had recently arrived in Afghanistan to work on a World Bank project to rebuild a road running north from Kabul to the Tajikistan border. Some of those killed Thursday had been in Afghanistan only a few days, the Chinese news agency reported.
The attack occurred at 1:30 a.m. about 20 miles south of Kunduz, in the normally peaceful northern part of the county, Afghan officials said. A group of some 20 gunmen in cars attacked the men as they slept, the spokesman for the Interior Ministry, Lutfullah Mashal, said.
The Afghan guard and nine Chinese men were killed immediately in the attack. Two more Chinese men died in the hospital later. Four other Chinese workers were wounded and being treated in a Kunduz hospital and by German members of a peacekeeping force based in the town, said the Kunduz police chief, Gen. Abdul Mutalibeg. A second Afghan guard was missing, he said.
Coming after the murder of five aid workers last week in northwestern Afghanistan, the assault, which Afghan officials attributed to the Taliban, may indicate that the gunmen are shifting their attacks to northern Afghanistan, which has been relatively free of violence. President Hamid Karzai and Gen. David Barno, the commander of the American-led forces in Afghanistan, have recently warned that attacks on aid workers, government officials and foreign military forces will increase in the months ahead of the elections. United States troop deployments have been increased recently to 20,000, in part to help with security ahead of the voting.
A senior Afghan military commander in southern Afghanistan, Hajji Mir Wali, said Mullah Dadullah, one of the top Taliban commanders, recently issued orders to his fighters to strike at road builders. "His orders were: 'First, you have to kill engineers to stop the building of the roads. Second, you have to burn schools and spread out leaflets. Third, you have to put mines and attack government officials; and fourth, if you can, you have to attack American forces,' " Mr. Wali said. He said he was told of the orders by a member of the Taliban who was present at the meeting in which they were issued.
General Mutalibeg said the people responsible were probably "remnants of the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and people of Hesb-e-Islami of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar," referring to a renegade mujahedeen commander who is on the United States list of wanted terrorists and who has declared a war against foreign forces in Afghanistan.
Gen. Muhammad Daoud, the military commander in the north, said the attack appeared timed to coincide with the opening of the first two miles of the road on Thursday. "This is an action to destroy the reconstruction process of Afghanistan," he said. "Our enemies want to destabilize the situation here as they did in the south of Afghanistan."
The government of Afghanistan also sent generals from the Defense Ministry and the National Security Directorate, the Afghan intelligence service, to lead an investigation.
The Taliban did not immediately claim responsibility for the attack, as it has with previous incidents.
A spokesman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry, Liu Jianchao, said the workers were members of a railroad construction company that has 123 people in Afghanistan. He condemned the attack as a "brutal terrorist act," and vowed that Chinese civil engineering projects there would continue. "China will not give in to any terrorism," he said.
The Chinese workers were from the China Railway Shisiju Group Corporation, based in Jinan, in eastern China, a World Bank spokesman said.
The United States Embassy in Kabul said it was "deeply shocked and saddened" by the killings. "We condemn those who carried out this cowardly attack on these individuals who were working to assist the people of Afghanistan," an embassy statement said.
The United Nations suspended all movement of personnel out of Kunduz and suspended its voter registration work there, a spokesman said.
Howard W. French contributed reporting from Shanghai for this article.
-------- africa
South Africa to send 10 military observers to Sudan
JOHANNESBURG (AFP)
Jun 11, 2004
http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040611171217.ryp789b5.html
South Africa has received a formal request to send 10 high-ranking officers to the war-torn Darfur region of Sudan as part of an African mission to monitor a ceasefire, a defence spokesman said on Friday.
"I can confirm that the Department of Defence ... has received a request from the African Union to send 10 military observers to Sudan," Defence Ministry spokesman Sam Mkhwanzai said.
"It is envisaged that if they are deployed, they will perform their duties at the AU headquarters, for example being sector commanders, team leaders and people in the information technology (IT) environment," he told AFP.
The AU this week set up mission headquarters in al-Fashir, in the northern part of Darfur, to monitor a ceasefire between rebels and the Khartoum government with its allied militia.
South African President Thabo Mbeki announced the mission to Sudan in Washington on Thursday after talks with US Secretary of State Colin Powell, Johannesburg-based ThisDay newspaper said.
Mkhwanazi said the request was subject to approval by the cabinet.
The deployment of the advance team sparked speculation that South Africa would be sending a larger military contingent, similar to its peacekeeping force in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
An estimated 10,000 people have died since rebels complaining of government neglect of their impoverished region launched an uprising in Darfur in February 2003 and were met with fierce retaliation by government and Janjawid militia forces.
An estimated one million people have been displaced in Darfur and 130,000 others have fled across the border into Chad. United Nations agencies have described the Darfur crisis as the world's biggest current humanitarian catastrophe.
--------
Congo Guards Mount Apparent Coup Bid
Reuters
Friday, June 11, 2004; 6:07 AM
By Emmanuel Braun
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A33704-2004Jun11?language=printer
KINSHASA (Reuters) - Security forces in the Democratic Republic of Congo surrounded the ringleader of an apparent coup attempt near Kinshasa's Ndjili airport on Friday.
"Our security services have got (Major Eric) Lenge surrounded just outside town at Ndjili. He was trying to flee with a few people and two jeeps," President Joseph Kabila's spokesman, Kudura Kasongo, said.
"We will take him and neutralize him," he added.
Earlier, explosions and artillery fire echoed across the capital and residents reported sporadic bursts of automatic gunfire in several districts, but the shooting had since died down and a few cars were on the streets.
Just days ago, an insurgency in the eastern city of Bukavu was the biggest challenge yet to Kabila's transitional government as it tries to restore authority after five years of war in the central African republic.
Overnight, members of an elite unit that guards Kabila, led by Lenge, seized state radio, but the government said loyal troops had regained control of the station. Lenge was able to broadcast a message saying the country's transitional process was not working and he was taking control himself, U.N. and government officials said.
"The coup plotters are running away," Foreign Minister Antoine Ghonda told Reuters, adding that some had attempted to surrender to European embassies and others were fleeing to a region south of the capital.
"It was an isolated incident involving some of his (Kabila's) bodyguards," he said, adding that Kabila was "fine."
Residents said members of the presidential guard blocked off the road to the airport, which is 25 km (16 miles) from the city center. It was not clear whether they were renegade or loyal troops.
Ghonda said the airport was open.
CANNON FIRE
Earlier, British Ambassador Jim Atkinson told Reuters he had heard cannon fire coming from camp Tshatshi, the biggest military base in Kinshasa, situated on the outskirts of the city on the banks of the Congo river.
Residents in the city center also said they could hear explosions and sporadic bursts of automatic gunfire at around 0600 GMT along the Avenue de Justice in the main business district and in the districts of Kintambo and Binza.
The government, however, said it was in control and the reason for the shooting was not clear.
"Some officers in the presidential guard took control of the state radio at 2:30 (0130 GMT) this morning, but loyalist soldiers retook control two and a half hours later," government spokesman Vital Kamerhe said.
He did not specify if there had been a battle for the radio station and said it was unclear how many guards were involved.
Government troops recaptured Bukavu in the volatile east on Wednesday from dissident soldiers following a week-long occupation launched in protest against what the dissidents said was the persecution of their ethnic group.
The revolt in Bukavu exposed the weakness of Kabila's transitional government, installed a year ago in Africa's third-largest country.
The clashes in the mineral-rich east also raised fears of a wider regional conflict involving Congo and its tiny neighbor Rwanda, which invaded the former Zaire in 1996 and 1998.
Gunmen attacked four military bases and two television stations in Kinshasa in March in an apparent coup attempt -- the first political violence in the city for five years. Kabila's office blamed members of the personal guard of late dictator Mobutu Sese Seko for those attacks.
(Additional reporting by David Lewis in Bukavu, Finbarr O'Reilly in Kigali)
--------
Coup Attempt in Congo Put Down by Troops
By DANIEL BALINT-KURTI
The Associated Press
Friday, June 11, 2004; 10:28 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A35633-2004Jun11?language=printer
KINSHASA, Congo - Forces loyal to Congo's leader crushed a coup attempt Friday by renegades within his own presidential guard in fighting that sent gunfire and explosions echoing through the capital of Africa's third-largest nation.
The crisis was the second this month for the 14-month-old government led by President Joseph Kabila, established to close a 1998-2002 war that was Africa's deadliest ever.
Kabila, appearing on state TV in khaki uniform hours after the uprising's leaders were sent fleeing, told Congolese to brace for future challenges.
"Stay calm, prepare yourself to resist - because I will allow nobody to try a coup d'etat or to throw off course our peace process," Kabila declared.
"As for me, I'm fine," added the 32-year-old president, whose appearance quashed rumors he had been injured or killed.
At stake was the stability of Congo, and with it central Africa. Congo's five-year war had drawn in the armies of five foreign African countries, splitting a nation that before the war was one of the world's largest mineral producers, including the No. 3 exporter of rough diamonds and holder of 80 percent of the globe's cobalt reserves.
Relief workers say the war killed 3.3 million people.
By late afternoon, the officer behind Friday's attempted coup was on the run south of the capital with 21 of his men, pursued by loyalist troops backed by helicopter, presidential spokesman Kadura Kasonga said.
The officer, Maj. Eric Lenge, had been a trusted aide frequently photographed behind Kabila at official functions, including Kabila's 2001 inauguration - which followed the assassination of Kabila's father by his own presidential bodyguards.
Lenge launched the coup attempt by commandeering state broadcast centers after midnight. He announced he was "neutralizing" the transition government.
Condemning Kabila's government as ineffective, Lenge appealed to members of Congo's armed forces to stay in their barracks and accede to the takeover.
Loyalist forces routed Lenge and his fighters from the broadcast headquarters, sending the mutineers retreating to a presidential guard base in the capital.
Information Minister Vitale Kamerhe then appeared on state airwaves before dawn to declare "the situation entirely under control," without a shot fired.
Some of Lenge's forces later appeared in the heart of the capital, on foot and in two tanks and an armored personnel carrier crowded with troops, diplomats said - allegedly trying unsuccessfully to surrender to either the U.S. or British embassies or Congo's U.N. mission.
Most of Congo's sprawling capital, Kinshasa, appeared to have slept through the immediate attempt to seize power.
Heavy automatic weapon fire and tank-cannon blasts woke up the city around daybreak, however.
Diplomats said loyalist forces were battling the dissident forces at their barracks. Diplomats and residents also reported heavy gunfire around Kabila's private residence.
Congo government and military leaders described Lenge and his followers breaking out of the base and fleeing, first to Kinshasa's international airport and then to the south of the city, toward the Bas Congo region.
Security forces had arrested 12 of the fleeing men, Kabila said on state TV.
It was unclear how many troops took part in the failed coup. Accounts by officials ranged from 20 to the low hundreds.
Diplomats said the dissident forces expressed grievances about pay, in partial or full arrears by the government for months.
The coup attempt was the second military uprising against the postwar government, after a previous five years of peace in the capital.
In March, hundreds of troops attacked military installations in a capital uprising also linked by some accounts to grievances over pay.
Loyalist forces crushed that uprising as well.
Friday's coup attempt came two days after government forces to the east retook a town on Rwanda's border from renegade ex-rebel fighters.
Capture of Bukavu after the seven-day takeover had ended the greatest military crisis for the postwar government, trying to secure a country the size of Western Europe ahead of promised 2005 elections. A ceremony Friday installed a new government-appointed governor for Bukavu's restive South Kivu province.
In Kinshasa, shops remained closed long hours after the attempt, and relatively few people ventured on to the streets. Those who did, expressed alarm at the increasing series of challenges to the government.
"This worries me a lot because we need peace in our country," said Komanda Gode, 40, a fisherman. "So when such things happen, it isn't good for our country.
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan condemned the attempted coup and restated "the commitment of the United Nations" for the transitional process in Congo.
Associated Press writer Eddy Isango also contributed to this report from Bukavu.
-------- asia
South Koreans Mixed Over Pullout Plan
By HANS GREIMEL
The Associated Press
Friday, June 11, 2004; 1:34 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A34497-2004Jun11?language=printer
SEOUL, South Korea - Just two years ago, chants of "Murderous American GIs!" reverberated through the streets of Seoul at huge anti-U.S. rallies. But now that many U.S. soldiers may be leaving, the mood is far from celebratory.
Lawmakers are worried about a possible security vacuum along the Cold War's last frontier and the need for bigger defense budgets as North Korea develops nuclear weapons. Thousands working at or near U.S. bases are concerned about their jobs. Some say the plan is unfolding too fast, while others complain it's long overdue.
North Korea, which routinely demands a total U.S. pullout, seems almost alone in its silence about Washington's plan to withdraw a third of its 37,500 soldiers stationed here by 2006.
"Watching the recent developments regarding the matter, one has to worry," the JoongAng Daily newspaper said in summarizing South Korea's national mood.
Pulling out the soldiers advances the Pentagon's goal of making its forces more flexible. But it also poses a new test to an alliance that has helped underpin U.S. policy in the region since the 1950-53 Korean War.
Washington and Seoul say more negotiations are needed before anything is finalized.
Talk of troop levels is touchy in South Korea.
Older Koreans traditionally embrace American soldiers for helping repel the communist invasion a half-century ago and see the remaining troops as insurance against a repeat.
Younger generations, by contrast, often view the troops as an unnecessary burden or a slight to national pride.
A majority of South Koreans favor the presence, but many want the pact with Washington revised to give Seoul greater jurisdiction over the troops, especially those implicated in crimes.
In 2002, tens of thousands of South Koreans joined protests to condemn the U.S. military after the deaths of two South Korean girls struck by an American armored vehicle.
"I support the withdrawal because there have been a lot of problems involving U.S. soldiers here, and their image isn't so good," said 23-year-old office worker Park Sun-mi.
Some 18,000 civilians employed by the U.S. military see things differently.
Up to 40 percent of those jobs will be threatened by the proposed pullout, said Kang In-suk, head of the U.S. Forces Korea Korean Employees' Union. The union is planning a rally June 24 in protest.
"It is beyond me how the two governments can discuss this issue without considering the Korean military employees and other Korean people involved," Kang said.
Others are leery of a pullout because they suspect the United States will feel freer to attack the North if U.S. troops have been withdrawn or are not in immediate harm's way. U.S. officials deny such intentions.
The plan, unveiled this week, calls for removing 12,500 soldiers by the end of 2005. It would be the largest withdrawal from the divided Korean Peninsula since the 1970s, when about 20,000 were taken out as a gesture of detente toward Moscow and Beijing.
Plans for another downsizing of 6,000 troops were frozen in 1991 by then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney over concerns about North Korea's nuclear program.
Troop levels have remained roughly stable since. But the issue resurfaced amid the mounting need for more U.S. troops in Iraq.
North Korea has a formidable missile arsenal and 1.1 million soldiers, compared with the South's 650,000, but it is also said to have fuel shortages and decrepit military hardware.
In talks that have gained urgency for the South, colonels of the two countries' militaries met Friday for a second day of discussions to flesh out details of an accord struck last week. That agreement sets a standard radio frequency and signaling system for their navies to avoid confusion that could lead to sea clashes. They also agreed to end propaganda along their land border.
Citing a 10-year plan launched by Seoul last year, Kim Choong Nam, a Korea specialist at the East-West Center in Honolulu, said South Korea expected a U.S. pullout in phases, not a timeline of 18 months.
The United States has earmarked $11 billion for military upgrades on the peninsula in the next five years.
Kim estimated Seoul would have to spend as much as $100 billion "to fill the gap" and wondered whether its economy, the world's 12th-largest but recovering from a slowdown, could bear the weight.
On Friday, South Korea's Defense Ministry asked for a 13.4 percent increase in military spending to $18.3 billion next year, saying it needs to compensate for the U.S. reductions.
A further budgetary strain is Seoul's plan to dispatch 3,600 South Korean troops to northern Iraq to help the U.S.-led coalition in peacekeeping and reconstruction.
The proposed U.S. troop pullout coincides with separate plans to move American soldiers from positions near North Korea and consolidate them at a few bases south of the capital.
By October, the military plans to pull almost all its soldiers from the last U.S. positions on the Demilitarized Zone diving the Koreas, although thousands will remain dug in between the border and Seoul.
"I think South Korea's at a point where it can defend itself," said U.S. Army Pfc. Ronald J. Cole, who is stationed at the truce village of Panmunjom in the middle of the DMZ. "I think we can be better used in other places like Afghanistan and Iraq."
--------
S. Korea to Deploy 3,600 Troops to Iraq
By SANG-HUN CHOE
The Associated Press
Friday, June 11, 2004; 6:44 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33763-2004Jun11.html
SEOUL, South Korea - South Korea plans to deploy 3,600 troops to an area around Irbil in northern Iraq by late August, a Defense Ministry official said Friday, as pressure mounted on the government to reconsider the long-delayed dispatch.
Speaking at a meeting with members of the ruling Uri Party, Lt. Gen. Kwon Ahn-do, the ministry's main policy coordinator, said his ministry has forwarded the plan to the National Security Council for formal approval, expected next week.
"The actual deployment will take place in August," Kwon was quoted as saying by his ministry.
Although the government has repeatedly confirmed its troop commitment to Iraq, some liberal Uri members have demanded that the dispatch plan be reconsidered.
"We must reach a decision on the troop dispatch within next week," Hong Jai-hyung, Uri's key policy-maker, said during Friday's meeting. "The government and the president must keep their promise, and (the dispatch) is necessary for the South Korea-U.S. alliance and the country's international credibility."
South Korea already has 600 military medics and engineers in the southern Iraqi city of Nasiriyah. They will join a new deployment of 3,000 troops in Irbil, officials have said.
To help cover the costs of the mission, the Defense Ministry asked the government to increase its military budget by 13.4 percent.
The ministry has drawn up a plan to send a first batch of 900 troops to Irbil on July 21, the Hankook Ilbo newspaper reported earlier Friday, citing unidentified government sources. Two other batches of between 1,000 and 1,200 troops would head for Irbil on Aug. 5 and Aug. 28 respectively, it said.
A ministry spokeswoman could not confirm the report.
On Thursday, a group of 91 legislators, including 67 Uri members, said they would introduce a resolution at the 299-member National Assembly urging the government to reconsider the deployment.
It remained unclear whether the legislators wanted the government to scrap the dispatch plan or revise it.
The additional dispatch would make South Korea the largest coalition partner after the United States and Britain.
South Korea had originally planned to send its troops to the northern Iraqi town of Kirkuk as early as April. The plan was canceled amid concerns it would involve combat operations, in violation of a parliamentary mandate for peacekeeping duties only.
South Korea has since decided on Irbil as a new location. But the dispatch has been further delayed as officials try to sort out details on the use of airports, barracks and other logistics issues.
Opposition to sending troops to Iraq has been rising amid increasing violence in the war-torn nation. Seoul has portrayed the dispatch as a way of winning U.S. support for a peaceful end to the North Korean nuclear crisis.
-------- balkans
U.S., Bosnia Sign Agreement on Military Cooperation
By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE, SARAJEVO
11 June, 2004
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=3000481&C=america
Bosnia and the United States on June 11 signed an agreement here on military cooperation that includes financial support for the Balkan country's armed forces, officials said.
Bosnian Defense Minister Nikola Radovanovic and the representative of the U.S. military command in Europe, Brig. Gen. Edward LaFountaine, signed the agreement, which also provides $14.9 million (12.4 million euros) for logistical support and training of officers of Bosnia's two separate armies.
"Bilateral agreement fully recognizes cooperation between your country and ours," LaFountaine told journalists adding that the United States has already signed such agreements with 75 other countries.
"It is focused on logistical support. The agreement does not, in any way, commit this country to any military action," he added.
Radovanovic stressed that the assistance from the Bosnian side would be defined later if the U.S. accepts an earlier invitation by Sarajevo to open its military bases in the post-war country.
He also announced his trip to the U.S. on Saturday where he is to discuss the issue with U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
Nearly 2,000 U.S. troops are currently deployed in Bosnia as part of NATO-led peacekeepers who have provided security since the 1992-95 war that claimed over 200,000 lives.
Post-war Bosnia consists of two semi-independent entities -- the Serbs' Republika Srpska and the Muslim Croat Federation - that share weak central institutions. Both have separate governments, parliaments, armies and police.
However, under pressure from NATO, which is demanding massive military reform in exchange for negotiations on Bosnia's possible membership of the alliance, the post of central defense minister was created last year. Radovanovic was appointed Bosnia's first defense minister in March.
-------- britain
Labour suffers election 'kicking' There was little to cheer Labour
(BBC)
Friday, 11 June, 2004
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3796075.stm
Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott admits voters have given Labour a "kicking" in protest at the Iraq war.
With only a few local election results in England and Wales to come, Labour has lost 461 seats and eight councils, including Newcastle, Swansea and Leeds.
The Tories gained 259 seats and won Trafford and Tamworth. Charles Kennedy said Lib Dem gains proved the UK now really had three party politics.
But Labour was cheered by Ken Livingstone's election as London Mayor.
Turnout across England and Wales is running at 40%, up an average of 9% on last year - an increase not confined to the four regions piloting all-postal ballots.
In London Assembly elections there were falls for all three main parties - and relatively strong showings by George Galloway's Respect party (5%) and the UK Independence party (10%).
Tony Blair acknowledged Britain's role in the Iraq invasion had cast a "shadow" over the polls.
And Home Secretary David Blunkett told BBC Radio 4's Today: "I'm mortified that we're not doing better than we have done. We know it's been a bad night ... but not meltdown - no take off for the Conservatives."
Projections
Tony Blair's deputy John Prescott told BBC Radio 2's Jeremy Vine show the war in Iraq was a crucial factor, but he insisted the general election would be fought on the battleground of public services.
KEY TORY WINS:
Brentwood
Dudley
Eastbourne
Monmouthshire
Peterborough
Rossendale
Swindon
Tamworth
Thurrock
Trafford
West Lindsey
Worthing
"People like those policies," he said. "But they didn't judge this election on that. Iraq was a cloud, or indeed a shadow, over these elections.
"I am not saying we haven't had a kicking. It's not a great day for Labour."
The elections are the biggest test of voter opinion before the next general election but the final picture will not be clear until the European results appear on Sunday night.
So far about 161 out of the 166 councils holding elections have declared the results.
On the basis of voting in 500 key wards the BBC is projecting an equivalent national vote for the parties of Tories 38%, Lib Dems 29% and Labour 26%.
KEY LABOUR GAINS AND LOSSES:
Lost - Newcastle
Lost - Leeds
Lost - Bassetlaw
Lost - Burnley
Lost - Cardiff
Lost - St Helens
Lost - Oxford
Lost - Ipswich
Lost - Swansea
Lost - Hastings
Lost - Doncaster
Lost - Bridgend
Lost - Slough
Lost - Tamworth
Lost - Thurrock
Won - Stoke
Won - Hartlepool
Won - Rhondda Cynon Taf
Won - Caerphilly
Won - Redditch
Won - Newcastle-under-Lyme
Won - Merthyr
If correct it would be the first time a party in government has finished third in terms of national share of the vote in local elections.
It would give the Tories a result on a par with its local election results achieved under William Hague's leadership in 2000.
But the Tories point out that it looks like being their biggest lead over Labour since John Major won the 1992 election.
Labour has lost control of the former mining area of Bassetlaw for the first time since 1979, as well as suffering defeats in Burnley, Hastings, Oxford, Swansea, Doncaster and its traditional stronghold of St Helens.
It also lost Newcastle to the Liberal Democrats, ending 30 years of Labour control.
But the party won Stoke-on-Trent, tightened its grip on Barrow-in-Furness and, despite seat losses, held Manchester and Sheffield.
There was also a high-profile victory for Labour's Ken Livingstone in the race to be London Mayor, defeating the Tories' Steve Norris and the Lib Dems' Simon Hughes.
BBC political editor Andrew Marr predicted Mr Blair's critics on Labour's back benches would use the results to reopen discussion about his leadership of the party.
Small party gains?
The results offer the first electoral verdict on Michael Howard's leadership of the Conservatives.
"We had excellent results last night - we are now represented up and down the country in the cities where we want to play an important part," he said.
Tory co-chairman Liam Fox said they had won some "spectacular results".
KEY LIB DEM GAINS AND LOSSES:
Gained - Newcastle
Gained - Pendle
Lost - Cheltenham
Lost - Eastbourne
Lost - Norwich
Lost - Winchester
"I don't for a minute say that the result today would guarantee the Conservatives winning a general election, that would be absurd ... but it's good solid progress for us," he told Today.
The Lib Dems held Liverpool and won 10 seats in Manchester but dropped control of Eastbourne to the Tories, as well as losing Norwich and Cheltenham. They made a net gain of 129 seats.
Leader Charles Kennedy said: "This is a great result for the Liberal Democrats...
"We're continuing to not just hold, but to substantially advance our position, this is really three party politics in Britain and the media here really need to wake up to that fact."
Green shoots?
The Green Party will also be buoyed by keeping its seat in Manchester, as well as picking up four seats in Oxford, two in Norwich and one in Watford.
The UK Independence Party won a council seat in Hull and another in Derby.
MINOR PARTY GAINS AND LOSSES: Greens win seats in Norwich, Oxford and Watford and hold councillor in Manchester BNP take three seats from Labour in Epping Forest, gain four seats in Bradford, but fail to gain ground in Burnley UKIP win seat in Hull The British National Party has taken three seats from Labour at Epping Forest, gained a foothold in Bradford with four seats, but failed to gain ground on Burnley Council, where it slipped into fourth place, losing one seat to the Conservatives but gaining one from Labour.
The final days of campaigning were marred in some areas piloting all-postal votes by allegations of fraud and voter intimidation, which are being investigated by the police and the Electoral Commission.
An independent councillor in Hull has said he intends to mount a legal challenge against his election result.
John Hemming, Lib Dems leader in Birmingham, said he wanted some 500 votes from a key ward put aside for further scrutiny because he was not satisfied with how they had arrived at the count.
The result from the key Birmingham battleground has been delayed by a series of recounts.
-------- business
US probes Halliburton payments to Nigeria
By Thomas Catan in London
June 11 2004
Financial Times
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1086940153693&p=1012571727088
US regulators have launched a formal investigation into allegations that a Halliburton joint venture paid bribes to win a multi-billion dollar construction project in Nigeria.
The US Securities and Exchange Commission had requested information to determine whether Halliburton broke US laws against bribing officials abroad, the oil services company disclosed on Friday. It said it was also discussing the matter with the justice department . Halliburton said it was co-operating with the inquiry.
"While Halliburton does not believe that it has violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, Halliburton's own internal investigation of these matters is ongoing and there can be no assurance that government authorities would not conclude otherwise," the company warned investors.
Kellogg, Brown & Root (KBR), a unit of Halliburton, owns one-quarter of a Madeira-based joint venture called TSKJ, which has been responsible for building a huge natural gas liquefaction plant off the coast of Nigeria, the Nigeria Liquefied Natural Gas project (NLNG). The three other equal partners in TSKJ are Technip of France, Snamprogetti of Italy and JGC of Japan.
The allegations were unearthed by a French investigating magistrate, Judge Renaud van Ruymbeke, last year. According to people familiar with the investigation, the judge has several contracts signed by TSKJ with a company named Tristar, operated by a British lawyer, Jeffrey Tesler. Mr Tesler has not responded to requests for comment.
On Friday, Halliburton acknowledged that Mr Tesler's company had acted as an agent for TSKJ in connection with the the Nigerian project since its inception in 1995. However, it suggested there was nothing untoward about the payments to Mr Tesler, believed to total up to $180m. "We believe the percentage payment was customary for a project of this size and complexity," it said. According to French press reports, Mr Tesler has told the investigating judge that he has visited Nigeria only once in his career.
The French judge has also secured Mr Tesler's bank records from Swiss authorities, which reportedly show several large payments into the bank account of Albert "Jack" Stanley, the former KBR president.
Mr Stanley resigned from the company last year, although Halliburton said his departure was unconnected with these allegations. The company referred questions to Mr Stanley's lawyer, who did not respond to them.
The investigation is the latest to hit Halliburton and its subsidiaries, following allegations ranging from overcharging the US government for services in Iraq to possible evasion of international sanctions in Libya and Iran. But it is the only one that centres on acts alleged to have taken place while Dick Cheney, US vice-president, was at the helm of the company.
Additional reporting from Michael Peel in Lagos and William Wallis in Nairobi.
--------
Spyware law delay sought in Utah
Washington Times
June 11, 2004
http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20040611-112240-2121r.htm
Salt Lake City, UT, Jun. 11 (UPI) -- Utah's pending implementation of a law banning spy software, or spyware, is being challenged in federal court by a New York company.
WhenU.com Inc., is challenging the state's Spyware Control Act, passed in the 2004 legislative session, and a temporary restraining order has prevented it from being enacted, the Salt Lake City Deseret Morning News said Friday.
The act is designed to cut down on spyware by making it illegal to create or install the software, which monitors Internet activity and sends that information elsewhere, usually without the user's knowledge. The law also aims to curb pop-up advertising on the Internet and calls for penalties of $10,000 per violation.
In April, the company sued the state, Gov. Olene Walker and Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, claiming the act violates U.S. and state constitutions and federal commerce and copyright laws.
Thursday, WhenU attorney Alan Sullivan told Judge Joseph C. Fratto Jr., there is no way "to carve out Utah from the 50 states, the 200 countries, where it does business."
-----
Panama Canal operating smoothly
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
By Tom Carter
June 11, 2004
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20040610-103509-5528r.htm
Four and a half years after the United States gave the Panama Canal to the people of Panama, the canal is functioning as well, if not better, than it did under U.S. administration and control.
"So far, so good. To my great amazement, the canal has not been invaded and polluted by politics. So far, everything is on track," said Mark Falcoff, Latin America observer at the American Enterprise Institute and author of "Panama's Canal: What Happens When the United States Gives a Small Country What It Wants."
Today, Panamanians proudly own and operate the Panama Canal.
The average crossing took 33 hours in 1999. Today, it takes less than 23.
In 2001 and 2002, the canal averaged about 13,000 transits. There were 28 accidents in 1999, but just 12 accidents in 2003, the best record in canal history.
It has done this with reduced labor, from about 10,000 workers to fewer than 9,000 since the takeover.
The canal has been upgraded with computerized tracking, and it has doubled revenues, making a $109 million payment to the Panamanian government in 1999 and a $293.6 million contribution in 2002.
In 1976, with a campaign cry of "We built it, we paid for it, it's ours and we are going to keep it," Ronald Reagan used the Panama Canal to steam his way to the top tier of the Republican Party.
He lost the nomination to President Ford, but the issue galvanized the party faithful, and four years later Mr. Reagan won the nomination and the presidency.
Ironically, he defeated President Carter, who signed the 1977 treaty to return the canal to the Panamanians at the end of 1999.
Mr. Reagan rarely mentioned the canal in his 1980 campaign and did nothing to abrogate the treaty once he was in office. But until the day the canal was turned over on Dec. 31, 1999, conservative analysts opined that losing the canal was a disaster for U.S. national security.
Before the turnover, there was considerable hand-wringing in the U.S. press and on Capitol Hill about a deal that sold a Chinese company, Hutchinson Whampoa Ltd., port facilities near both entrances to the canal.
In addition to charges of corrupt bidding practices that denied the facilities to a U.S. manager, there was considerable worry that the Chinese company, whose owners have ties to the Beijing military, could use their position to sabotage the canal or build missile bases close enough to paralyze U.S. national security.
Al Santoli, director of the Asia-Pacific Initiative at the American Foreign Policy Council, said the concerns remain.
"The argument that the Chinese were going to build missile bases was ridiculous. They never do anything that obvious ... but the Chinese are moving heavily economically into the region," Mr. Santoli said.
-------- chemical weapons
50,000 troops in Gulf illness scare
James Meikle, health correspondent
Friday June 11, 2004
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1236426,00.html
All 50,000 troops who served in the first Gulf war might have been exposed to low levels of chemical warfare agents during the fighting and its aftermath, a US investigation has suggested.
The implication of a Congressional report that large numbers of civilians and troops in Iraq and neighbouring countries could have been exposed will galvanise the controversy over illnesses suffered by more than 5,000 British veterans since 1991 that have been linked to their service in the Gulf.
The report indicates that possible chemical contamination of troops could have been much more widespread than suggested by previous official government estimates, based on US research for the Pentagon and CIA.
Lord Morris, the Labour peer who has led the campaign on Gulf war illnesses, yesterday demanded answers from the government, saying it appeared the entire British deployment of more than 50,000 troops could have been at risk.
The MoD used the US defence department models to estimate that 9,000 British troops were within the chemical plume that might have been released from the destruction of chemical agents at Khamisaya, in southern Iraq, in March 1991. This figure was revealed in 1999. Previously, the government said no British units would have been affected, although one Briton might have been under a plume.
More than 5,000 British veterans have reported illnesses they believe related to the Gulf war or the inoculations they received before deployment and more than 600 have died. The government has refused to accept any suggestion that there is a "syndrome" but points to its £8.5m research programme to prove its commitment to finding answers.
The government's current position is that the possible level of nerve agent exposure from Khamisaya would have had "no detectable effect" on human health, and the Pentagon still insists the information was the best available and any researcher would know limitations of the data. The CIA also agreed with the report.
But the general accounting office (GAO), the investigative arm of Congress, last week said the assumptions used by the Pentagon were based on incomplete and uncertain data and that postwar testing to replicate the size of the plume "did not realistically simulate the actual conditions of bombings or demolitions".
The Pentagon, including the bombing of other sites in Iraq, estimated that nearly 102,000 US troops were potentially exposed. But the GAO concluded that, given the significant methodological flaws, neither the Pentagon nor the MoD could know which troops were and which troops were not exposed.
Lord Morris, an honorary member of a US congressional sub-committee investigating undiagnosed illnesses, said: "This is a profoundly significant report not only for US veterans but for ours as well."
He has tabled a parliamentary question to ministers on the issue.
----
'Fears over Gulf War chemicals'
Some 700,000 troops served in the 1990 Gulf War
Friday, 11 June, 2004,
(BBC)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3797201.stm
More people may have been exposed to chemical warfare agents during the 1990 Gulf War than previously thought, a report says.
The US government revealed in 1996 that some people may have been exposed to chemicals when troops destroyed a stockpile of agents in southern Iraq.
As well as Iraqis, officials said over 100,000 troops, including 9,000 Britons, may have been affected.
But the US General Accounting Office says the figures could be much higher.
The GAO is the investigative arm of the US Congress. It has carried out an investigation into how the US and UK governments came up with their figures on how many troops may been exposed to these agents.
The figures are largely based on how many troops were in the direct path of the plume of smoke that was produced when these agents were destroyed at Khamisiyah, in southern Iraq in 1991.
'Figures flawed'
But in a report, the GAO says the figures, which were drawn up by the US Department of Defense, "cannot be adequately supported".
It says the plume of smoke travelled further than officials have suggested.
"The plume heights used in the modelling were underestimated and so were the hazard area," it says.
The report dismisses the estimates on how many troops may have been exposed to the agents as "uncertain, incomplete and non-validated".
The report raises serious questions about UK government claims that only 9,000 British troops were in the direct path of the plume of smoke.
"Since the Ministry of Defence relied exclusively on Department of Defense modelling and since we found that Department of Defense could not know who was and who was not exposed, the MOD cannot know the extent of British troops' exposure."
The Ministry of Defence said it was considering the findings of the report.
"We will publish a paper in September reviewing the results of the US modelling and our response to the GAO report," a spokeswoman told BBC News Online.
More than 5,000 British veterans who served in the Gulf War have reported illnesses, which they believe may have been caused by vaccines or exposure to chemicals.
The government has so far refused to acknowledge that Gulf War syndrome exists.
Inquiry demand
The UK's National Gulf War Veterans and Families Benevolent Association renewed their calls for a public inquiry into gulf war syndrome in light of the GAO findings.
"It is possible that the majority of troops deployed in the Gulf in 1991 may have been exposed to these chemicals," said Shaun Rusling, its vice chairman.
"We need a full public inquiry. The Ministry of Defence has known about this for years."
----
An Antidote for Chemicals Is Out of Reach
June 11, 2004
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/11/politics/11antidote.html
WASHINGTON, June 10 (AP) - Despite the interest of some emergency officials, the government is not providing communities with an antidote that is controlled by the Army and stockpiled by other countries to treat victims of a chemical terror attack.
The product, Reactive Skin Decontamination Lotion, was developed by the Canadian military years ago, won Food and Drug Administration approval in 2003 and is sold in other NATO countries for neutralizing sarin, mustard gas and other chemical agents. It is being tested by the Army. But the companies that make it are not permitted to sell it or even advertise it to state and local governments in the United States.
"Right now they have no product to decontaminate people other than soap and water," said Phil O'Dell, president of O'Dell Engineering, a Canadian company licensed by Canada to sell the lotion.
Dr. Dani-Margot Zavasky of the New York Police Department's counterterrorism bureau said she thought the antidote was promising and wondered why her agency could not buy it.
As described by the F.D.A. at the time it approved it for the Army in April 2003, a lotion-soaked sponge is packaged in a special foil pouch that people can carry, ready to rip open and wipe on skin as soon as possible after exposure to a chemical attack.
Dr. Zavasky said she heard about the antidote from marines, not from the Army or the Homeland Security Department, whose duties include informing state and local governments about new antiterrorism technologies.
"I'm not aware of any substance other than this out there that has been used for so long by others that has this benefit," Dr. Zavasky said. "I've been hearing about it for a year and a half now, and still it's not widely available."
The Army said it wanted to do more testing before making it standard issue for its troops or letting police officers, firefighters and other emergency workers buy it.
In the United States, the Army obtained the F.D.A.'s approval, meaning O'Dell cannot sell it to state and local governments without Army permission. But that does not preclude other federal agencies from trying to bring the drug to emergency agencies.
A spokesman for the Homeland Security Department, Kirk Whitworth, said the agency did not comment on specific products but was committed "to speeding the access to the most effective products available."
Frustrated by the delay, O'Dell Engineering and its business partner, E-Z-EM Inc., which is based in New York State, have started lobbying lawmakers and the Army.
At least two Republicans whose constituents include companies involved in the making the antidote, Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and Representative John E. Sweeney of New York, have written to the Army.
Tony Lombardo, chief executive of E-Z-EM, a health care company, estimated that the product, packaged in a pouch that can treat one person, would cost roughly $20 to $22 per pouch.
E-Z-EM and O'Dell Engineering said that the product had been used safely in several countries for years and that they were considering seeking F.D.A. approval themselves to market it to emergency agencies.
-------- iraq
NEWS ANALYSIS: THE CONSTITUTION
Kurds Find U.S. Alliance Is Built on Shifting Sands
June 11, 2004
By STEVEN R. WEISMAN
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/11/politics/11DIPL.html
WASHINGTON, June 10 - Before the war to oust Saddam Hussein, the Bush administration counted on the Kurdish minority in northern Iraq as its closest ally. But now ties with the Kurds have reached a bitter new phase, with some Kurdish leaders charging that they have been betrayed by Washington.
The problem, in the Kurds' view, was reflected in an administration decision this week to rebuff Kurdish pleas to have the United Nations Security Council give its blessing to the temporary Iraqi constitution, which they see as protecting their rights.
Kurds value the document because it gives the three Kurdish provinces the effective power to veto a permanent constitution, which is to be written next year. They fear that the Shiite majority may try to impose Islamic law through the new constitution, or dilute Kurdish control of oil fields in their region.
"It's not just that we have been misled by the Americans," said a high-ranking Kurdish official. "It's also that they change their position day to day without any focus on real strategy in Iraq. There's a level of mismanagement and incompetence that is shocking."
The temporary constitution, hammered out under American supervision in March, was hailed by the American authorities at the time as one that would prevail until a new constitution is written and ratified and a permanent government takes office under its provisions.
But Iraq's new leaders, in statements this week, described it as only operative until the beginning of next year, when a newly elected national assembly convenes to write the permanent charter.
Iraq's new prime minister, Iyad Allawi, who was picked under a process led by the United Nations, said in Baghdad that the document approved last March remains the law of the land for now. His comment was intended to reassure Kurds, but Kurdish spokesmen said Thursday that it may have had the opposite effect.
The reason is that Dr. Allawi's comments implied that the newly elected national assembly could well change the ratification process for the permanent constitution, endangering the Kurds' veto.
The omission of references in the Security Council resolution to the temporary constitution, known as the transitional administrative law, came at the insistence of the supreme Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.
Kurds, stunned at the omission, are threatening to withdraw from any Iraqi government unless the temporary constitution is reaffirmed through next year.
Ayatollah Sistani, the most revered figure among Iraq's Shiites, who constitute about 60 percent of the population, has gained enormous power in the waning months of the American occupation, which formally ends in two and a half weeks.
Administration officials say they have had no choice but to follow his dictates. When he called for an end to the American offensive against Shiite rebels in Najaf, American military commanders complied, even lifting their order for the arrest of a rebel leader, Moktada al-Sadr.
In the end, the officials say, Kurds are going to have to make their own arrangements with the Shiites for ratifying the constitution.
"The Kurds are saying to us, `We are your true allies, the only people in Iraq who truly like you and who respect your values.' " said Noah Feldman, a New York University law professor who advised on the drafting of the temporary constitution.
"The U.S. is saying, though maybe not explicitly, `We want you to have power, but if Sistani is going to put his name on a letter to the U.N. demanding things be done his way, we're not going to go to the mat over it," Mr. Feldman added. "Frankly, the U.S. is a little scared of Sistani."
Another former adviser to the American occupation, Larry Diamond, said the problem stemmed not from Ayatollah Sistani's position, but from the original demand by the Kurds that they be given an effective veto over a future constitution.
"I am profoundly sympathetic to the concerns of the Kurds, but I think they overreached in these negotiations," said Mr. Diamond, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. "They wound up obtaining a settlement that was unsustainable in light of continuing Shiite objections."
Mr. Diamond said the United States should try to negotiate some kind of a deal between the Shiites and Kurds to avoid a worse confrontation later.
He added that it was possible that without such an arrangement, Shiite religious leaders would press the new Iraqi government to take other steps to change the law, including a repeal of a ban on extending Islamic law to such matters as marriage and divorce.
"We have a budding crisis here," said Mr. Diamond. "My fear is that if we don't get a broad societal consensus behind this document, the whole thing could unravel down the road. I would rather fix it now with a compromise."
Responding to Kurdish criticism, Richard A. Boucher, the State Department spokesman, said Wednesday that the failure to include the transitional law in the United Nations resolution was insignificant, because the resolution endorsed the law's principles of pluralism and minority rights in general.
"What the resolution did was stick to the basic principles that are embodied in that law," Mr. Boucher said.
American officials deny that they betrayed the Kurds and reject the idea that American diplomats should try to mediate a solution to Iraqi federalism.
Rather, they said, the United States had created a situation where the Kurds will have to negotiate their future with supporters of Ayatollah Sistani, and seek their own accommodations.
"This is going to become the first big test of the government in Iraq," said a United Nations diplomat. "You've got a government. Now let's see how much internal and external pressure they can take."
--------
Cleric's Aide Backs New Iraq Government; Clashes Continue
June 11, 2004
By EDWARD WONG
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/11/international/middleeast/11CND-IRAQ.html?pagewanted=all&position=
BAGHDAD, Iraq, June 11 - A representative of the rebel cleric Moktada al-Sadr endorsed the new Iraqi government in a sermon today, marking a reversal by Mr. Sadr. The representative also asked members of Mr. Sadr's militia to obey orders, an implicit request to adhere to a cease-fire that was broken this week.
But violence between Mr. Sadr's followers and those of a rival cleric broke out in the holy city of Najaf as mobs of people engaged in fistfights and militiamen shut down the golden-domed Shrine of Ali.
More fighting took place between the Shiite cleric's followers and American troops today in Baghdad, and imams in Sunni mosques there called on former members of the Iraqi military to join the insurgency.
Also today, the American military said it had started an investigation into the killing of an Iraqi man by a soldier of the First Cavalry Division on May 17 in Baghdad.
The incident unfolded because someone had told the military that the Iraqi man was bragging to his neighbors that he had killed a soldier of the First Cavalry Division, according to a written statement. Soldiers then raided the man's home in the neighborhood of Kamalaya in Baghdad. "It is reported that during the raid, the Iraqi attempted to grab the weapon of a U.S. soldier who shot and killed the subject," the statement said, adding that "the details surrounding the shooting are under investigation."
The military headquarters in Baghdad rarely announces such investigations.
On June 4, the United States Army said it was investigating the shooting death in May of an Iraqi civilian by a soldier of the First Armored Division. The soldier had apparently shot and killed an Iraqi driver at close range after the driver had already been injured during a car chase in which the Iraqi's car was raked with bullets.
On Jan. 16, the military issued a five-sentence statement saying that it was investigating allegations of the abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison. The statement was the first public acknowledgment of the abuse. But it was opaque, especially given the incendiary nature of the accusations, and the military has been criticized for not being more forthcoming with details at the time.
In the town of Yusufiya, on the Euphrates River 10 miles south of Baghdad, insurgents fired rocket-propelled grenades and AK-47's at a police station. Policemen fled. The insurgents then entered the station and wired it with explosives. Video footage on Al Jazeera, the Arab satellite television network, showed the stationhouse reduced to rubble shortly afterward.
The police called American forces for help, but soldiers did not show up until five hours later, Lt. Satpar Abdul-Reta told the Associated Press.
Successful attacks on police stations remain commonplace in Iraq, raising serious doubts about whether the American military is prepared to hand over responsibility for security to Iraqi forces in the months following June 30, when the Iraqi government will assume some form of sovereignty.
On Thursday, members of the Mahdi Army, Mr. Sadr's militia, overran a police station in central Najaf after overnight gun battles and freed the prisoners. They then allowed looters to plunder the building. The insurgents set at least eight new squad cars on fire.
Members of the Mahdi Army also shot at and blew up a police station last Sunday in the Shiite slum of Sadr City in Baghdad. A more spectacular attack took place the same day in the town of Musayyib, south of the capital, when about 10 men in police uniforms walked into a stationhouse and forced the local officers into their own cells. The attackers wired the place with explosives and detonated them when others arrived to try and free the policemen.
The explosions killed at least 10 Iraqi policemen and two civilians.
At several Sunni mosques in Baghdad today, imams beseeched former officers of the Iraqi Army commanded by Saddam Hussein to join the insurgency and drive out the occupation. One such sermon took place at Abu Hanifa mosque in the Sunni-dominated neighborhood of Adhamiya, according to Agence France-Presse.
"Where is the military?" said Sheik Ahmed Hassan al-Taha al-Samarrai. "They have indisputable experience, and their silence means they keep their knowledge to themselves."
"The absence of combat experts from the battlefield is treason in all senses of the word," he added. "It's treason against God, the prophet and the nation the experts belong to."
A resident of the Zaiyuna neighborhood in Baghdad, where many former officers live, reported hearing a similar sermon being broadcast from a Sunni mosque there.
But in the Friday sermon in the holy city of Kufa, 120 miles south of Baghdad, the head of Mr. Sadr's legal court, Sheik Jabir al-Khafaji, asked the Mahdi Army to "obey the supreme leader's orders" and to "thank God for the triumph he received." Those words appeared to be an implicit request members of the Mahdi Army to stops attacks and follow a cease-fire that was announced on June 4.
It was unclear whether the insurgents who attacked the Ghari police station in central Najaf twice this week were following orders from senior commanders in the Mahdi Army or acting on their own. Those attacks were the most serious infractions of the cease-fire. Adnan Zurfi, the governor of Najaf, said on Thursday he was prepared to retaliate in full if the Mahdi Army did not back down.
It has been difficult for truces between the Mahdi Army and the occupation forces to stick. The one announced on June 4 was the second cease-fire in several weeks. American soldiers and insurgents continued fighting after the first one was supposed to have gone into effect on May 27.
Sheik Khafaji also said Mr. Sadr approved the new interim government and wants the leaders to set a timetable for the departure of the occupation forces. The endorsement is a reversal for Mr. Sadr, who mocked the government shortly after it was announced on June 1, saying it was a puppet of the Americans.
In the adjoining city of Najaf, followers of Mr. Sadr clashed in the streets with hundreds of supporters of Imam Sadr al-Din al-Kubanchi, one of the leaders of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, an influential Shiite party. Mr. Kubanchi had called for his followers to stage a peaceful march through town to observe the truce. But the march was met by Mr. Sadr's supporters, who then engaged in fistfights with the crowd inside the sacred Shrine of Ali.
Members of the Mahdi Army forced everyone from the shrine, where Mr. Kubanchi preaches every Friday, and barricaded the doors.
In Baghdad, fighting continued between American soldiers and the Mahdi Army. Militiamen fired at soldiers in Sadr City and lobbed grenades at them, prompting the Americans to shoot back and call in helicopters, Reuters reported. Video footage showed a tracer bullet going straight through one insurgent holding a rocket-propelled grenade, killing him.
An Iraqi employee of The New York Times contributed reporting from Najaf and Kufa.
--------
SHIITE MILITIAS
Rebel Cleric's Fighters Seize a Police Station in Najaf
June 11, 2004
By EDWARD WONG
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/11/international/middleeast/11IRAQ.html
BAGHDAD, Iraq, June 10 - Militiamen loyal to the rebel Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr seized a police station in the center of Najaf on Thursday, set prisoners free and allowed looters to plunder the building, witnesses and Iraqi security officials said.
It was the worst infraction of a cease-fire negotiated less than a week earlier between Mr. Sadr's militiamen and an alliance of American-trained Iraqi security forces and American occupation troops deployed outside Najaf. A hospital official said at least five people were killed and 29 were wounded in the violence Thursday.
The gunmen withdrew from the police station after several hours, but they returned throughout the day as the looting went on. At night, militiamen set fire to eight new police cars, witnesses reported.
The dead included one policeman, three insurgents and one civilian, said Hussein Hadi, an administrative assistant at the Hakim Hospital. He said the wounded included a policeman and two children.
Each side accused the other of shooting first and breaking the cease-fire, which was announced on June 4 by Adnan Zurfi, the governor of Najaf. It was unclear whether the gunmen were acting on the orders of senior commanders in Mr. Sadr's militia, known as the Mahdi Army, or had acted independently.
American military officials have said they are unsure if Mr. Sadr controls all his fighters, many of whom are youths from the poor neighborhood of Sadr City in northeastern Baghdad.
[An American soldier died of wounds sustained during an attack in eastern Baghdad on Wednesday, the United States military said in a statement released Friday. Four other soldiers were wounded in the attack, the statement said.]
The cease-fire was the second one negotiated in the last several weeks; American soldiers and the Mahdi Army kept fighting after the first agreement was announced May 27.
By Thursday night, soldiers with the First Armored Division, which is assigned to the region, had not intervened in Najaf, which is regarded as holy city to Iraqi Shiites.
"We don't want the Americans to interfere in the confrontations," Mr. Zurfi said. "We will deal with the situation, and if we need help, we will ask the Americans to participate."
Later, the governor gave the Mahdi Army 24 hours to back down. But the destruction of the police station showed that the Iraqi security forces had failed to protect it against the militiamen, raising the question of whether such Iraqi forces are ready to take responsibility for securing the country and battling insurgents following the transfer of sovereignty on June 30.
Elsewhere on Thursday, the Arab satellite network Al Arabiya broadcast a videotape showing masked men with assault rifles guarding four Turkish hostages. The gunmen identified themselves as members of a group called the Jihad Squads, and demanded that Turkish companies stop doing business in Iraq.
A senior American Army officer was quoted by Reuters as saying the military had detained four Arab men with fake journalist credentials trying to enter the fortified American headquarters in Baghdad. The men were apparently posing as a television crew and were trying to drive a van into the compound. They were stopped when a sensor machine alerted guards to traces of explosive material on them, Reuters quoted the officer as saying.
Mr. Sadr has remained a major problem for the American-led occupation forces. He is wanted in connection with the killing of an American-backed cleric last April, but the Americans have hesitated in arresting or killing him for fear of angering his Shiite Muslim followers.
"We have called upon him and others to abide by the rule of law and to respect peaceful means," Iyad Allawi, the prime minister of the new Iraqi interim government and a Shiite, said at a news conference on Thursday. "Any continuity of using force will be dealt with by the Iraqi government in a very serious and strong way."
Qais al-Khazali, a spokesman for Mr. Sadr, said the Najaf incident Thursday started when the police tried to raid a building housing an Islamic organization that was guarded by members of the Mahdi Army.
In the nearby city of Karbala, where American forces fought the Mahdi Army for nearly three weeks last month, police officers seized a pickup truck carrying heavy weapons at a checkpoint north of the city, a police spokesman said. Support for Mr. Sadr still runs high in parts of the capital. Posters of him were seen Thursday covering many walls in the neighborhood of Kadhimiya.
An Iraqi employee of The New York Times contributed reporting from Najaf for this article.
--------
Gunmen Raid Police Station Near Baghdad
By MARIAM FAM
The Associated Press
Friday, June 11, 2004
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A34320-2004Jun11?language=printer
YUSUFIYAH, Iraq - Gunmen stormed a police station south of Baghdad on Friday, drove off the poorly armed police and blasted the station in the fourth such attack against Iraqi security installations over the last week, officials and witnesses said.
A prominent Sunni Muslim cleric, meanwhile, expressed disappointment Friday with the recent U.N. resolution endorsing the transfer of power to the Iraqis and called for a complete end to the American presence here.
Police in this Euphrates river town 20 kilometers (12 miles) south of Baghdad called for help from American forces when they came under attack. But the Americans didn't reach the town until about five hours after the attack, according to police Lt. Satpar Abdul-Reda.
Abdul-Reda said the attackers arrived in seven cars, surrounded the station and opened fire with small arms and rocket-propelled grenades. The 10 policemen inside were armed only with Kalashnikov rifles and pistols and fled the station after realizing they were outgunned, Abdul-Reda said.
The gunmen entered the building, rigged it with explosives and blew it up, the lieutenant said.
It was the fourth attack on police stations across the country in the past week. On June 5, gunmen killed seven policemen before blowing up the police station in Musayyib. The following day, gunmen believed loyal to radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr blasted a police station in the Sadr City area of Baghdad. Al-Sadr's followers overran a police station Thursday in Najaf and ransacked the building.
The attacks on police stations occurred as the U.S.-run occupation authority plans to hand over greater responsibility to Iraqi forces ahead of the June 30 transfer of sovereignty. However, U.S. officials acknowledge that the Iraqis lack sufficient training and equipment to handle the job without considerable U.S. and allied support after the transfer.
In Baghdad, meanwhile, a car bomb exploded on a highway in the Sayediya district as a U.S. patrol passed nearby. Two U.S. Humvees were slightly damaged, but there was no U.S. confirmation of any casualties.
Elsewhere, the U.S. command said an American soldier died of wounds suffered in an ambush in eastern Baghdad. Four other soldiers were wounded in the Wednesday night attack. More than 820 U.S. service members have died since the Iraq conflict began March 2003.
Tensions remained high in the Shiite holy city of Najaf, scene of armed clashes Thursday between police and Shiite radicals in which six Iraqis died. Trouble started Friday morning when hundreds of protesters marched toward the Imam Ali Shrine to express support for a peace plan that was threatened by clashes the day before.
Supporters of al-Sadr blocked their way, and fights broke out between the two groups. The shrine was evacuated and its doors closed as a security precaution, witnesses said.
The fighting in Najaf was the first since a truce mediated by Shiite clerics and politicians ended eight weeks of clashes between U.S. troops and al-Sadr's al-Mahdi Army militia.
Al-Mahdi Army fighters remained in their positions around the city's main mosque Friday, inspecting cars and checking identification papers. But there was no sign of weapons.
U.S. troops refused to intervene because the fighting was too close to Shiite shrines and because it was unclear whether al-Sadr was trying to subvert the truce. Al-Sadr aides said the fighting began when relatives of a man killed by police sought revenge.
American forces are trying to lower their profile in Iraq and hand over more responsibility in advance of the restoration of Iraqi sovereignty June 30. The transfer plan won international endorsement Tuesday when the U.N. Security Council unanimously approved a U.S.-British blueprint for post-occupation Iraq.
Lt. Gen. Thomas F. Metz, who took command of the new Multinational Corps Iraq headquarters last month, said Thursday the military was changing its focus from fighting guerrillas to training Iraqi troops and protecting the fragile interim government.
But in a sermon Friday, Dr. Mohammed Bashar al-Faidhi, a spokesman for the Sunni-run Association of Muslim Scholars, denounced the resolution for permitting the continued presence of American and other foreign forces.
"We cannot trust the occupation forces after all their lies," al-Faidhi said. "We cannot imagine people getting freedom and sovereignty with the presence of 150,000 soldiers stationed on their land. We cannot expect any success for any political process under the thumb of the occupation, whether as the Governing Council or interim government."
Al-Faidhi said the U.S. presence in Iraq "is completely rejected by all Iraqis" and that the Iraqi people "will not accept an American embassy or military bases."
Assailants fired RPGs Thursday night at coalition troops near the Shiite city of Hillah about 60 miles south of Baghdad. Polish officials said no casualties were reported and the attackers fled when troops returned fire.
Polish Lt. Col. Robert Strzelecki wouldn't divulge the nationality of the coalition troops involved but soldiers from Poland, Bulgaria, Lithuania and Latvia operate in the area.
In Seoul, the South Korean government said it would send 3,600 troops to a Kurdish area of northern Iraq in August despite pressure to reconsider the long-delayed deployment.
South Korea, which already has 600 military medics and engineers in the southern city of Nasiriyah, had planned to send its troops to the ethnically contested city of Kirkuk in April. The plan was canceled because of fears the troops might be caught up in fighting.
Opposition to sending troops to Iraq has been rising amid increasing violence in Iraq. Seoul has portrayed the dispatch as a way of winning U.S. support for a peaceful end to the North Korean nuclear crisis.
-------- israel / palestine
Israel to Offer Compensation if Settlers Leave Now
June 11, 2004
By GREG MYRE
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/11/international/middleeast/11mide.html
JERUSALEM, June 10 - Israel is willing to pay compensation in advance to encourage Jewish settlers to leave the Gaza Strip, rather than face forced evacuation next year, government officials said Thursday.
But the Yesha Council, the main group representing the settlers, predicted that only a small number of the 7,500 Israelis living in Gaza would accept the offer.
"A large majority will stay and fight for their homes," said Josh Hasten, a spokesman for the council. "They can't be bought."
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon wants to dismantle all 21 settlements in Gaza by the end of next year, and if a significant number of settlers leave on their own, it could generate momentum for his efforts to remove the settlers who remain.
A proposed government timetable says the Gaza settlers could begin leaving voluntarily in August and would have until Sept. 1, 2005, before the military would act to evict any holdouts. Under the plan, all the settlers are to be gone by Sept. 15, 2005, and the military would complete its withdrawal from Gaza by Oct. 1, government officials said.
Settlers leaving of their own accord could request a down payment of up to $30,000 as part of an overall compensation package, the newspaper Maariv reported Thursday. The total package could reach $300,000 per family, though the government has refused to discuss specific figures.
The proposed timetable was presented Wednesday to a government committee set up to oversee the withdrawal. A senior official emphasized that the committee's first meeting was on Wednesday, and that nothing had been decided yet.
Facing right-wing resistance to the withdrawal, Mr. Sharon presented a modified plan that the cabinet passed Sunday.
The ministers accepted the pullout in principle but are to hold additional votes to formally approve it. Those votes are not expected before next year.
The cabinet's decision on Sunday suggested that the government would not take any quick action in Gaza. But the voluntary withdrawal could generate some movement and serve as a gauge of how much resistance the government might face in dealing with the settlers.
Mr. Sharon's plan also calls for dismantling four small settlements in the northern West Bank. Israel has refused to coordinate its withdrawal with the Palestinians, and says it may tear down many of the houses in the settlements before departing. Israel does not intend to hand the land directly to the Palestinians, and will work through a third party. European governments or the World Bank could serve in this role, Israeli officials have said.
Israel has not previously dismantled any of the nearly 150 formal Jewish settlements built in Gaza or the West Bank, land captured by Israel in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.
Israel did remove several thousand settlers in 1982 from the Sinai as part of a peace treaty with Egypt. Mr. Sharon was the defense minister then, and the military sent in a large contingent of troops and helicopters to remove some hard-core residents who clung to their rooftops.
In overnight violence on Thursday, two Palestinian teenagers, 13 and 18, were killed in separate West Bank clashes with Israeli troops, Agence France-Presse reported, citing Palestinian security and medical officials. The Israeli military confirmed that it had shot one Palestinian throwing firebombs at troops in Nablus and another throwing firebombs in a village outside Bethlehem.
Overnight, Israeli forces shot and killed a Palestinian man during a search for suspected militants in Jenin, on the West Bank, the military said. Palestinians identified the dead man as a member of Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades, which has carried out many attacks against Israel.
--------
Israel Settler Payments Could Start Soon
By RAVI NESSMAN
The Associated Press
Friday, June 11, 2004; 9:25 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35509-2004Jun11.html
JERUSALEM - The government could begin offering compensation next month to Jewish settlers who volunteer to leave the Gaza Strip, even though the Cabinet has not given final approval to uproot settlements there, a government official said Friday.
The rapid work on compensation followed a Cabinet decision Sunday approving Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's plan to evacuate all 21 Jewish settlements in Gaza and four others in the northern West Bank by the end of next year.
Sharon persuaded recalcitrant members of his Likud Party to support the proposal by promising the Cabinet would have a chance to vote again next year before any settlements were removed.
The plan to begin compensating the settlers months before that vote appeared part of an effort to create momentum for evacuations in advance of that vote.
The compensation package will average about $300,000 per family, Israeli media reported, and will take into account the size of the home and the number of years the family has lived in the settlement.
A government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the Cabinet is expected to approve a compensation bill "around July or maybe a little later."
Such a bill would clear the way for the government to give cooperative settlers immediate cash advances toward their eventual compensation, even before parliament approves the bill, he said.
Also Friday, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan called Sharon and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to thank them for their joint efforts to prepare security arrangements for Gaza after an Israeli withdrawal, according to government sources.
Following a withdrawal, Egypt intends to increase the number of troops on its side of the border with Gaza, to send security advisers to the chaotic coastal Gaza to help train Palestinian forces and to help build new police stations and jails there.
Haaretz newspaper reported Friday that evacuating Gaza - including compensating the 7,500 settlers there and removing military installations - could cost up to $1.9 billion. Removing the West Bank enclaves will cost more than $110 million, it said.
Officials said Thursday that "hundreds" of settlers have already expressed interest in leaving.
The local councils of the northern West Bank settlements of Ganim and Kadim have contacted a lawyer to prepare for compensation negotiations, said Debbie Drori, a spokeswoman for Kadim.
She estimated that half Kadim's 28 families have signed on with the attorney.
Drori and other residents said the move will be extremely painful, but they will not fight the army.
"It will be interesting to see what they offer me. If it is enough, based on my expectations, it is very likely I will agree," said Gershon Bloomberg, a Ganim resident.
But hundreds of ideological settlers, particularly in Gaza, say they will resist any attempt to remove them from their homes.
Under a proposed evacuation timetable, preparations for dismantling settlements would be completed well before the next Cabinet vote and settlers who want to leave voluntarily could begin doing so by mid-August. The timetable gives settlers until Sept. 1, 2005, to leave voluntarily. Those who don't leave on their own would be removed forcibly by Sept. 15, 2005.
-------- mideast
Alleged Plot to Kill Saudi Ruler Detailed
Libyan Leader Behind It, Detainee Says
By John Mintz and Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, June 11, 2004; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32871-2004Jun10?language=printer
When Abdurahman Alamoudi was stopped by British authorities last August as he boarded a flight from London to Syria with $340,000 inside a valise, Western government officials were skeptical about his odd explanation that a Libyan official had handed him the money without a word in a London hotel room.
U.S. agents initially believed that the prominent American Muslim activist had planned to take the money to Syria and give it to the Islamic Resistance Movement, the Palestinian group also known as Hamas that sponsors suicide bombings against Israelis.
But now Alamoudi, who is being held at an Alexandria jail facing 34 counts related to the alleged cash smuggling, is sketching out even more extraordinary allegations for U.S. officials. Alamoudi has revealed a plot by Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi to assassinate the head of the Saudi government, Crown Prince Abdullah -- a plan in which Alamoudi took part, according to U.S. law enforcement officials and other informed sources.
Lawyers for Alamoudi, a pillar of Northern Virginia's Muslim community, are negotiating a plea agreement with the government in the hope that their client can avoid the life sentence he could face if convicted on all the original charges, sources said.
Alamoudi, 52, whose account is corroborated by a Libyan intelligence official -- Col. Mohamed Ismael, who is in Saudi custody -- has told U.S. officials that he twice met with Gaddafi late last spring and last summer, and that both times the Libyan leader told him to speed up the plot to kill Abdullah, according to several people familiar with the case.
During the very months last year when Gaddafi was allegedly hatching this plan, he was also negotiating with British and U.S. officials to renounce terrorism and end his weapons-of-mass-destruction programs, the sources said. Gaddafi announced that he was terminating the secret weapons projects in December, by which time U.S. officials were aggressively pursuing allegations about the assassination effort.
Asked about the affair yesterday, President Bush told reporters that "we're going to make sure we fully understand the veracity of the plot line. . . . When we find out the facts, we will deal with them accordingly. . . . I have sent a message to [Gaddafi] that if he honors his commitments to resist terror and to fully disclose and disarm his weapons programs, we will begin a process of normalization, which we have done."
Libyan Foreign Minister Abdel-Rahman Shalqam yesterday denied the allegations "completely and categorically." The Saudi government declined to comment.
State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said yesterday that even before Gaddafi swore off nuclear weapons on Dec. 19, Washington had heard reports "that Libya was in contact with Saudi dissidents who have threatened violence against the Saudi royal family. We raised those concerns directly with the Libyan leadership, and they assured us that they would not support the use of violence for settling political differences with any state."
Bush and his top aides have pointed repeatedly to Libya as a U.S. foreign policy success at a time when some of the administration's most important international projects are on shaky ground. Asked about the White House's continued support for Gaddafi, one U.S. official said the intelligence community is divided on the strength of the evidence on the alleged plot.
"It's a murky business," the official said. "We're being rather circumspect about the whole thing because we just don't know."
U.S. and Saudi officials are trying to interview at least two of Alamoudi's U.S. associates, who apparently are overseas, officials said. Washington and Riyadh are also pressing British officials to intensify their investigation of Saad Faqih, a radical Saudi dissident in London who U.S. officials suspect played a role in the Libyan conspiracy. In an interview yesterday, Faqih denied any connection to the plot.
Without a plea agreement, Alamoudi could face life in prison if he is convicted on all charges. His trial is scheduled to begin in August on charges including violating U.S. sanctions by taking money from a nation designated as a terrorist state, attempting to launder money and lying to officials when he denied ties with Hamas.
Alamoudi attorney James P. McLoughlin Jr. confirmed that his client "is cooperating with the government in its investigation.'' A person familiar with Alamoudi's thinking said that Alamoudi became involved in the plot for money, not out of a desire to see the Saudi ruler assassinated, and that he doubted the plot would lead anywhere.
"We are at a very delicate stage in the investigation," one U.S. law enforcement official said.
Authorities hope that word of Alamoudi's cooperation with the government will encourage those who had worked with him in support of Hamas and other extremists to volunteer information to investigators, one law enforcement official said.
"Now that everyone knows Alamoudi is talking, subjects of other investigations may come in," the official said. "They know he has a lot to tell us."
News of the investigation has shocked Muslim activists who worked closely with Alamoudi, the founder of numerous U.S. Islamic groups including the American Muslim Council, and an occasional White House visitor during the Clinton and current administrations.
The plot, first disclosed yesterday by the New York Times, began in May 2003, when Alamoudi met in Libya with Gaddafi, who said he wanted Abdullah killed, according to Alamoudi's account, the sources said. At a meeting in June, Gaddafi asked Alamoudi why there had not been any "heads flying" in the Saudi royal family, the sources said.
Later last year, Ismael and Alamoudi were in touch with Saudi dissidents in London, who helped locate men in Saudi Arabia willing to join an assassination plot that involved the use of small arms or rocket-propelled grenades, according to people familiar with the case.
Ismael subsequently traveled to Egypt, where he was arrested by security officers. On Nov. 27, Saudi participants who had been recruited by Ismael were arrested at a hotel in Mecca as they waited to receive cash payments from their Libyan handlers.
Among the people under investigation in Britain is Faqih, the dissident leader who has had close contacts with Saudi extremists and jihadists for years but who professes to embrace only peaceful reform, officials said. Yesterday, he acknowledged having known Alamoudi for years but denied being funded by him or by Ismael.
U.S. authorities first learned of allegations that Libyans were working with militant Saudi dissidents in November, eight months after Libya approached the British government about ending its weapons programs. The Americans raised concerns about those allegations in December, during the weapons negotiations in London.
Libya ultimately allowed U.S. authorities to remove its nuclear components and opened its doors to international inspectors. Early this year, Assistant Secretary of State William Burns discussed "the issue of using violence for political means" with Gaddafi in Tripoli, according to Boucher.
In April, Bush eased economic sanctions, opening the door to U.S. oil companies, banks and other investors to resume business that had been prohibited since 1986.
The Bush administration remains confident about Libya's cooperation on eliminating its illicit weapons programs. U.S. authorities hauled out large amounts of equipment from Libya, including tons of uranium-enrichment equipment, now under lock and key in Tennessee.
U.N. inspectors have gone from town to town in the desert nation in search of information about Libya's scientific and manufacturing capabilities. They have concluded that Libya's nuclear program was quite limited and now seems to pose little danger.
Staff writers Susan Schmidt, Mary Beth Sheridan, Jerry Markon and Dana Milbank contributed to this report.
-------- nato
Ukraine accuses NATO assembly of interfering in its affairs
KIEV (AFP)
Jun 11, 2004
http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040611145747.704qs0is.html
Ukraine accused NATO's parliamentary assembly of interfering in its affairs for jumping to the conclusion that President Leonid Kuchma would step down later this year.
At its recent meeting in Bratislava, Slovakia, the assembly called on Ukraine to ensure that upcoming presidential elections are "fair, free and transparent," and stated that Kuchma was "due to step down after his second term expires in October."
That appeared to fit in with the facts in that Kuchma, 65, has said he would not be a candidate in the elections, even if the constitutional court has declared he is eligible to seek a fresh mandate.
But Vassyl Baziv, the head of the president's administrative office, declared the statement to be "interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign country."
"When the president departs is an affair of President Kuchma and the Ukrainian people, and not of a a foreign parliamentary assembly," Baziv added. "Today, they are giving orders to Kuchma and tomorrow they will be giving orders to a new Ukrainian president."
The NATO assembly is made up of parliamentarians from the 26 member countries, and has no executive role.
Kuchma has sought to position Ukraine for membership in NATO and distance itself from the dominating influence of its larger eastern neighbor Russia, on which it relies for its energy supplies.
Ukraine is a member of the Partnership for Peace program that NATO has set up for Eastern European republics, and has staged a series of joint military exercises with the alliance.
In addition, Kuchma has been invited to attend the NATO summit meeting in Istanbul June 28 and 29.
However, he has been frequently criticized for his record on media freedom and human rights.
--------
Bush Doesn't Expect NATO to Provide Troops for Iraq
June 11, 2004
By RICHARD W. STEVENSON and DAVID E. SANGER
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/11/international/11SUMM.html?pagewanted=all&position=
SAVANNAH, Ga., June 10 - President Bush said Thursday that after two days of consultations with the leaders of France and other nations, he did not expect NATO to provide troops to bolster or replace American forces in Iraq. But he continued to press for a more limited NATO role in training Iraqis to take on the burden of security in their own country, if the new Iraqi government requested the help.
At a news conference at the conclusion of a summit meeting of the Group of 8, the major industrial nations and Russia, Mr. Bush sounded more cautious about NATO's future role in Iraq than he did Wednesday morning, when he met with Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain.
President Jacques Chirac of France, speaking at his own news conference on Thursday, reiterated his opposition to any broad NATO intervention, and left uncertain whether he would support a NATO role in training Iraqi forces. Making clear that his split with Mr. Bush over Iraq is not completely in the past, he described the occupation of Iraq as "costly in every regard," and warned against the risks of NATO "meddling" there.
Despite the continuing tensions, Mr. Bush appeared relaxed and at times almost ebullient as he took questions for 40 minutes, ranging from reflections on Ronald Reagan's presidency to the failure so far to find banned weapons in Iraq.
When the subject turned to the treatment of prisoners, Mr. Bush said he could not remember whether he had seen secret Pentagon and Justice Department legal opinions that concluded he had broad authority to determine what techniques could be used to interrogate unlawful combatants seized in Afghanistan. But he insisted several times that his only orders were that interrogators must "conform to U.S. law" and act "consistent with international treaty obligations."
His answer is not likely to put to rest the question of whether the White House condoned harsh treatment of prisoners or coercive interrogation techniques because administration legal memorandums appeared to re-interpret both American law and international treaties concerning torture. One administration memo concluded that "in wartime it is for the president alone to decide what methods to use to best prevail against the enemy," including interrogation techniques.
While the administration has insisted that these advisory opinions never resulted in orders to change the way prisoners were treated, critics have argued that they showed an effort to loosen restrictions on interrogations, and that techniques created at the American military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, were eventually used in Iraq.
Iraq dominated the summit meeting, held on nearby Sea Island, and Mr. Bush faced repeated questions about what role NATO, the United States and Iraqi forces would play in seeking to quell violence in Iraq. After resistance on the issue from Mr. Chirac - who declared two days in a row that it was not NATO's mission to intervene in Iraq - the two leaders sought common ground by agreeing that help from NATO on training would come only if the new interim Iraqi government requested it.
"I don't expect more troops from NATO to be offered up," Mr. Bush said. "That's an unrealistic expectation. Nobody is suggesting that. What we are suggesting is for NATO perhaps to help train. Now that will come at the request of the Iraqi government."
Asked whether there would be an American face on the security of Iraq for some time, he shot back, "There will be an Iraqi face on the security of Iraq." Americans troops would begin leaving, he said, "when the job is done."
The president confirmed a report on Thursday in The New York Times that the government is investigating statements by two men who said they were participants in a plan hatched by Libyan officials to assassinate the ruler of Saudi Arabia.
"What I can tell you is, is that we're going to make sure we fully understand the veracity of the plot line, and so we're looking into it," he said. Asked about the effect of a plot on efforts by the Libyan leader, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, to convince Washington that he has renounced terrorism, he said, "We will make sure he honors his commitment."
At the news conference, Mr. Bush veered from some short, brusque answers - especially to questions about the abuse of detainees - to playful bantering with reporters. At one point, he apologized that he had to answer questions from the White House press corps first. "See, I have to live with these people," he explained to the other reporters. "I don't have to live with you."
He was asked about one of the newest decorative touches at the White House: Saddam Hussein's pistol, which is now mounted in his private study and which was a gift from members of the Delta Force team that captured the former Iraqi leader in December. In reply to a question about whether he would give the pistol to Iraq's new interim president, Sheik Ghazi Ajil al-Yawar, he indicated he would hold onto it.
"Our people were thrilled to have captured him," Mr. Bush said. "And in his lap were several weapons, one of them was a pistol, and they brought it to me. It's now the property of the U.S. government."
Mr. Bush held his news conference after a day largely given over to discussions on how to help the world's poorest nations, especially those in Africa. He and his counterparts from Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Russia and Japan - the Canadian prime minister, Paul Martin, left early - had lunch with the leaders of six African countries.
The Group of 8 leaders endorsed a plan to encourage international cooperation in research to develop a vaccine for AIDS. They pledged to do more to combat famines, and to support the establishment of larger peacekeeping forces for use in Africa. They also committed themselves to extending the life of the main international program for reducing the debts of the poorest countries. But they failed to agree on a plan promoted by Britain to cancel all the debt of those poor countries.
The leaders also remained deadlocked over how much of Iraq's debt to forgive. French officials said Mr. Chirac had made clear his position that given its oil reserves, Iraq should be able to pay off much of its debt, a stance opposed by the United States, which is pressing for all or most Iraqi debt to be forgiven.
Three of the Group of 8 leaders - Mr. Blair, Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi of Italy and Chancellor Gerhard Schröder of Germany - were scheduled to attend the funeral services for former President Ronald Reagan on Friday.
At the end of a meeting that the administration had sought to portray as bringing a close to any bitterness over Iraq, Mr. Bush said he had told Mr. Chirac that their countries "will continue to consult closely" on the issue of NATO's involvement.
A senior administration official told reporters later that the two governments had agreed to continue talking before the annual NATO meeting at the end of the month in Turkey. The official said it was "fair to characterize the positions as moving carefully in the same direction," adding, "What we did not hear is a firm red line of no's."
But Mr. Chirac, before leaving Thursday night, suggested that there remained a clear divide between the United States and France. While Mr. Bush pushed for any role for NATO that might be achievable, Mr. Chirac appeared intent on limiting that role as much as possible and ruling out the deployment of NATO troops.
"Any meddling by NATO in this region seems to us to carry great risks, including risks of clashes between the Christian West and the Muslim East," Mr. Chirac said. "We have indicated clearly that we cannot accept a mission of that type for NATO."
--------
Bush says training may be NATO role
IHT
Brian Knowlton
June 11, 2004
http://www.iht.com/articles/524465.html
SAVANNAH, Georgia President George W. Bush made clear, at the conclusion of the Group of 8 summit meeting here on Thursday, that it was up to the new Iraqi government to request NATO involvement in that country, and that he expected this would be likely to come in a relatively modest form, such as the training and remaking of Iraqi forces. Bush had raised the question of a NATO role earlier in the talks on Sea Island, south of here, and discussed it in one-on-one meetings with some of the other leaders of the world's richest democracies. But he had not been more specific, and in a meeting bookended and deeply marked by developments on Iraq, his comment became controversial when the French president, Jacques Chirac, said he thought NATO had no role in Iraq.
Bush responded: ''I suggested to the leaders of the G-8 that we listen to the needs of the Iraqi leadership, and if they ask for more training, for example, a good organization to provide that training would be NATO.
''I don't expect more troops from NATO to be offered up. That's an unrealistic expectation. Nobody is suggesting that.'' Bush sought to reassure Americans as well that the job of stabilizing Iraq would not, for the foreseeable future, have ''an American face,'' as a questioner put it.
''No,'' he said sharply. ''There will be an Iraqi face on the security of Iraq. The Iraqis will secure their own country, and we are there to help them do so.'' Still, he said, Americans would leave only ''when the job's done.'' The world leaders concluded their yearly session, a meeting both social, ceremonial, and substantial, with agreements Thursday to endorse an Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and to call for an end to a bloody conflict in Sudan.
They appeared to achieve an unexpected show of harmony built on newfound agreement over Iraq, but the calm was disturbed by pointed disputes on a few sensitive topics.
Europeans, particularly Russia and France, expressed reluctance to forgive as much Iraqi debt as the United States sought. Citing the misgivings of many Arab countries, they were able to negotiate a more modest version of the U.S. proposal to promote democracy in the Middle East.
And Chirac pointedly criticized the management of the U.S. economy, focusing on its record deficits, but not mentioning renewed healthy growth.
Still, there were significant areas of accord - agreement on a new nuclear nonproliferation proposal, on pursuing global trade negotiations, on creating a peacekeeping force for Africa, and on fighting AIDS on that continent.
These were reinforced visually by televised scenes of relaxed leaders strolling along Sea Island's white beaches, and by surely the most lasting image from the meeting: of Bush's warm embrace of the new Iraqi president, Sheik Ghazi Ajil al-Yawar.
Bolstered by the vicarious glow from the unanimous UN vote endorsing Iraq's interim government, the host country claimed useful gains - Bush called it a ''very successful summit'' and some of the Europeans and Canada seconded that. That outcome had hardly seemed foreordained, however, after a year in which Bush was battered by setbacks on Iraq and trans-Atlantic wounds over the war there were still healing.
Diplomats from other summit countries expressed general satisfaction, said that after a year of intense, scarring division over Iraq, they were ready to work together to assure the survival of a still-endangered Iraq; for some, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, a key achievement came even before the meeting opened, when the British helped persuade the United States to broaden its agenda to include substantial talks on Africa, including peacekeeping and health initiatives, and a promise to renew a push for Israeli-Palestinian peace.
Significantly, while old wounds flared here and there, no new ones opened.
''It is something the world needs right now,'' said Patrick Cronin, director of studies at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, in Washington. ''It needs to see that G-8 countries, which include Germany, France and Russia, which were at odds with the United States on Iraq, can reach consensus on some essential issues, even if that means finessing some fundamental disputes. It is bound to have a very good effect.''
U.S.-German relations, in particular, have clearly improved, and Germans appeared satisfied with the results. A U.S. official said the Bush meeting with Chancellor Gerhard Schröder Wednesday was their best since before the war.
Not all was harmony, however. The United States, seeking to strengthen the new Iraqi government on every possible level, had called for substantial reduction of its debt up to 80 or 90 percent - by creditors that include France, Germany and Russia. France and Germany have been reluctant to go beyond 50 percent; and Russia has spoken of 65 percent, but only if it receives assurances that its companies will receive contracts for work in Iraq.
No precise formula was agreed on for debt reduction. So far, only Canada, with about $750 million in Iraqi debt, has promised full forgiveness.
All eight leaders agreed on a call for completion of the Doha Round of free trade negotiations, calling for substantial progress by next month.
In a statement on the closing day, the G-8 leaders welcomed Israeli plans to withdraw from Gaza and parts of the West Bank. This was a move Bush had strongly endorsed, but which some Europeans criticized for Bush's suggestion that some Israeli settlements could remain on the West Bank.
The group said it looked to the United Nations to lead the international effort to avert ''a major disaster'' in Darfur, western Sudan, where about 1 million people have been displaced in what aid officials call one of the world's worst humanitarian crises.
-------- pacific
US Has Big Military Plans for Small Pacific Island
By Patrick Goodenough
CNSNews.com Pacific Rim Bureau Chief
June 11, 2004
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=%5CForeignBureaus%5Carchive%5C200406%5CFOR20040611a.html
Pacific Rim Bureau (CNSNews.com) - As the Pentagon reviews the positioning of U.S. armed forces around the world, the small island of Guam in the Western Pacific is moving toward an increasingly significant role.
In recent months, a number of senior U.S. military officials have been quoted as highlighting Guam's benefits and potential, in comments closely monitored by the local community.
"Guam is no longer the trailer park of the Pacific," Rear Adm. Arthur Johnson, commander of U.S. Naval Forces in the Marianas islands, was quoted as saying last April. "Guam has emerged from backwater status to the center of the radar screen."
"Guam's geostrategic importance cannot be overstated," U.S. Pacific Command chief Admiral Thomas Fargo told the House Armed Services Committee last March.
"Both Navy and Air Force facilities will continue to figure prominently in Guam's increasing role as a power projection hub," he said.
A "power projection hub" is one of several designations of facilities reportedly being looked at in the review of the numbers, type, and locations of U.S. forces around the world.
Others include main operation bases, forward operating sites and cooperative security locations - or "places rather than bases" offering access to U.S. forces for training opportunities and to provide warfighting flexibility.
Guam is well placed with relation to potential trouble spots in East Asia, situated about 3,800 miles closer to the Korean peninsula and the Taiwan Strait than Hawaii is.
Unlike the other main locations of U.S. forces in Asia - South Korea and Japan - the island also has the advantage of being American territory, making negative reaction to the presence of additional troops less likely.
South Korea and Japan are strong supporters and key military allies of Washington, but U.S. military bases in both have drawn opposition over the years.
U.S. defense officials confirmed this week that Washington wants to withdraw 12,500, or a full one-third, of the 37,500 troops stationed in South Korea.
In Japan, about three-quarters of the 47,000 U.S. personnel in the country are stationed on the southern island of Okinawa. Periodic calls for a reduction in the numbers have been resisted, although the U.S. is reportedly now considering moving some Marines within Japan, from Okinawa to the northern island of Hokkaido.
Subs, bombers
In recent years, the U.S. has slowly increased assets on Guam, which is home to the Anderson Air Force Base and naval facilities.
In 2000, Guam became the first installation outside the continental U.S. to store long-range air-launched cruise missiles, which are now easily accessible and forward deployed in the event of a future conflict in the region.
Two fast attack submarines were moved to the island in 2002, a third is expected shortly, and military officials say more could be headed Guam's way. The Navy has also been considering basing an aircraft carrier on the island, while the Air Force has spoken of locating fighter planes and midair refueling aircraft there.
For more than a year, the Air Force has also been carrying out "rotational deployments" of bombers to Andersen AFB, as part of what Pacific Command says are adjustments to force posture to enhance regional security.
In his testimony to Congress, Fargo said the bomber deployment demonstrated "both the responsiveness and flexibility of the U.S. Air Force and America's ability to respond quickly to any crisis in the AOR."
(Pacific Command's AOR, or area of responsibility, stretches from the U.S. West Coast to the Indian Ocean, incorporating the Pacific, China, the Korean peninsula, South-East Asia and India, but excluding Central Asia, Pakistan, Afghanistan and the Middle East/Gulf region.)
Fargo also spoke of some major infrastructure improvements on Guam, including plans to upgrade wharves to better support weapons handling, to build material and munitions storage facilities and to repair a runway.
Economic boost
Expanding the military's presence in Guam, and especially any decision to homeport an aircraft carrier there, would provide a significant boost to the local economy. Some experts have estimated that the carrier's presence alone would create more than 4,000 jobs.
Guam is 210 square miles in area, around three times the size of Washington DC, and has a population of around 163,000.
According to the CIA's World Factbook, 23 percent of the population lives below the poverty line. In 2000, unemployment was estimated at 15 percent, compared to four percent in the U.S. at the time.
Guam's main earner is tourism, with the majority of visitors coming from Japan.
More than a million tourists visit Guam each year, although the industry took a hit in the late 1990s due to Asian economic difficulties, and has been affected since then by the international security climate.
Gerald Perez, administrator of the Guam Economic Development and Commerce Authority, told CNSNews.com Thursday the benefits of a greater military presence would include economic diversification and less reliance on tourism, an industry tending to be "event sensitive and currency sensitive."
The U.S. military provided higher wage jobs than found in typical hospitality service industry employment, he said, and a larger presence would improve the Guamanian economic structure and tax base.
"Guam's importance has always been well recognized in the U.S. mainland, but domestic budget and political considerations have prevailed during the downsizing decades post Vietnam," Perez said.
"The new war on terror paradigm that is emerging recognizes Guam's geographic importance as the U.S. territory closest to global hotspots of U.S. concern in Asia and the Middle East."
Earlier this year, Perez visited Washington with Guam Chamber of Commerce representatives and the territory's congressional delegate, Madeleine Bordallo.
They returned optimistic about the prospects for Guam becoming a more important base for armed forces.
Perez said typical comments heard from U.S. officials included the view that Guam's strategic location offered the best place to project U.S. sea power in the 21st century; that it was able to "conquer the tyranny of distance."
Officials had also highlighted the fact that Guam was U.S. soil - "we do not have to worry about being asked to leave or asking permission to come and go."
Perez acknowledged that there was always the potential for protests from a small minority campaigning to get lands returned to the original landowners.
Local groups advocating causes of the indigenous Chamorro people have in recent months voiced opposition to any moves to increase U.S. military presence on Guam. The Colonized Chamorro Coalition says doing so would make Guam a bigger terrorist target and restrict the Chamorro drive for self-determination.
Nonetheless, Perez said recent surveys supported the view that the local community was "fundamentally very supportive of a larger military presence," across all demographic segments,
"Guam continues to be a very receptive community to the military and has historically been host to a much larger armed forces footprint than exists today," he said.
'More flexible'
Asked about the military plans for Guam, Navy Lt. Cmdr. Flex Plexico, a Pentagon spokesman, told CNSNews.com that no final decisions had been made with regards to force redeployments.
The U.S. was consulting with allies, partners and key states, as well as with Congress, he said.
Plexico said as part of the global efforts to address worldwide requirements, the U.S. was continuing to rotate forces through the Western Pacific.
"The rotation of forces throughout the Pacific provides training opportunities into Pacific Command's joint and coalition exercises from a forward operating base such as Anderson AFB, Guam."
Plexico said the posture review was designed to strengthen U.S. commitments to allies and partners and increase its ability to carry out defense commitments more effectively in the current security environment.
"A more flexible force posture will increase our ability to perform military missions suitable to each region while improving our ability to act promptly and globally."
Guam was ceded to the U.S. by Spain in 1898. It was captured by the Japanese in 1941, and retaken by U.S. forces three years later, at the cost of almost 1,800 American lives.
-------- prisoners of war
Remote Facility in Iraq Shows New Face of U.S. Prison System
By Jackie Spinner
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 11, 2004; Page A16
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32623-2004Jun10?language=printer
CAMP BUCCA, Iraq -- The sand blows across this isolated patch of desert, flecks of moving rock and dust. When the heat grows unbearable, as it often does, the men hover inside white tents, the canvas sides partially rolled and tied off. When day settles into evening, and the air is more forgiving, the young men come out to play soccer and volleyball under the red desert moon. The old ones gather in groups and pray.
Sometimes both young and old move toward the shiny new chain-link fence that surrounds the tents. They clutch the wires with their dark hands and look out. There is little to see but fuel trucks in the distance and the metal cranes towering over the nearby port of Umm Qasr.
The men are prisoners -- Iraqis brought to this desolate spot 300 miles southeast of Baghdad where the U.S. Army has established a detention facility called Camp Bucca. Set up last year during the invasion of Iraq, the camp was named for Ron Bucca, a New York fire marshal and Army Reservist who died in the Sept. 11, 2001, attack on the World Trade Center. Envisioned as a temporary place to hold Iraqi prisoners of war, the camp was emptied and closed by December. But Iraq's postwar insurgency created the need for a place to house thousands of suspected insurgents, and commanders turned to Camp Bucca to supplement the facilities at Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad.
This week, a resolution adopted unanimously by the U.N. Security Council granted the U.S.-led occupation force "the right to detain Iraqis viewed as a security threat." That approval, contained in a security agreement between the United States and Iraq's new interim government, essentially settled the future of Camp Bucca. It will be the primary detention facility for people still in U.S. custody after the interim government takes power at the end of the month, and it is expected to hold between 2,000 and 2,500 detainees, officials have said.
"From the perspective of leaders responsible for the facility, it was always assumed it would be used in one form or another, so there was a continuing investment in the quality of life for the soldiers and the quality of care for detainees," said Col. David Quantock, commander of the 16th Military Police Brigade, which has soldiers at both Camp Bucca and Abu Ghraib.
The U.S. military decided last month to vacate Abu Ghraib and send all the prisoners held there to Camp Bucca. Military officials were eager to distance themselves from Abu Ghraib, where former president Saddam Hussein's security forces tortured and executed tens of thousands of prisoners and where cameras captured U.S. soldiers beating and humiliating detainees last fall. But Iraqi leaders rejected the plan, so both facilities will now remain open, with Abu Ghraib serving primarily as a processing center, with about 1,500 prisoners, Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, deputy commander of detainee operations in Iraq, said in an interview.
In an Army investigation into abuses at Abu Ghraib, Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba found that soldiers "committed egregious acts and grave breaches of international law" both there and at Camp Bucca. Amnesty International reported last summer that detainees at Camp Bucca "were held in tents in the extreme heat and were not provided with sufficient drinking water or adequate washing facilities. They were forced to use open trenches for toilets and were not given a change of clothes -- even after two months' detention."
Considerable improvements have been made since then. For one, the prison population at Camp Bucca has dropped from 8,000 at its peak last fall to about 2,700 last week. Detainees are given hot meals and showers, recreation time and cigarettes for work details. Medical personnel visit the compounds every day to hand out pills and diagnose ailments. The prisoners are allowed family visits, and last week soldiers began taking photographs during the visits. A prisoner's family gets one copy to take home and another copy is left with the detainee.
The responsibility for improving U.S. detention facilities in Iraq falls to Miller, who flew last week from Baghdad to Camp Bucca to meet with the commanders and to inspect the complex. As he toured the camp, his boots kicking up dust, Miller asked questions and offered suggestions.
"Are we giving the detainees bottled water?" he asked. Noticing a pile of sleeping bags stacked below a guard tower, Miller wanted to know if all of the detainees had been given sleeping bags. The answer was yes. "Good," he said. "Wonderful."
Miller, who ran the military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba -- known as Gitmo -- said Camp Bucca presented a very different set of challenges. "This is a complex business," he said. "Gitmo is different because this population is a relatively small number of terrorists. It's not the same level of evil."
During Miller's visit, commanders showed him an area where workers were constructing large metal cages to replace the tattered tents in the isolation compound for prisoners who had been caught fighting or found with contraband.
Miller walked over to the cages, peered in, shook his head and said finally: "Guys, these don't sing to me. I don't like it. You can't put people in here."
The lives of the soldiers at Camp Bucca have improved over the past year, as well. The dining facility, dubbed the Bucca Inn, is considered among the finest on any base in Iraq. Soldiers sleep in air-conditioned trailers and tents. There are hot showers, a recreation facility and a post office -- amenities that did not exist last summer.
"We come down here, we do what we have to do," said Spec. Douglas Kocian, a tower guard from the 107th Field Artillery Regiment based in Pittsburgh. "Nobody wants to be here, but I think everybody is coping with it the best they can. It's not exciting. I'm not saying I'm the happiest camper, but my wife isn't happy, either."
On a recent morning, Kocian watched from the guard tower as prisoners below lined up for medical call.
Some wore tribal dress, others pants and loose shirts. A few were wrapped only in towels as they scurried to the shower house set up inside the compound.
"We all recognize we could be in a lot worse places in Iraq," said Capt. Erik Fessenden, commander of Marauder Company, 172nd Field Artillery, based in Manchester, N.H.
Fessenden's company came to Camp Bucca in late February. Its 178 members serve as exterior guards for the camp and as convoy escorts.
"We're stretched thin -- long, 12-hour shifts -- and the weather conditions, you can see the blowing sand," he said. "There have been some long days."
Fessenden said he had little to tell his soldiers about what was coming next.
"I think there are still a lot of unknowns for exactly how things will flush out," he said. "The plans have changed. I don't think a lot of people can tell you. We're preparing for things to get more dangerous down here and more heat.
"But it's difficult to predict where it's going, to be honest with you."
--------
Use of Dogs to Scare Prisoners Was Authorized
Military Intelligence Personnel Were Involved, Handlers Say
By Josh White and Scott Higham
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, June 11, 2004; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32776-2004Jun10.html
U.S. intelligence personnel ordered military dog handlers at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq to use unmuzzled dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees during interrogations late last year, a plan approved by the highest-ranking military intelligence officer at the facility, according to sworn statements the handlers provided to military investigators.
A military intelligence interrogator also told investigators that two dog handlers at Abu Ghraib were "having a contest" to see how many detainees they could make involuntarily urinate out of fear of the dogs, according to the previously undisclosed statements obtained by The Washington Post.
The statements by the dog handlers provide the clearest indication yet that military intelligence personnel were deeply involved in tactics later deemed by a U.S. Army general to be "sadistic, blatant and wanton criminal abuses."
President Bush and top Pentagon officials have said the criminal abuse at Abu Ghraib was confined to a small group of rogue military police soldiers who stripped detainees naked, beat them and photographed them in humiliating sexual poses. An Army investigation into the abuse condemned the MPs for those practices, but also included the use of unmuzzled dogs to frighten detainees among the "intentional abuse."
So far, the only charges to emerge have been against seven MPs and do not include any dog incidents, even though such use of dogs is an apparent violation of the Geneva Conventions and the Army's field manual. The military intelligence officer in charge of Abu Ghraib later told investigators that the use of unmuzzled dogs in interrogation sessions was recommended by a two-star general and that it was "okay."
The newly obtained documents reinforce the picture that the abuse falls into two categories: sexual humiliation and beatings at the hands of MPs, and intimidation using dogs that is clearly tied to military intelligence. The sexual abuse happened weeks and even months before the dog incidents, some of which appear to be part of an organized strategy by military intelligence to scare detainees into talking, according to the statements.
Sgts. Michael J. Smith and Santos A. Cardona, Army dog handlers assigned to Abu Ghraib, told investigators that military intelligence personnel requested that they bring their dogs to prison interrogation sites multiple times to assist in questioning detainees in December and January. Col. Thomas M. Pappas, who was in charge of military intelligence at the prison, told both soldiers that the use of dogs in interrogations had been approved, according to the statements.
"I have talked to Col. Papus [sic] and he said it was good to go," Smith told an investigator on Jan. 23.
Neither Smith nor Cardona has been charged in connection with the abuse at Abu Ghraib. "It's all under investigation," said Lt. Col. Pamela Hart, an Army spokeswoman.
The men could not be reached yesterday to comment. Two officers at the U.S. Army Trial Defense Service said that a military lawyer has been assigned to Cardona and that a message seeking a comment would be relayed to the attorney. The officers said they did not know whether a lawyer from the Army's defense service had been assigned to represent Smith.
In Army memos regarding interrogation techniques at the prison, the use of military working dogs was specifically allowed -- as long as higher-ranking officers approved the measures. According to one military intelligence memo obtained by The Post, the officer in charge of the military intelligence-run interrogation center at the prison had to approve the use of dogs in interrogations. There is no explanation in the memo of what parameters would have to be in place -- for example, whether the dogs would be muzzled or unmuzzled -- or what the dogs would be allowed to do. The Army previously has said that the commanding general of U.S. troops in Iraq -- Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez -- would have had to approve the use of dogs.
Human rights experts said the use of dogs at Abu Ghraib violates longstanding tenets regulating the treatment of prisoners and civilians under the control of an occupying force, including the Army's field manual, which prohibits "acts of violence or intimidation" by American soldiers.
"Using dogs to frighten and intimidate prisoners is a violation of the Geneva Convention," said Elisa Massimino, Washington director of Human Rights First, an international organization based in New York. "It's a violation of U.S. policy as stated in the Army field manual, and it's a violation of the prohibition against cruel treatment."
The dog teams at Abu Ghraib were part of a security detail that also searched for weapons, explosives and contraband. The general in charge of military prisons in Iraq, including Abu Ghraib, said the dog teams were under the control of military intelligence but had no training or experience in helping with interrogations.
Cardona's dog, a tan Belgian Malinois named Duco, was trained to be part of a narcotics and patrol team. Cardona told investigators he also helped military intelligence with two interrogations and later was summoned by military police to draw information out of a detainee on Tier 1 of the prison, site of the worst documented abuse.
Smith said military intelligence personnel asked him to instill fear in detainees. He said that he would bring his dog, a black Belgian shepherd named Marco, to the tier specifically to scare prisoners after they were pulled out of their cells. At the behest of interrogators, he said, in some cases he would bring the barking dog to within six inches of the prisoners.
"Is using the dog in this manner an allowable tool by the MI interrogators?" an investigator asked Smith.
"Yes," he replied.
The dog handlers arrived at Abu Ghraib in late November, sometime after the abuse of detainees had been captured in photographs, including the images of the naked human pyramid and forced masturbation.
Master-at-Arms 1st Class William J. Kimbro, a Navy dog handler, said he was summoned to Tier 1 one night in November to help search a cell for explosives using his dog, Nicky, a black and tan Belgian Malinois. Earlier that night -- records indicate it was Nov. 24 -- a prisoner had allegedly been found with a weapon. When Kimbro and Nicky concluded the search, they were called to the second floor of the cellblock to search another cell.
"There was a bunch of yelling going on in the cell and my dog started going ape," Kimbro told investigators, adding that interrogators were yelling at a detainee in the corner. "I remember one of the males saying to the detainee, if the detainee did not provide the information the guy was asking about, then he would have me let . . . my dog go on him."
Kimbro said he was surprised by the comment and tried to calm Nicky down. He soon left, he said, upset that interrogators had tried to use his dog as an interrogation tool.
"I was leaving because this is not what my dog is trained for," Kimbro said in one of three statements he provided to investigators. "We do not use our dogs for interrogation purposes."
Kimbro was singled out for praise in Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba's report about abuse at the prison for refusing "to participate in improper interrogations despite significant pressure from the MI personnel at Abu Ghraib."
Smith and Cardona said they complied with the MI requests because they believed the tactics had been approved by Pappas, the military intelligence officer in charge of the prison. They told investigators that they spent time on the cellblocks, allowing their dogs to bark at the detainees.
They said a non-commissioned officer from military intelligence approached them in mid-December.
"He asked us if we could use our dogs for interrogation purposes," Cardona said in a statement. "They were trying to get it cleared. We went outside and saw Col. Pappas. He told us MI wanted to use the dogs for interrogations and he told us that they had received permission to use dogs in an interview."
Smith recalled the same conversation, saying he spoke with Pappas in the parking lot the night after Saddam Hussein was captured -- Dec. 14. He said he was told that the use of the dogs was permitted.
Later that night, the two dog handlers took their dogs to an interrogation booth holding a detainee. Interrogators told them the dogs did not need to be muzzled, they said.
"When we got to the room the detainee was sitting in the doorway, with his feet in the doorway and the door was open," Smith said. "My dog and Sgt. Cardona's dog were both barking at the detainee and we never got closer than 18 inches. Neither dog had a muzzle on."
Also in mid-December, the dog handlers said they were asked by one of the MPs, Staff Sgt. Ivan L. "Chip" Frederick II, for help in dealing with an uncooperative detainee. Part of what followed was captured in photographs that have come to define the abuse at Abu Ghraib: A naked prisoner was up against a wall, two dogs squaring off against him.
The detainee, identified in the documents as Ballendia Sadawi Mohammed, said he was suddenly snatched from his bed in cell No. 5 one night and sent into the hallway handcuffed.
"They sent the dogs toward me. I was scared," Mohammed told investigators. "The first dog bit my leg and injured me there and this was bad luck. The bite from the first dog caused me to have 12 stitches from the doctor of my left leg as a result I lost a lot of blood."
Spec. Sabrina D. Harman, a member of the 372nd Military Police Company, said she saw the incident and said the detainee was bitten after he tried to run from the dog and was cornered. Cardona, whose dog apparently bit the detainee twice, once on each leg, justified letting his dog go to the end of its leash because he believed the detainee was fighting with Spec. Charles A. Graner Jr.
Military investigative records show that Frederick and Graner were key participants in the abuse. Harman, who said she saw two other inmates with dog bites around late December, also has been charged.
In early January, Cardona said, he used his dog during an interrogation at the "Wood" facility at Abu Ghraib, a collection of wooden interrogation booths set up behind the prison. Cardona said a non-commissioned military intelligence officer asked him to bring his dog into a booth and make it bark to scare the prisoner.
"I asked him if he wanted Duco to be in a muzzle and he said no," Cardona told investigators. "We went into the booth and there was a detainee in the booth with a bag over his head. Duco barked at him for about two or three minutes and they were asking the detainee questions."
On Jan. 13, Spec. John Harold Ketzer, a military intelligence interrogator, saw a dog team corner two male prisoners against a wall, one prisoner hiding behind the other and screaming, he later told investigators.
"When I asked what was going on in the cell, the handler stated that he was just scaring them, and that he and another of the handlers was having a contest to see how many detainees they could get to urinate on themselves," Ketzer said.
Research editor Margot Williams contributed to this report.
-------- russia / chechnya
Key shift in Russia military command
MOSCOW (AFP)
Jun 11, 2004
http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040611154445.kd3dqbtz.html
Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov, a key ally of President Vladimir Putin, scored a vital win Friday in his faltering bid to reform the military when parliament handed him operational control of the army.
The defense ministry and the general chiefs of staff -- whose imposing headquarters face each other across a road a stone's throw from the Kremlin -- had been battling over the past decade for control of military operations and army financing.
Under pressure from Putin, who named Ivanov as Russia's first civilian defense minister in March 2001, the State Duma lower house of parliament agreed Friday to delete most of the responsibilities of the chiefs of staff.
It struck out a line in the federal legislation that the joint chiefs of staff "represent the main organ of the operational command of the armed forces of the Russian Federation."
This duty -- including oversight of Russian training exercises, field operations and domestic base inspections -- will now lie with Ivanov's ministry.
Media reports said that the chiefs of staff that have been headed by General Anatoly Kvashnin since before Putin became president early in 2000 will now be in charge of drafting the planning stages of potential military operations.
These will then be reported directly to Ivanov.
The legislation, while relatively technical in nature, was a major coup for the new Kremlin team and Ivanov.
"The general staff has lost control over the army," the Izvestia daily proclaimed in a headline.
"From now, all of the responsibility for decisions and how they are carried out will hang over one person -- Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov."
Putin has struggled to stamp his control over the military since his Saint Petersburg ally Ivanov has reportedly been able to win little respect in the army.
Both Putin and Ivanov rose through the ranks of the secret services rather than the military and have struggled to crack the clannish structure of the Soviet-era armed forces.
Reports said Kvashnin's team has repeatedly stalled Ivanov's efforts to cut staff in what was to be a first step towards streamlining and strengthening the bloated Soviet-era force.
But Putin has appeared to stick with his choice of Ivanov despite his struggles and has been reportedly unhappy with Kvashnin's alleged failure to draft a broader global military strategy for Russia.
Parliament -- dominated by pro-Kremlin forces since December parliamentary elections -- voted overwhelmingly in favor of the change in a sign that it has received a clear signal that Putin was siding with Ivanov in his battle with the entrenched military elite.
"This law is needed to make the armed force's command more effective and, primarily, to avoid uncoordinated steps," said parliamentary defense committee member General Nikolai Bezborodov.
"It is not a secret that measures taken by the defense ministry and the general staff over the past few years have often run counter to one another.
Kvashnin has not yet spoken publicly about the decision.
----
6 Acquitted in Killing of Russian Journalist
By THE NEW YORK TIMES
June 11, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/11/international/europe/11russ.html?ei=1&en=84f74b9e659e9641&ex=1087970076&pagewanted=print&position=
MOSCOW, June 10 - A military court on Thursday acquitted all six defendants in the 1994 killing of an investigative journalist who had uncovered graft in the Russian armed forces.
The suspects, most of whom are former military officers, were already acquitted in the killing of the journalist, Dmitri Kholodov, by a Moscow court in 2002, but the case was retried on appeal from prosecutors and the victim's family.
Mr. Kholodov, who was 27, died instantly after he opened a briefcase he had picked up at a Moscow train station on an anonymous tip and brought to the offices of his newspaper, Moskovsky Komsomolets, where it exploded. A colleague was wounded in the blast.
The reporter had infuriated Pavel Grachev, then the defense minister, by uncovering graft that occurred when Russian forces were stationed in East Germany. Mr. Kholodov had claimed that two Mercedes sedans were purchased for Mr. Grachev with money from the illegal sale of military equipment.
The six defendants were arrested in 1998. They included Col. Pavel Popovskikh, a former member of the paratrooper intelligence service.
The judge also dismissed prosecutors' claims that a motive for the killing might have been information Mr. Kholodov had about plans for the first war in Chechnya, in 1994.
-------- space
Cassini Spacecraft Bears Down on Saturn
By ANDREW BRIDGES
Associated Press Writer
John Antczak contributed to this report.
http://www.cumberlink.com/articles/2004/06/11/ap/Headlines/d83559300.txt
LOS ANGELES - Out so far in space that the sun is a tiny dot, the most sophisticated science spacecraft ever is nearing Saturn to begin a lengthy study of the ringed planet and its 31 known moons.
Nearly seven years after it left Earth, Cassini, an internationally built craft named for an early day astronomer, is on schedule to enter orbit June 30 after it dashes through a gap in Saturn's shimmering rings. Scientists hope its findings will reveal new secrets about the evolution of our solar system.
Cassini had its first encounter with the Saturn system Friday afternoon, hurtling within 1,240 miles of the outermost moon, Phoebe. The tiny moon is just 137 miles across. Saturn, in contrast, is nearly 75,000 miles in diameter.
Scientists believe Phoebe originated in the outer reaches of the solar system and that it was later flung toward Saturn, which captured it into orbit.
"If it is, this will be our first encounter with something from that far out in the solar system," said Carolyn Porco, one of the team of scientists on the project.
"The study of the outer planets is of great importance to us because of what they represent: Saturn, its ring system, its moons, are a miniature model of a disk of gas and dust that surrounded the early sun as the planets formed in the solar system," Orlando Figueroa, director of NASA's Solar System Exploration Division, said in a recent briefing.
Saturn is the sixth planet from the sun, between bigger Jupiter and smaller Uranus. It was previously visited in flybys by NASA's Pioneer 11 on Sept. 1, 1979, Voyager 1 on Nov. 12, 1980, and Voyager 2 on Aug. 25, 1981. But none of those visitors entered orbit around Saturn.
The $3.3 billion, U.S.-European spacecraft, which also carries a probe to explore the moon Titan, was launched in October 1997. NASA built the plutonium-powered spacecraft; the European Space Agency contributed the Huygens (pronounced Hoy'-genz) probe.
Cassini, weighing 5,384 pounds, carries 12 science instruments; Huygens has six.
Once at Saturn, Cassini should spend at least four years in orbit. Its two cameras could take as many as half a million pictures.
"Cassini-Huygens is the most sophisticated scientific spacecraft launched to the planets," Figueroa said.
In addition to studying the composition and structure of the planet itself and the moons, scientists want to learn more about the rings.
"Other giant planets do have rings also, but Saturn has the most spectacular rings," said Charles Elachi, director of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and team leader of Cassini's radar instrument.
"What we want to understand is, what are they made of, what's their dynamic, how old they are, and, in a sense, to shed some light on how dust disks lead to the formation of planets," he said.
Mission members caution that getting into orbit won't be a cakewalk. Cassini must fire its engine on cue for 96 minutes to slow itself sufficiently and allow Saturn to pull it into orbit. If the maneuver fails, the spacecraft would sail past.
Cassini is set to release Huygens in December. A month later, scientists expect the probe to parachute through the murky atmosphere of Titan, Saturn's largest moon, and land on its surface.
Titan, larger than the planet Mercury, is the only moon in the solar system with an atmosphere and is believed to resemble what the Earth was like several billion years ago.
"Titan may preserve in deep freeze many of the chemical compounds that preceded life on Earth," Figueroa said.
Friday's flyby of Phoebe is a warmup for what's to come: Mission planners expect Cassini to conduct more than 50 similar flights past other Saturn moons, said Bob Mitchell, the mission's program manager.
NASA this week released images of Phoebe taken by Cassini this month as it closed in on the moon. Cassini's best possible pictures of Phoebe could show features as small as 66 feet across.
The mission is named for two 17th century scientists, the Italian-French astronomer Jean Dominique Cassini and the Dutch scientist Christiaan Huygens.
On the Net: http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/
-------- us
Biggest U.S. Military Exercise since the Cold War
JUNE 11, 2004
Dong-A (Korea)
by Yoo-Seong Hwang (yshwang@donga.com)
http://english.donga.com/srv/service.php3?bicode=060000&biid=2004061223938#top
While the U.S. military introduces the U.S. Forces' Global Posture Realignment (GPR) program based on its cross-regional strategy, the biggest naval exercise since the end of the Cold War has been staged, involving seven aircraft carriers.
It was reported in the Global Times (a People's Daily Company) in China and in the San Diego Union Tribune on June 10 that the aircraft carrier exercise is simultaneously being operated in several regions worldwide. Many countries are paying great attention because the exercise is to test a new strategy of rapid deployment capabilities.
China, in particular, is reacting sensitively, saying this exercise is preparing for a "double banks" war between China and Taiwan.
For the exercise, four aircraft carriers from the Atlantic squadron, and three from the Pacific squadron will be deployed from the 12 total aircraft carriers the U.S. military has. The exercise will last for three months from June 5 until August with over 50,000 soldiers taking part.
In the East Pacific area, all seven aircraft carriers will gather to perform a joint drill from mid-July to August.
A senior officer in the U.S. Navy said, "The U.S. is one of the Pacific countries and it needs to prepare for any type of conflict in the area," implying that the exercise is not only to prepare for a "double banks" war but also for a North Korean violation.
Also, the newly established U.S. Navy's "21st century 10-30-30 strategy" will be applied to the exercise for the first time. In April, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld presented the 10-30-30 strategy as one in which "the services would deploy to a world hot spot within 10 days, defeat an enemy in 30 days, and be ready to fight again in another 30 days."
-------- venezuela
Venezuelan Police Find Arms at TV Station's Offices
Reuters
Friday, June 11, 2004; 10:56 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35685-2004Jun11.html
CARACAS, Venezuela (Reuters) - Venezuelan police found a stash of arms in offices rented by a private television station on Friday as they investigated what the government says is an opposition plot to overthrow President Hugo Chavez, police and witnesses said.
At least three rifles, 26 handguns and ammunition were discovered during a raid in Caracas by DISIP security police on offices used by Venevision, a TV channel which left-winger Chavez has publicly condemned as an enemy of his government.
Venevision and other private TV channels broadcast live coverage of the raid, and showed policemen finding the arms inside several plastic and cloth bags.
A DISIP officer told reporters a "defense and sabotage manual" was also discovered.
Military chiefs ordered the raid as part of a nationwide investigation following the capture last month near Caracas of more than 100 Colombians wearing military uniforms.
Chavez, who faces a referendum on his rule Aug. 15, said the Colombians were a paramilitary force being trained as part of a plot to overthrow or kill him organized by enemies in Venezuela, Colombia and the United States.
Venevision President Victor Ferreres denied the TV station had anything to do with the arms found or with any conspiracy.
"I've been told they've found a bag with some old revolvers," he told reporters. Venevision is fiercely critical of Chavez and is owned by billionaire Venezuelan media magnate Gustavo Cisneros.
Opposition leaders have accused the populist Chavez of using the case of the captured Colombians to launch a crackdown against opponents as he confronts the referendum challenge against his presidency of the world's No. 5 oil exporter.
"This is part of a campaign of repression," opposition National Assembly deputy Alfonso Marquina said of the raid.
Several military officers and some civilians have been detained since the Colombians were captured May 9.
Some opposition leaders have dismissed the Colombians' case as an elaborate government set-up aimed at discrediting them.
Chavez has frequently accused Cisneros of plotting to topple him, a charge denied by the businessman, who lives in the United States.
In an separate, earlier operation, troops said they had seized ammunition and explosives hidden in a hotel outside Caracas and arrested a number of military officers. But it was not clear if the two cases were linked.
-------- war crimes
Bosnian Serbs Admit Massacre of Muslims
By SAMIR KRILIC
The Associated Press
Friday, June 11, 2004
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35726-2004Jun11.html
SARAJEVO, Bosnia-Herzegovina - Bosnian Serb officials have acknowledged for the first time that their security forces carried out the massacre of up to 8,000 Muslims at Srebrenica, according to an investigative report Friday.
An official commission examining Europe's worst massacre since World War II "established participation of (Bosnian Serb) military and police units, including special (police) units" in the deaths, international administration spokesman Vedran Persic told The Associated Press, quoting from the panel's report.
During the height of the 3 1/2-year Bosnian war, Serb troops overran a U.N.-declared safe zone in Srebrenica and slaughtered up to 8,000 Muslim men and boys in what the U.N. war crimes tribunal has declared an act of genocide.
The Bosnian Serbs have long been blamed for the 1995 massacre, but no official has clearly acknowledged that until now.
"In July 1995, several thousand Muslims were liquidated in a way that represents grave violations of international humanitarian law," said Persic, quoting from the report. Persic is a spokesman for Paddy Ashdown, Bosnia's international administrator.
U.N. and Muslim experts have found the remains of about 5,000 of the victims from mass graves across eastern Bosnia and find new remains every month. The fate of the others is still unknown. Nearly 1,200 Srebrenica victims have been identified through DNA analysis.
The Srebrenica Commission was formed last year by Ashdown to investigate who was involved in the massacre and where victims' bodies were buried. It's composed of Bosnian Serb judges and lawyers, a victims' representative and international expert.
The report said that the perpetrators "undertook measures to cover up the crime by moving the bodies" to other locations, said Persic.
The 1992-1995 war - pitting Serbs opposed to Bosnia's independence from Yugoslavia against Muslims and Croats backing it - claimed about 250,000 lives and left around 20,000 missing and presumed dead. Former Bosnian Serb soldier Drazen Erdemovicin who confessed to playing a role in the Srebrenica massacre testified at former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic's war crimes trial last year how his battalion alone killed up to 1,200 people.
The victims had sought protection in the U.N. compound, but the vastly outnumbered and lightly armed Dutch U.N. peacekeepers were no match for the Serb forces.
He said that after Srebrenica fell, Serb forces rounded up an estimated 30,000 refugees who had sought safety at a U.N. base. As Dutch peacekeepers looked on, the women were deported to Muslim-held territory and the boys and men were taken on buses to execution sites and shot.
"I was personally ordered to do it," said Erdemovic - who pleaded guilty to murder as part of a deal in 1996 and served a five-year sentence. "This could not have happened if it had not been allowed by the main staff" of the Bosnian Serb military command, he said.
Prosecutors say the massacre was the result of Milosevic's alleged political aim of creating an ethnically pure Serbian state. Milosevic denies all wrongdoing.
Radovan Karadzic, the Bosnian Serb wartime leader, has been indicted by the war crimes tribunal for genocide in connection with the Srebrenica massacre, along with his wartime top general, Ratko Mladic. Both remain at large.
For its part, the Dutch government, acknowledging its peacekeepers failed to protect the Muslim refugees, resigned in April 2002.
The work of the Srebrenica Commission initially was obstructed by some of its members and authorities who refused to provide information. Only after Ashdown fired several Bosnian Serb officials and threatened others with dismissal was information made available.
Under the 1995 peace accord that ended the war, Ashdown has the power to impose laws and to fire officials who fail to comply with the peace process. The same agreement also divided postwar Bosnia into two mini-states, a Serb republic and a Muslim-Croat federation.
Persic said Ashdown welcomed the report, saying that "a dynamic of obstructionism on war crimes issues is being replaced by a dynamic of greater cooperation" on the part of Bosnia's Serbs.
--------
Serbs admit to 1995 massacre
Aljazeera + Agencies
11 June 2004
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/269383EC-C8A6-47C9-8532-4AA9C8953399.htm
Bosnian Serbs have admitted for the first time that their forces killed several thousand Muslims in the 1995 Srebrenica massacre.
A report by a Bosnian Serb government commission said that it has "established that during the 10-19 July 1995 period several thousand Bosniaks (Muslims) were liquidated in a way which represents grave violations of international humanitarian law".
"The perpetrators undertook measures to cover up the crime by moving the bodies", from the place where the victims were killed to other locations, said the report.
In denial
Bosnian Serbs had previously refused to acknowledge the extent of the Srebrenica massacre, considered the worst atrocity committed in Europe since World War II.
Some 7000 Muslim men and boys were killed when heavily armed Serb troops overran a small force of United Nations peacekeepers protecting the enclave.
"The perpetrators undertook measures to cover up the crime by moving the bodies"
Bosnian Serb Government commission The commission "established participation (in the massacre) of military and police units, including special units of the Bosnian Serb interior ministry", said the report, which was submitted earlier on Friday to the government of Republika Srpska.
In 2002, the Bosnian Serb government issued a report minimising the number of victims, triggering outrage among survivors and the international community.
The commission was set up in January under heavy international pressure.
'Triumph of evil'
Described by the UN war crimes tribunal as "the triumph of evil", the July 1995 massacre ironically took place in Serebrencia which was described as a "safe area" by the UN three months earlier.
Seeking a safe haven, around 30,000 Muslims fled the advancing Serb army and crowded into the town which was protected by Dutch peacekeepers.
Following the onslaught, no Muslim was left in the town as many fled while those who stayed were rounded up and murdered.
While some were taken to execution sites where they were shot with automatic rifles, others were buried alive, according to Jean-Rene Ruez, a French policemen who collected evidence from Bosnian Muslims and testified at the Hague tribunal in 1996.
Post-war Bosnia consists of two semi-independent entities - the Serbs' Republika Srpska and the Muslim-Croat Federation.
-------- POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS / JUSTICE
-------- homeland security
Use Caution in the Pursuit of Security
Friday, June 11, 2004; Page E01
By Steven Pearlstein
Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33209-2004Jun10.html
Today's state funeral for Ronald Reagan surely demands the extraordinary measures that have been taken to protect against a terrorist attack.
But the last week has also offered reminders to visitors and residents of how much the everyday security measures have altered the life of the city. Access to public places has been significantly curtailed. The public landscape and streetscape have been scarred, in some cases permanently. And the economic costs are measured not only in out-of-pocket security costs, but in lost productivity for workers and a diminished experience for visitors.
After Sept. 11, 2001, much of this was inevitable, and the potential threats are considerable. But it seems we have reached a fork in the road. Either we are going to decide that, having made reasonable accommodations, we are willing to live with a certain level of unmitigated risk in order to preserve the Washington experience -- or we're going to go to the next level and accept the reality of living and working in a semi-permanent war zone.
I suspect, for example, that most Americans would be surprised to learn that they can't walk those stairs on the west front of the Capitol that they saw on television Wednesday evening. Nor can they picnic on the Capitol grounds, wander the ornate corridors of the Capitol or catch a glimpse of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) while riding the Senate subway. In the visitors experience now envisioned by the Capitol of the Architect, Americans will be herded into a new underground center for a virtual tour, followed by a guided group visit to the Rotunda, Statuary Hall and the old Supreme Court chambers.
The White House, meanwhile, has been turned into a fortress. Ordinary citizens are no longer allowed to tour the public rooms or even the spring gardens, and the Bush family is discouraged from venturing out into the city. The debate about reopening Pennsylvania Avenue or E Street is long since over -- the question now is whether to close Lafayette Park and restrict vehicles on 17th and H streets.
Down on the Mall, it was only the push-back from the National Capital Planning Committee and the Fine Arts Commission that prevented the Washington Monument from being turned into Fort Washington. We can only imagine what the Park Service has in mind once they turn their attention to the Lincoln and Jefferson memorials.
Washington has a long and proud tradition of accommodating parades and marches into its busy schedule. But now that most of these are considered "security events," officials think nothing of ordering entire buildings evacuated or giving tens of thousands of workers the day off.
It's easy to understand how this mission creep happens. Security officials genuinely want to do a good job, and there's little political or bureaucratic pressure on them to give much weight to social and economic costs. In the past, business leaders and District officials have tried to get the security types to strike a better balance, but having been ignored so often, most have now given up.
How much worse can it get? Just ask the folks up in Boston, who now rue the day they won the prize of hosting this year's Democratic convention. Security officials have ordered closure of the main highway through the city for the entire convention week because it passes close to the convention hall. Ditto all commuter trains from the north and west that arrive next door at North Station. In response, many businesses have announced they will close for the week, while commuters are being urged to stay away. And what was supposed to be a bonanza is now shaping up to be a political and economic disaster.
Don't get me wrong -- striking the right balance between security and other interests is devilishly hard. No official wants to be the one facing the next 9/11 commission explaining why he didn't erect one more barrier or impose one more restriction.
But I do know what will happen if we never debate these issues openly and simply defer to the judgment of security officials. Just as war is too important to leave to the generals, homeland security is too important to leave to the cops and terrorism experts.
Steven Pearlstein can be reached at pearlsteins@washpost.com.
--------
Capitol Hill Evacuation
False Alarm Over Unidentified Plane Tested Emergency Response
By Sari Horwitz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 11, 2004; Page A28
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33260-2004Jun10.html
U.S. Capitol Police Chief Terrance W. Gainer received the page just before 4:30 p.m. Wednesday, one hour ahead of the procession that would bring the coffin of former president Ronald Reagan down Constitution Avenue. A plane headed toward Washington was entering restricted airspace, and federal authorities weren't able to communicate with its pilot.
"The situation was escalating. The aircraft was going 240 knots [about 276 mph] . . . and continued to close in on the Capitol Hill area," Gainer said. No one could say if it was friend or foe.
With the plane 11 miles and 3 1/2 minutes from the Capitol, Gainer made a decision after conferring with local and federal authorities. "Evacuate the buildings," the chief ordered. Then he dashed out of his cruiser, jumped over a barricade and ran toward the Capitol.
Yesterday, local and federal authorities reviewed that decision and the events that followed in the first evacuation of Capitol Hill since the Sept. 11, 2002, terrorist attacks. Officials praised Gainer's quick response and the performance of his force but said the false alarm revealed communication problems and evacuation difficulties that need to be addressed.
The plane turned out to be a Kentucky State Police aircraft ferrying Gov. Ernie Fletcher (R), a former member of the U.S. House of Representatives, to Washington for Reagan's funeral. The plane's transponder, which transmits identifying information to ground controllers, was broken, according to Brian Roehrkasse, a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security. The plane was one of several given special permission to land at Reagan National Airport for the funeral.
"We believe the system worked and the appropriate security actions were taken," Roehrkasse said, given that federal security officials were unable to identify the plane.
Gainer's order cleared the Capitol, House and Senate office buildings and the Supreme Court within minutes.
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) was inside his office when one of his security officers burst in. "He said we had to get out of the building right now," said Tim Berry, DeLay's chief of staff.
DeLay and other staffers ran. "The cops were grabbing anyone who stopped. They were clear that everyone needed to run," Berry said.
Members of Congress and thousands of staff members poured out the doors as police officers shouted: "This is not a drill! Get out as fast as you can!" As they fled, newscasters tripped over wires, one man ran into a barricade and people anxiously watched the skies. Black Hawk helicopters and Air Force fighter jets were sent to intercept the twin-engine, turboprop plane.
D.C. Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey was driving near the West Front of the Capitol with his assistant chief when he saw the commotion. Then his pager went off: Air Con Red. "I knew then there was an unidentified aircraft in airspace that shouldn't have been there or hadn't properly identified itself," Ramsey said.
Daniel Groves, the Kentucky governor's chief of staff, said at a news conference yesterday that the plane's transponder quit working shortly after takeoff from Greater Cincinnati-Northern Kentucky International Airport.
The pilots had intermittent contact with air traffic controllers, but as the plane approached Washington from the southwest, federal authorities became alarmed because no information was being transmitted by the transponder, Homeland Security officials said. Officials at the Federal Aviation Administration command center in Herndon feared that the transponder might have been turned off by terrorists or a pilot whose plane was being hijacked.
As responsibility for the plane passed to controllers in the Washington area, it took more than five minutes for federal law enforcement authorities here to verify the broken transponder, Homeland Security officials said. It was during that period that Gainer had to make the evacuation decision.
After the evacuation order, Capitol Police officers relayed it over a radio warning system called an "annunciator" in congressional offices and the Capitol. Staff members in some offices have told the Capitol Police that they did not hear the warning or that their annunciators were not working. Gainer said he will address that issue and others related to the evacuation in a report about the incident.
--------
Security camera network planned
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
By Robert Redding Jr.
June 11, 2004
http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20040610-105845-8409r.htm
Baltimore and Maryland homeland security authorities say they will have a 24-hour network of surveillance cameras operating this summer.
"The idea is that this is the first phase of building a backbone that will tie together different resources," said Dennis R. Schrader, director of homeland security for Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr., a Republican.
Mr. Schrader said the March 11 train bombings in Madrid reinforced to officials the fact that Baltimore has one the nation's major ports so it should be protected by one of the boldest surveillance initiatives in the country.
"We have to find creative ways to protect these critical assets," Mr. Schrader said. "The fact of the matter is that we need regional cooperation in the war on terror."
The city will be the first to enact a regional network that will eventually include Anne Arundel and Howard counties, and Baltimore County, Md., Carroll County, Md., and Harford County, Md.
The network of 20 to 30 cameras also would be able to connect with the state's system of closed-circuit cameras monitoring highways.
Elliot Schlanger, chief information officer for Baltimore, said the network also could be linked to closed-circuit television systems at the University of Maryland, the Downtown Partnership, Oriole Park at Camden Yards and other private institutions.
The cameras will be able to transmit images to helicopters and eventually to police cruisers. Mr. Schlanger said they also will have biometric- and radiation-sensor capabilities and the capacity for face and license plate recognition.
"Our initial pilot project is to visually monitor the region's critical infrastructure and assets," he said. But "we are looking at acquiring equipment that can be updated with those options."
Beginning this summer, the cameras will be installed at the Inner Harbor, then the city's west side where light rail and Amtrak lines, federal and state government buildings and many cultural institutions are located.
The network is part of a comprehensive strategy in the Baltimore area to spend $25 million in homeland security grants this year and to improve regional cooperation on terrorism concerns.
The surveillance center will be manned by retired police officers or criminal justice college students.
The bidding process includes the price of installing the cameras, but the city must maintain them.
Cedric Laurant, policy counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said he is against video cameras in public places if they are "used on a permanent basis."
Arthur Spitzer, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of the National Capital Area, agreed.
"This is just another step toward Big Brother," he said. "One of the freedoms that Americans take for granted is the freedom to walk down the street without the government looking over their shoulders all of the time."
Mr. Schlanger said the cameras would be used only to "observe what a citizen could view in the public space."
A spokesman for Baltimore Mayor Martin J. O'Malley, a Democrat seeking re-election in November, said Mr. O'Malley was not available for comment but that he supports the program.
• This story was based in part on wire service reports.
-------- human rights
CRITIC'S CHOICE | HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL
Cameras as Weapons Against Injustice
June 11, 2004
By STEPHEN HOLDEN
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/11/movies/11CHOI.html
Arriving right on the heels of the Abu Ghraib scandal, the Human Rights Watch International Film Festival has a new, uncomfortable resonance for those who habitually regard the United States as remaining above the moral fray.
"Persons of Interest," for example, is a spare, modest documentary in which New York-area residents of South Asian and Middle Eastern descent describe their arrests and detainment by the Justice Department in the weeks after 9/11. The movie, which has the first of three screenings at the Walter Reade Theater tonight at 6:15, offers disturbing first-hand testimony of how the safeguards of civil liberty were relaxed in a time of panic.
In "Persons of Interest," the suspects, released often after weeks of incarceration and interrogation, insist on their complete innocence of any terrorist connections. Taken one after another into an empty white room, they are questioned by the unseen filmmakers, Alison Maclean and Tobias Perse, about their arrests and confinement.
Because the film records only their versions of what happened, it is obviously one-sided, but the cumulative impact of their stories creates the sickening impression of people who are persecuted and humiliated on the flimsiest of excuses in a witch-hunting atmosphere.
Like many films shown in the festival over the years, "Persons of Interest" doesn't pretend to any political objectivity. In scrutinizing the moral conduct of governments and institutions around the world, the festival, as its name declares, is a watch, or monitor, much like Amnesty International. But the perspective of the festival, which continues at the Walter Reade through June 24, goes well beyond human-rights abuses to examine the devastations of war and economic inequity.
One of the most fascinating entries this season, "The Corporation," traces the rise of the corporation as a phenomenon, to its present status as a fundamental and essentially amoral modern institution. The movie, which is to open in two weeks at Film Forum in Manhattan, analyzes the corporation's values as if it were a person, and finds it psychologically dysfunctional on almost every level.
"Persons of Interest" isn't the only film to explore American-style injustice. Katy Chevigny and Kirsten Johnson's documentary, "Deadline," examines capital punishment and focuses on the surprising decision of George Ryan, the former governor of Illinois and a longtime conservative Republican, to commute the sentences of 167 prisoners on death row just before he left office.
The process began after a group of journalism students at Northwestern University found evidence that many prisoners facing death in Illinois were innocent. Their findings prompted Governor Ryan to order clemency hearings for every prisoner on death row and to reverse his longstanding advocacy of capital punishment.
Political imprisonment and its repercussions are also the subject of "Repatriation," Dong-won Kim's long (149-minute) personal and searching study of North Koreans who were convicted of spying by South Korea and incarcerated for 30 years, during which they were tortured and pressured to "convert." The subjects, of whom Mr. Kim grew fond over the 12 years it took to make the film, are the unconverted, who clung to Communism and who, despite their physical frailty in prison, sang Communist Party work songs with undiminished fervor and dreamed of repatriation to the North.
In "Born into Brothels," the filmmakers Zana Briski and Ross Kauffman visited Calcutta's squalid red-light district and befriended the often talented, attractive children of prostitutes. Ms. Briski, a professional photographer, gave the children cameras and photography instruction, took them on field trips to the zoo and to the ocean, and arranged an international exhibition of their work. Ultimately, she tried to arrange for as many as possible to attend private boarding schools, their only hope of a better life. Some make it; others don't.
The festival isn't all straight documentary. Francisco J. Lombardi's film "What the Eye Doesn't See" spins six fictional vignettes around an actual scandal to create a complex social mosaic dramatizing the effects of political corruption on ordinary people.
The real-life event is the broadcasting of the notorious "Vladi videos" of Vladmiro Montesinos, an adviser to the former Peruvian president Alberto Fujimori, which show Mr. Montesinos bribing government and business leaders. The exposure brought down the Fujimori government. The characters range from a corrupt army colonel to a news anchor to a teenage girl, whose lives are all shaped by the scandal.
The exposure of those videos demonstrates the same principle that drives the Human Rights Watch festival: knowledge is power that can sometimes be translated into reform.
The 2004 Human Rights Watch International Film Festival will run through June 24 at the Walter Reade Theater, 165 West 65th Street, Lincoln Center. Tickets: $10; students, $7; 65+ and ages 6 to 12, $5 at weekday matinees. Screening times and other information: (212) 875-5600 or www.filmlinc.com.
-------- immigration / refugees
Europe Knows It Needs a Lot of Immigrants. But It Also Fears Them.
June 11, 2004
By FLOYD NORRIS
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/11/business/worldbusiness/11norris.html
TERRORISM has come to Europe. The Continent's economic growth seems to lag perennially behind that of the United States. But neither of those things topped the list of worries for some European business and political leaders who gathered here this week for an international business conference.
Instead, they worried about babies, or more specifically, about a lack of them. The tone was set by Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, the former president of France, who presented a series of demographic projections indicating that many European countries would be losing population at a rapid rate within a couple of generations. Meanwhile, he said, nothing of the kind would be happening in the United States, thanks to immigration.
Those who remember the fears of the 1970's, when there was Malthusian talk of too many people using up the world's resources, might think that a time of falling population would not be all that bad.
In her 1995 novel "Children of Men,'' P. D. James invented a time when, because of some environmental disaster, no babies had been born for decades. Real estate prices fell and some towns gradually lost all their inhabitants, but what made the situation unbearable was the fear the human race was vanishing.
There is no danger of that now, of course, at least not from demographic trends. Europeans have babies, just not enough of them to provide future workers to pay their parents' and grandparents' retirement benefits. The pay-as-you-go system seems to demand more workers just to finance benefits already promised.
There is an obvious solution, as Jean-René Fortou, the chief executive of Vivendi Universal, noted when asked about Mr. Giscard d'Estaing's demographic worries. ''The Mediterranean was for many centuries a single world,'' he said. ''We could have very strong synergies with the countries'' of North Africa, where population growth continues.
Now the opposite is happening. Michael Fuchs, co-owner of the Impex Group, a German advertising company and a Christian Democratic member of that country's Parliament, dismissed talk of immigrants seeking work. They were, he said, trying to get welfare benefits. Moroccan businessmen at the world congress of the International Chamber of Commerce said European visas had become difficult to obtain. Europe fears that visitors will stay, whether as terrorists, welfare recipients or workers who take jobs when unemployment is already high.
Taieb Fassi-Fihri, an official in the Moroccan foreign ministry, complained about ''the nonintegration'' of Europe with the Arab world, saying that as the European Union expands it becomes less open to his region.
The newer members of the European Union have learned that it will be years before their citizens can seek work in most of the older members. There is considerable hostility to Turkey's application to join the union, with Mr. Giscard d'Estaing suggesting it would make more sense for Russia to enter. ''Russia is a European country,'' he said. ''Will the E.U. expand to cover half the planet?''
To Norbert Walter, the chief economist of Deutsche Bank, the solution is obvious: first reform the European welfare states, to reduce benefits for those who do not work, then welcome immigrants.
But don't bet on that happening. ''People do not like reforms,'' said Claude Bébéar, the chairman of the supervisory board at AXA, the insurance company. The young people who will suffer as tax burdens rise to support the growing number of retirees seldom vote, he added.
Europe believes it needs more people to support its system. But it also fears what would happen if they came.
--------
A Longer Wait for Citizenship and the Ballot in New York
June 11, 2004
By NINA BERNSTEIN
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/11/nyregion/11CITI.html?pagewanted=all&position=
New York, long the doorway for immigrants seeking entry into American society, now has one of the nation's longest backlogs of newcomers awaiting answers to their citizenship applications. It now typically takes triple the time to become a United States citizen in New York as in San Antonio - a year and a half compared with six months.
The backlog of pending citizenship cases in New York exceeds 100,000, more than in any other district in the country. The waiting list is likely to prevent a large number of would-be citizens from voting in the November election, frustrating voter registration drives and raising questions among advocates about why federal offices in some cities have fallen so far behind others in processing applications.
"There are many people who should be able to vote now, but because of the backlog, they're stuck, they won't be able to register," said Dan Smulian, training and legal services director for the New York Immigration Coalition, an umbrella advocacy group for more than 200 groups that work with newcomers.
Immigrants eligible to apply for citizenship are heavily concentrated in six voter-rich states: California, New York, Texas, Florida, New Jersey and Illinois. A growing number live in states like Arizona and Washington whose immigrant populations soared in the 1990's. Yet while application delays are shrinking in Seattle, Phoenix, El Paso and even in Los Angeles, government figures show, New York is one of many areas where deep backlogs rule.
Applications in West Palm Beach take 19 months to handle, more than twice as long as the seven months in Seattle, unpublicized government figures obtained by The New York Times show. Applications in Detroit take more than two and a half times as long as they do in Phoenix. The longest wait is in Cleveland: more than three years from application to oath of allegiance.
Such are the new mysteries of a federal battle against a growing naturalization backlog, one that President Bush pledged to eliminate in the last campaign.
Federal immigration officials say they are making headway in meeting the president's promise, to cut naturalization paperwork to six months or less. But current figures and long-term trends show the effort being outpaced by rising demand from a growing pool of 11.5 million eligible noncitizens, more of them now prompted to naturalize by a mix of insecurity and allegiance.
The sharp disparities among districts defy easy explanation, but theories abound. Some experts point to the special registration program for thousands of Muslim and Arab men after Sept. 11, 2001, which pushed districts with many such immigrants, like New York, to shift more workers from naturalization to background checks. Some advocates, like Celeste Douglas, the New York citizenship coordinator for the health care workers union, suggest that the Bush administration might be slower to give the vote to immigrants in New York, presumably Democratic-leaning, than to Hispanics in Texas.
Federal officials said that high-volume districts were just lagging smaller ones in instituting better business practices, but that assertion was not supported by agency data. A Feb. 28 agency document calculating backlogs showed 28 months in low-volume Detroit, 11 months in Phoenix, 9 months in Baltimore, 21 months in Miami and 13 months in Los Angeles, which handles the largest caseload in the nation.
"There is absolutely, positively no connection between the amount of time it takes for someone to naturalize and any voter registration system," said Christopher Bentley, a spokesman for Citizenship and Immigration Services, now part of the Department of Homeland Security.
Norine Han, one of his superiors, declined to provide a breakdown of the workload, resources and performance of the nation's 83 districts, part of a required progress report being prepared for Congress later this year. She ended an interview when this reporter sought more information to explain disparities.
Many would-be citizens have been waiting years without information, including Margaret Marsden, 74, the wife of a former Navy serviceman. Ms. Marsden said her first application was lost in the early 1990's when she lived in New York. She reapplied in 1998 when she moved to West Palm Beach and has supplied her fingerprints to immigration authorities three times.
"All I did was to work all my life and pay my taxes," said Ms. Marsden, who came to the United States from Trinidad in 1970. "We all want that sense of belonging."
In another case, a letter summoning Errol Taylor to be sworn in as a citizen on May 14 arrived at his Flatbush home more than a year after his interview and two years after he had applied for citizenship. But it was too late for Mr. Taylor, a hospital worker who had lived and worked in Brooklyn for decades after leaving Trinidad in 1975. He died in March at 60.
Several experts rejected the notion that the disparities could reflect political calculation, including Doris Meissner, who was commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization in the Clinton administration at a time when Republicans accused the administration of playing politics with naturalization by trying to speed up the process. A Justice Department investigation ultimately found no wrongdoing.
"It's pretty impossible to me to imagine that there could really be a conscious slowing down, a freezing in some states and not in other states," said Ms. Meissner, now a senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute, a research organization. "That being said, it is not defensible in my opinion to have such incredible ranges of different times to do the same thing around the country when it is the same process."
An explanation for some of the most startling extremes was offered by lawyers at the American Immigration Lawyers Association: higher backlogs in districts with disproportionately large Middle Eastern and Muslim populations like Washington, Detroit and Cleveland. In such districts, said Crystal Williams, head of government liaison for the association, many more immigration officers had to be shifted from citizenship cases to registering thousands of Arab and Muslim men, a program that proved all but useless in finding terrorists and that was eventually dropped by Homeland Security.
"Offices that had a high number of special registrations are the ones having the hardest time recovering," she said. "A number of offices have given a very high priority to catching up on their naturalization backlog, sometimes to the detriment of other areas."
Some immigrant advocates in New York, like Myriam Rodriguez, deputy director of the Immigration Center at Hostos Community College in the Bronx, report that just the wait for the first appointment to provide fingerprints is stretching beyond seven months, much longer than a year ago.
In contrast, Wafa Abdin, the head of legal immigration services for Catholic Charities in Houston, spoke of a dynamic improvement, with processing cut from up to three years to as little as five months.
Ms. Abdin credited a new director of the federal district office in Houston and a high priority placed on naturalization. But the contrast with New York awakened deep suspicions in Ms. Douglas of the health care workers union, 1199/S.E.I.U.
"I'm wondering how political that is," Ms. Douglas said. "What is the difference in Texas? Does it have anything to do with Mexican immigrants, and assumptions about the Latino vote? Are there assumptions about immigrants in New York and how they're going to vote?"
All would-be citizens in the post-9/11 era face delays from centralized fingerprint and background checks and shifts of immigration personnel into enforcement, government officials and immigration advocates agree.
"We have to wait on the F.B.I.," said Shaconia Burden-Norton, a federal community relations officer in the New York district immigration office. "The F.B.I. will just say `pending.' And we can't push them."
Many waiting have lived in the United States much longer than the five years usually required. Some were part of a post-9/11 surge in applications attributed by officials to a mix of patriotism and insecurity.
Another nationwide spike in applications occurred in March - up 65 percent, to 77,000, compared with a year ago - and may reflect a one-time scramble to beat an April fee increase, federal officials say. They still project about half a million applications in the fiscal year ending in September, fewer than in 2002.
But scholars of immigration say the pool of those eligible for naturalization will grow in the next year or two, shadowing a rise in legal entries from 1999 to 2001. The proportion that applies for citizenship has been growing since the mid-1990's, said Jeffrey Passel, a researcher on immigration at the Urban Institute, in part because of anti-immigrant measures that made even longtime holders of green cards feel vulnerable.
Eugenia Claxton, 68, of Brooklyn, is one of many who had been satisfied with a green card for decades. By the time she applied for citizenship in December 2001, she had already made America her home the hard way.
Bit by bit over 40 years, working as a live-in maid, then as an aide in New York city nursing homes, she sent children to college, paid off a mortgage and saved for her retirement, which began the week the World Trade Center fell. That is when Ms. Claxton said she finally realized she was not going back to live in her native Costa Rica.
"All my children are here, all my grandchildren," she recalled of her decision. "I said to myself, it's worthwhile for me to vote."
But two and a half years later, Ms. Claxton is still waiting.
-------- prisons / prisoners
GUANTÁNAMO
U.S. Charges an Australian With Fighting for Taliban
June 11, 2004
By ERIC SCHMITT and KATE ZERNIKE
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/11/politics/11ABUS.html
WASHINGTON, June 10 - The United States on Thursday charged an Australian citizen, now imprisoned at the American naval base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, with fighting for the Taliban in Afghanistan. He is expected to go before a military tribunal sometime in August.
The prisoner, David Hicks, was formally accused of conspiracy to commit war crimes, attempted murder by an unprivileged belligerent, and aiding the enemy, according to a Pentagon statement. Mr. Hicks is the third detainee at Guantánamo Bay to be charged.
Australia's prime minister, John Howard, discussed Mr. Hicks's case with President Bush during a visit to Washington last week. On Thursday, a spokesman for the Australian Embassy here, Matt Francis, said his government was "satisfied the military commission process will be fair and transparent while protecting the security interests of the U.S."
Mr. Francis said the Australian government had been told that if Mr. Hicks was convicted and sentenced to a prison term, he would be able to serve his time in an Australian jail.
In a sign underscoring the Pentagon's concern that interrogation methods used at Guantánamo may have used improperly at the Abu Ghraib prison and other detention sites in Iraq, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has ordered the Navy inspector general, Vice Adm. Albert T. Church III, to broaden an earlier review of detention and interrogation procedures at the military prisons at Guantánamo and at Charleston, S.C., to Army detention and interrogation operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The May 25 directive, first reported Wednesday by The Chicago Tribune, would lead to an unusual situation in which a naval officer would review Army operations.
A senior Pentagon official said Mr. Rumsfeld was concerned about reports that some harsher interrogation techniques had "migrated" to Iraq from Guantánamo and Afghanistan as military intelligence soldiers who had served in those places were transferred to occupation duty in the Middle Eastern nation.
Detainees and human rights groups have reported some similarities in interrogation techniques used at Guantánamo, in Afghanistan, and in Iraq: detainees stripped naked and paraded with women's underwear covering their heads; interrogators blasting air conditioning at uncomfortable levels in isolation rooms, and detainees being forced to squat or stand in uncomfortable positions for long periods.
According to the plea bargain for John Walker Lindh, the American now serving 20 years for fighting alongside the Taliban, soldiers wrote profanities on him while he was naked and blindfolded, then photographed themselves alongside him in scenes reminiscent of the photos from Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad.
Pentagon officials acknowledged that Admiral Church's inquiry, which has sent four-person teams to Cuba, Iraq and Afghanistan, will overlap with at least two Army inquiries. But the officials said Mr. Rumsfeld wanted to plug any seams or gaps in the existing reviews.
Mr. Rumsfeld is considering a small group of three- and four-star officers, from which he would choose the replacements for the general who is leading the Army's inquiry into the role of military intelligence soldiers at Abu Ghraib, and the officer who would receive and act on the report, defense officials said Thursday.
The current investigating officer, Maj. Gen. George R. Fay, recently told his superior, Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the ground commander in Iraq, that he could not complete his investigation without questioning General Sanchez. But Army regulations generally prevent officers from interviewing their superiors.
So General Sanchez asked to be removed from his role in reviewing General Fay's work, and asked that both he and General Fay be replaced by more senior officers.
General Fay and his 29-person staff have been conducting their interviews in an office building in Alexandria, Va. Some sessions have lasted less than an hour; others, particularly those with soldiers who do not have lawyers, have stretched over two days, according to soldiers who have been interviewed.
In another sign of the repercussions from the Abu Ghraib scandal, the Pentagon issued new reporting procedures Thursday for situations involving detainees who die in American custody. The new procedures require that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the secretary of defense be notified when any detainee dies in American custody. They also require the head of a detention center to notify a military investigative agency, which in turn would notify military medical examiners, who would then determine whether an autopsy should be performed. Inquiries into the deaths of detainees at Abu Ghraib and other prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan have revealed a confusing system of requirements for autopsies and the signing of death certificates.
--------
U.S. charges Guantanamo Bay detainee
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
By Rowan Scarborough
June 11, 2004
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040610-112608-3841r.htm
The United States announced criminal charges yesterday against a detainee at Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, accusing Australian David Hicks of terrorism-related offenses in Afghanistan.
Hicks is the third prisoner at the 660-inmate facility in Cuba to be formally charged. He, like the other two, will be tried by a military commission set up by the Pentagon to handle terror suspects.
The United States charged Hicks with conspiracy to commit war crimes, attempted murder by an unprivileged belligerent and aiding the enemy. Allied forces captured Hicks in Afghanistan as he fought with al Qaeda and the Taliban regime against U.S. forces who invaded to end the terror group's grip on the country.
The Pentagon said it will not seek the death penalty if Hicks is convicted. It also said that the intelligence information involved in the case does not require the government to monitor conversations between the defendant and his attorney, Marine Corps Maj. Michael Mori.
"David Hicks has not violated any law of war and shouldn't have been charged," Maj. Mori told the Associated Press. "It's unfortunate these charges will never be tested before a fair and established justice system."
The Pentagon addressed the fairness issue yesterday, saying the military, as in a civilian court, must prove Hicks' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. He also can present evidence and call witnesses. The commission is to be made up of military officers, who are yet to be selected.
The charges say Hicks, formerly of Adelaide, Australia, converted from Christianity to Islam and went to Albania to fight in the Kosovo Liberation Army. The army battled Serbian forces when they were methodically killing Muslims in the province.
After the civil war was ended by NATO in 1999, Hicks went to Pakistan and joined an Islamist militant group, according to U.S. charges. He trained in terrorist camps in Afghanistan operated by Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network, which carried out the September 11 attacks on the United States.
Detainees can appeal convictions to a special panel. But under the military commission system authorized by President Bush, defendants cannot appeal to the U.S. civilian courts.
In laying out its case, the Pentagon said yesterday that:
"Hicks is alleged to have attended a number of al Qaeda terrorist training courses at various camps in Afghanistan, including an advanced course on surveillance, in which he conducted surveillance of the U.S. and British embassies in Kabul, Afghanistan.
"It is also alleged that after viewing TV news coverage in Pakistan of the September 11, 2001, attacks against the United States, he returned to Afghanistan to rejoin his al Qaeda associates to fight against U.S., British, Canadian, Australian, Afghan and other coalition forces. It is alleged Hicks armed himself with an AK-47 automatic rifle, ammunition and grenades to fight against coalition forces."
Hicks is one of six detainees whom Mr. Bush designated last year as eligible for trial by military commission.
In December, the United States reached agreement with Australia on how its two citizens at Guantanamo would be adjudicated. The United States agreed not to seek the death penalty or monitor attorney-client conversations.
Mr. Bush has designated as "enemy combatants" al Qaeda and Taliban members captured in Afghanistan. The designation denies them all the rights of a prisoner of war.
--------
Remote Facility in Iraq Shows New Face of U.S. Prison System
washingtonpost.com
By Jackie Spinner
June 11, 2004
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32623-2004Jun10?language=printer
CAMP BUCCA, Iraq -- The sand blows across this isolated patch of desert, flecks of moving rock and dust. When the heat grows unbearable, as it often does, the men hover inside white tents, the canvas sides partially rolled and tied off. When day settles into evening, and the air is more forgiving, the young men come out to play soccer and volleyball under the red desert moon. The old ones gather in groups and pray.
Sometimes both young and old move toward the shiny new chain-link fence that surrounds the tents. They clutch the wires with their dark hands and look out. There is little to see but fuel trucks in the distance and the metal cranes towering over the nearby port of Umm Qasr.
The men are prisoners -- Iraqis brought to this desolate spot 300 miles southeast of Baghdad where the U.S. Army has established a detention facility called Camp Bucca. Set up last year during the invasion of Iraq, the camp was named for Ron Bucca, a New York fire marshal and Army Reservist who died in the Sept. 11, 2001, attack on the World Trade Center. Envisioned as a temporary place to hold Iraqi prisoners of war, the camp was emptied and closed by December. But Iraq's postwar insurgency created the need for a place to house thousands of suspected insurgents, and commanders turned to Camp Bucca to supplement the facilities at Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad.
This week, a resolution adopted unanimously by the U.N. Security Council granted the U.S.-led occupation force "the right to detain Iraqis viewed as a security threat." That approval, contained in a security agreement between the United States and Iraq's new interim government, essentially settled the future of Camp Bucca. It will be the primary detention facility for people still in U.S. custody after the interim government takes power at the end of the month, and it is expected to hold between 2,000 and 2,500 detainees, officials have said.
"From the perspective of leaders responsible for the facility, it was always assumed it would be used in one form or another, so there was a continuing investment in the quality of life for the soldiers and the quality of care for detainees," said Col. David Quantock, commander of the 16th Military Police Brigade, which has soldiers at both Camp Bucca and Abu Ghraib.
The U.S. military decided last month to vacate Abu Ghraib and send all the prisoners held there to Camp Bucca. Military officials were eager to distance themselves from Abu Ghraib, where former president Saddam Hussein's security forces tortured and executed tens of thousands of prisoners and where cameras captured U.S. soldiers beating and humiliating detainees last fall. But Iraqi leaders rejected the plan, so both facilities will now remain open, with Abu Ghraib serving primarily as a processing center, with about 1,500 prisoners, Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, deputy commander of detainee operations in Iraq, said in an interview.
In an Army investigation into abuses at Abu Ghraib, Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba found that soldiers "committed egregious acts and grave breaches of international law" both there and at Camp Bucca. Amnesty International reported last summer that detainees at Camp Bucca "were held in tents in the extreme heat and were not provided with sufficient drinking water or adequate washing facilities. They were forced to use open trenches for toilets and were not given a change of clothes -- even after two months' detention."
Considerable improvements have been made since then. For one, the prison population at Camp Bucca has dropped from 8,000 at its peak last fall to about 2,700 last week. Detainees are given hot meals and showers, recreation time and cigarettes for work details. Medical personnel visit the compounds every day to hand out pills and diagnose ailments. The prisoners are allowed family visits, and last week soldiers began taking photographs during the visits. A prisoner's family gets one copy to take home and another copy is left with the detainee.
The responsibility for improving U.S. detention facilities in Iraq falls to Miller, who flew last week from Baghdad to Camp Bucca to meet with the commanders and to inspect the complex. As he toured the camp, his boots kicking up dust, Miller asked questions and offered suggestions.
"Are we giving the detainees bottled water?" he asked. Noticing a pile of sleeping bags stacked below a guard tower, Miller wanted to know if all of the detainees had been given sleeping bags. The answer was yes. "Good," he said. "Wonderful."
Miller, who ran the military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba -- known as Gitmo -- said Camp Bucca presented a very different set of challenges. "This is a complex business," he said. "Gitmo is different because this population is a relatively small number of terrorists. It's not the same level of evil."
During Miller's visit, commanders showed him an area where workers were constructing large metal cages to replace the tattered tents in the isolation compound for prisoners who had been caught fighting or found with contraband.
Miller walked over to the cages, peered in, shook his head and said finally: "Guys, these don't sing to me. I don't like it. You can't put people in here."
The lives of the soldiers at Camp Bucca have improved over the past year, as well. The dining facility, dubbed the Bucca Inn, is considered among the finest on any base in Iraq. Soldiers sleep in air-conditioned trailers and tents. There are hot showers, a recreation facility and a post office -- amenities that did not exist last summer.
"We come down here, we do what we have to do," said Spec. Douglas Kocian, a tower guard from the 107th Field Artillery Regiment based in Pittsburgh. "Nobody wants to be here, but I think everybody is coping with it the best they can. It's not exciting. I'm not saying I'm the happiest camper, but my wife isn't happy, either."
On a recent morning, Kocian watched from the guard tower as prisoners below lined up for medical call.
Some wore tribal dress, others pants and loose shirts. A few were wrapped only in towels as they scurried to the shower house set up inside the compound.
"We all recognize we could be in a lot worse places in Iraq," said Capt. Erik Fessenden, commander of Marauder Company, 172nd Field Artillery, based in Manchester, N.H.
Fessenden's company came to Camp Bucca in late February. Its 178 members serve as exterior guards for the camp and as convoy escorts.
"We're stretched thin -- long, 12-hour shifts -- and the weather conditions, you can see the blowing sand," he said. "There have been some long days."
Fessenden said he had little to tell his soldiers about what was coming next.
"I think there are still a lot of unknowns for exactly how things will flush out," he said. "The plans have changed. I don't think a lot of people can tell you. We're preparing for things to get more dangerous down here and more heat.
"But it's difficult to predict where it's going, to be honest with you."
-------- terrorism
Terror Suspect in Italy Linked to More Plots
June 11, 2004
By ELAINE SCIOLINO
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/11/international/europe/11arre.html
PARIS, June 10 - A suspected ringleader of the Madrid train bombings who was arrested Tuesday has taken credit for orchestrating the attacks and has boasted that he was about to send a team of suicide bombers to Iraq, according to intercepts of his conversations monitored by Italy's anti-terrorism unit.
The conversations were recorded from telephone wiretaps and from electronic bugs in the residence outside Milan of Rabei Osman Sayed Ahmed, a 32-year-old Egyptian.
Excerpts of the conversations are contained in a 26-page confidential arrest warrant for the two men that was compiled by the Milan prosecutor's office.
"There is something, there is something that I won't hide from you," Mr. Ahmed was quoted as telling Yahia Payumi, a 21-year-old Egyptian who was arrested with him, in a conversation on May 26. "The Madrid attack was my project, and those who died as martyrs were my dearest friends." He added that it took him two and a half years to plan the operation.
In the same conversation, Mr. Ahmed boasted that plans were under way for some sort of chemical attack against American interests. After lamenting the fact that a female operative involved in the project had been "discovered," he added, "There are other women."
Among them is one who has already been "prepared with many medicinal products," he said. "If they toss a stick, they destroy an entire American neighborhood." One named Amal, he said, is "ready."
As for Iraq, Mr. Ahmed said four suicide bombers "ready for martyrdom" would be leaving within the next month for Syria on their way to Iraq. In the past year, intelligence officials say they have begun to see the recruitment and deployment of guerrilla fighters from Europe to Iraq to fight the American-led occupation there.
The Spanish authorities believe that Mr. Ahmed is a crucial missing suspect behind the Madrid terror attacks in March that left 191 people dead. A former Egyptian Army explosives expert, Mr. Ahmed was well-connected with radical Islamic networks throughout Europe and active in training Islamic guerrillas in anti-Western operations, they said.
Mr. Ahmed also spoke vaguely of another planned operation, and intelligence and law enforcement officials in Europe say they are struggling to determine its nature and location.
In recent weeks, Bush administration officials have told a number of European countries that there was some information of a possible terrorist attack against a European Union target, perhaps linked to the elections in European Union countries that began Thursday and continue until Sunday, a senior European counterterrorism official said Thursday.
Corriere della Sera, an Italian daily that first disclosed parts of the arrest warrant, suggested Thursday that Mr. Ahmed might have been plotting an attack on the Paris Metro, the city's subway system. But France and Italy denied the report.
"Of course, we have analyzed all available information concerning this matter," the French interior minister, Dominique de Villepin, told reporters during a visit to Germany. "I confirm that in these exchanges there are no indications about the preparation of possible attacks in Paris, on the Paris Metro or elsewhere."
However, a senior Italian law enforcement official said the authorities were so concerned about the Mr. Ahmed's other operation that they decided to move in on him rather than continue to monitor his activities.
In one conversation on May 29, a man in Belgium identified only as Mourad tells Mr. Ahmed that he is "ready," that he should be in Paris soon and that "the operation is moving forward."
Mr. Ahmed asks for information "about the city," "about the Metro," and about controls and inspections.
In another conversation intercepted by Belgian authorities and summarized in the Italian document, a third man identified as Muhammad, who is already in Paris, is said to be ready for martyrdom, "that is, for the execution of a suicide operation," the Italian document concluded.
On May 24, Mr. Ahmed tells Mourad that the operation began four days ago and that he should be prepared to leave Belgium for an unspecified country.
An Italian official in Milan close to the investigation said that "it was wrong to say that Paris is where the attack was going to be." He added that the Italian authorities believed that Paris might have only been a convenient meeting point for the operatives.
The conversations also offer insight into the thinking of Mr. Ahmed, who was heard trying to persuade Mr. Payumi to become a suicide bomber.
"We young people must be the first ones to sacrifice ourselves," Mr. Ahmed is quoted at one point as saying, adding, "God puts us all to the test, he tires us out, he tests the faith of us all." The only solution, he concluded, is "to join Al Qaeda."
He urges Mr. Payumi to listen to certain cassettes and CD's as part of his preparation for death.
At one point, Mr. Payumi says, "I am ready to sacrifice myself," and Mr. Ahmed praises his decision, saying, "Consider yourself already in paradise."
Mr. Ahmed said that he had used different nationalities, "Jordanian, Egyptian, Palestinian and Syrian," until his friends in Tangier, Morocco, "told me to stop, because they'll get you."
The arrests of Mr. Ahmed and Mr. Payumi were part of a sweeping operation that included the arrest of 15 people in Belgium who also were said to be planning an attack.
Jason Horowitz contributed reporting from Milan for this article.
-------- torture
White House Warned On Torture Rules
Memo Warned That Torture Would Put Troops At Risk
(CBS)
Jun 11, 2004
http://wfrv.com/topstories/topstories_story_163155611.html
WASHINGTON (CBS) The State Department warned the White House two years ago that rejecting international standards against torture when dealing with detainees could put U.S. troops at risk.
A department memo from Feb. 2, 2002, surfaced Thursday as President Bush said he ordered U.S. officials to follow the law while interrogating suspected terrorists.
Mr. Bush sidestepped an opportunity to denounce the use of torture.
"What I've authorized is that we stay within U.S. law," Mr. Bush told reporters at the close of the G-8 summit in Georgia.
Asked whether torture is ever justified, Mr. Bush replied, "Look, I'm going to say it one more time. ... The instructions went out to our people to adhere to law. That ought to comfort you."
In a related development, The Washington Post reports intelligence officers ordered the use of dogs to frighten detainees at Abu Ghraib. Two dog handlers even had a contest to see who could make more prisoners urinate out of fear, according to testimony.
The State Department memo warned that failing to apply the Geneva Conventions to detainees from the war in Afghanistan - whether al Qaeda or Taliban - would put U.S. troops at risk.
"A decision that the conventions do not apply to the conflict in Afghanistan in which our armed forces are engaged deprives our troops there of any claim to the protection of the convention in the event they are captured," State Department legal adviser William H. Taft IV wrote in the 2002 memo to presidential counsel.
Furthermore, refusing Geneva standards to detainees "weakens protections afforded by the conventions to our troops in future conflicts," Taft wrote. The Associated Press obtained a copy of the memo.
The State Department memo followed recommendations from the Justice Department advising the president he could suspend international treaties prohibiting torture.
The Justice Department also told the White House that U.S. laws against torture do not apply to the fight against terrorism. The department memos say torture "may be justified" against al Qaeda detainees in U.S. custody abroad and laws and treaties barring torture could be trumped by the president's supreme authority to act as necessary in wartime.
Democrats say that by suggesting that Mr. Bush could legally authorize torture, the memos would have created the legal foundation for Iraqi prisoner abuses at Abu Ghraib prison.
The investigation into that abuse has turned on whether official policy of higher-ranking officials approved or encouraged the abuse. Reports of harsh methods against detainees now cover prisons in Afghanistan and the Guantanamo Bay facility, as well as those in Iraq.
According to reports published Thursday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in late 2002 authorized interrogation procedures including "fear of dogs" and "stress positions." Lawyers for Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Richard Myers worried that some interrogation tactics placed Myers in legal jeopardy.
Mr. Bush said Thursday he does not recall seeing any of the Justice Department advice.
In its memo, the State Department also advised that following Geneva standards "demonstrates that the United States bases its conduct not just on its policy preferences, but on its international legal obligations."
Five days after the State Department memo was written, Mr. Bush decided the Geneva Conventions apply to Taliban prisoners but not to captured al Qaeda terrorists.
The Bush administration has said that even though it does not believe the Geneva Conventions apply to prisoners in the war on terror, it has complied with the treaty's guidelines.
Quoting sworn statements by dog handlers at Abu Ghraib, The Post reports that the highest ranking military intelligence officers at the prison approved the plan to use unmuzzled dogs to scare prisoners. One claimed that a two-star or major general suggested the canines' use.
At least one detainee testified that he had been bitten by one of the Army dogs.
Accounts of an ongoing Army investigation of Iraq's prisons indicate that many detainees, including some in the high-security section of Abu Ghraib where the abuse took place, were held on flimsy evidence.
The handlers' claims raise questions about the contention by Mr. Bush and others that responsibility for the abuses at Abu Ghraib is confined to a small group of soldiers. Only seven low-ranking GIs have been charged with crimes.
--------
Iraq dog use 'ordered by US intelligence'
Reuters
Friday 11 June 2004
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/1BC56B64-8101-4B14-9AA0-A66339D485CE.htm
US intelligence personnel ordered military dog handlers to use unmuzzled dogs to intimidate detainees at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison, The Washington Post has reported.
A military intelligence interrogator also told investigators that two dog handlers at the prison were "having a contest" to see how many detainees they could make involuntarily urinate out of fear of the dogs, the Post said, citing statements obtained by the newspaper.
Six US soldiers face possible court martial and one has already been jailed for a year because of the abuses at Abu Ghraib, where photographs have shown detainees being sexually humiliated, physically tormented and threatened with dogs.
Two army dog handlers assigned to Abu Ghraib, Sgt. Michael Smith and Sgt. Santos Cardona, told investigators that military intelligence personnel asked them to bring their dogs to prison interrogation sites numerous times to help question detainees in December and January, the Post reported.
Belief
According to the report, Smith and Cardona said they complied with the requests because they believed the tactics had been approved by Col. Thomas Pappas, the military intelligence officer in charge of the prison.
At the cell blocks, they allowed their dogs to menace detainees, they told investigators.
At the behest of interrogators, Smith said, in some cases he would bring the barking dog to within 15 cm of terrified prisoners, the Post reported.
The officer in charge of the military intelligence-run interrogation centre at the prison had to approve the use of dogs in interrogations, according to a military intelligence memo obtained by The Washington Post.
There is no explanation in the memo of what parameters would have to be in place or what the dogs would be allowed to do, the report said.
Neither Smith nor Cardona have been charged in connection with the abuse at Abu Ghraib.
"It's all under investigation," Lt. Col. Pamela Hart, an Army spokeswoman, told the newspaper.
A Pentagon spokesman was not immediately available for comment.
-------- POLITICS
-------- budget
Congress Backs Pentagon Budget Heavy on Future Weapons
Buildup Pricier Than That in '80s
By Dan Morgan
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 11, 2004; Page A23
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32689-2004Jun10?language=printer
As Congress moves ahead with a huge new defense bill, lawmakers are making only modest changes in the Pentagon's plans to spend well over $1 trillion in the next decade on an arsenal of futuristic planes, ships and weapons with little direct connection to the Iraq war or the global war on terrorism.
House and Senate versions of the 2005 defense authorization measure contain a record $68 billion for research and development -- 20 percent above the peak levels of President Ronald Reagan's historic defense buildup. Tens of billions more out of a proposed $76 billion hardware account will go for big-ticket weapons systems to combat some as-yet-unknown adversary comparable to the former Soviet Union.
On the Pentagon's wish list are such revolutionary weapons as a fighter plane that can land on an aircraft carrier or descend vertically to the ground; a radar-evading destroyer that can wallow low in the waves like a submarine while aiming precise rounds at enemy targets 200 miles inland; and a compact "isomer" weapon that could tap the metallic chemical element hafnium to release 10,000 times as much energy per gram as TNT.
So far this year, the debate in Congress over the defense bill has largely skirted the budgetary or strategic implications of this buildup, largely because Republican and Democratic politicians are unwilling to appear weak on defense after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
"In the public mind there is clearly a present danger, so we can't trim back the defense budget in any manner even though counterterrorism spending only accounts for a small part of it," said Carl Conetta, co-director of the Project on Defense Alternatives.
But as Congress comes under new pressures to fund the war in Iraq, provide better physical protection for troops in the field, help financially strapped military families and defend U.S. shores, some lawmakers in both parties say Congress and the Pentagon must begin to choose among competing defense priorities.
"We are in a massive train wreck financially," Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) recently told members of the House Armed Services subcommittee on tactical air and land forces, which he chairs. "The time has come to be tough about the way we are spending money on programs that we cannot see the ability to fund" in later years.
War costs and modernization are expected to drive defense spending to nearly $500 billion in 2005, above the inflation-adjusted Cold War average, and $50 billion above 2004. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the long-term price tag for all the planes, ships and weapons the military services want will be at least $770 billion above what the Bush administration's long-term defense plan calls for.
In a major speech last week, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, called for cutting back funding for a national missile defense system -- a priority of the Bush administration -- to pay for increasing the size of the active-duty Army.
Other lawmakers are concerned that a defense budget that gives the Pentagon the resources to challenge adversaries in the air, sea and on land throughout the world for the next half-century will inevitably further skew the nation's foreign policy toward military intervention.
The current defense budget, said Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), "is consistent with the Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz view of the world that we will essentially abandon 'soft' power -- diplomacy and the use of international institutions -- and will concentrate on 'hard' power -- military strength that we exercise alone."
He was characterizing the strategic defense policies of Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz.
The defense budget before Congress looks far different from the one Rumsfeld envisioned when he first came to office. At that time, he was pushing the armed forces toward a "transformation" creating lighter, faster, electronically networked and smaller forces. That approach already has resulted in plans for the Army's Future Combat Systems and the Navy's proposed Littoral Combat Ship.
Rumsfeld canceled the Army's heavy Crusader artillery system and made clear he was skeptical of other costly advanced weapons systems championed by the military chiefs and defense contractors.
But the Sept. 11 attacks and the combat that followed diverted Rumsfeld from his transformation initiatives and also increased the Pentagon's respect for more orthodox existing weapons that they once considered phasing out. These included the Air Force's slow-flying but reliable A-10, which supports ground forces, and the Army's M-1 tank.
"Afghanistan and Iraq have injected a long-overdue sense of realism in the decisions at DOD about how much you can foresee the future," retired Army Col. Richard H. Sinnreich said. "After 9/11, a whole bunch of things changed."
After the terrorist attacks, the Pentagon continued to move ahead with "essentially all of the major acquisitions included in the Clinton administration defense plan," according to a recent report of the nonpartisan Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.
The view was echoed in a March report drafted by a panel of defense experts and retired military and Pentagon officials at the request of two prominent think tanks, the Center for Defense Information and Foreign Policy in Focus. It concluded that "the Bush military budget is being spent on a force structure that does not match today's security challenges because it is designed for a cold war style large-scale conventional challenge that we no longer face."
Some changes and cutbacks are being made around the edges of the budget.
In February, the Army canceled development of its future helicopter, the Comanche, to free more funds for immediate wartime needs.
Congress last year cut planned purchases of the Navy's new Virginia-class nuclear attack submarines from seven to five through 2008.
This year, the Senate Armed Services Committee, citing production delays, proposed reducing procurement of the Air Force's F/A-22 Raptor from 24 to 22 planes. The House-passed defense authorization bill reduces funding for developing the Littoral Combat Ship and the next-generation DD(X) destroyer.
But whether any of those cuts will survive the coming negotiations between the House and Senate, or will pass muster with the appropriations committees that make the final decisions, is highly questionable, if Congress's performance on previous defense bills is any indication.
The cost of the stealthy F-22 air-to-air fighter in the 2005 budget is $5 billion, and that of a second combat aircraft in the development stage, the Joint Strike Fighter, is $4.5 billion. Lockheed Martin Corp. is prime contractor for both planes, as well as for the Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS), a satellite network that is supposed to be a key part of a defense against missile attack.
Envisioned in the 1980s as a radar-evading plane that could take on Soviet fighters deep over Russia, the F-22's future role now is more ambiguous because no country is developing an aircraft with anything near its capabilities.
"We haven't faced an enemy with an Air Force to speak of since 1945, except for a few MiGs in North Korea and Vietnam," said Winslow Wheeler, a former Senate Republican aide who is author of a forthcoming book on Congress and defense.
The combined cost of the F-22 and the Joint Strike Fighter in 2005 will equal about a fifth of federal aid to education and half of the budget for all foreign aid and military assistance.
But about 1,000 contractors in 43 states work on the F-22, and they are well-connected in Congress.
Six members of the Senate Armed Services Committee have urged reconsideration of the cut even though they acknowledged that producing even 22 planes a year "exceeds the contractor's current capability to produce aircraft."
Senior military officials and defense industry representatives argue that pinching pennies on security is a serious mistake in uncertain times. Advanced weapons such as the F-22, they say, provide such a wide technological "gap" that they deter potential enemies such as China from trying to catch up.
"If we're to maintain our power and leadership in the world, we have to be able to maintain these capabilities. . . . It's an insurance policy for our country," said Tom Jurkowsky, spokesman for Lockheed Martin.
-------- propaganda wars
False memories and friends
Washington Times
By Peter Huessy
June 11, 2004
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040610-091738-2007r.htm
Ronald Wilson Reagan won the Cold War through tenacity, grit, determination, wisdom, courage and a profound understanding of the evil we confronted in the conflict with Soviet totalitarianism. Understandably, many of his severest critics have said kind words following his passing from us, pretending as if they stood by his side during America's great conflicts. But it is important that these revisionist historians not be allowed to cloud the historical record.
When it really counted, they were on the wrong side of history. For example, critical to our battle with the former Soviet Union was the Peacekeeper, the centerpiece of America's strategic nuclear modernization strategy. It also included Trident submarines, B-1 and B-2 bombers, and the INF missiles deployed in Europe.
I was honored to join the Reagan administration in the early fall of 1981. I was given one main job. Get Congress to secure funding for the deployment of the new MX missile.
In late 1982, former President Reagan named the new missile Peacekeeper. In early 1983, the administration, supported by a number of senators and congressmen, sought to put together a bipartisan plan to credibly deploy the Peacekeeper. The Scowcroft Commission, established to come up with such a plan, brought together an impressive group of America's national-security experts, including former Secretaries of State Alexander Haig and Henry Kissinger, R. James Woolsey, former Air Force Secretary Thomas Reed, former Defense Secretaries Donald Rumsfeld, James Schlesinger, Harold Brown and Melvin Laird, and former CIA directors Richard Helms and John McCone. The left and its congressional allies angrily sneered at the group, wedded as they were to the Soviet proposals for a nuclear freeze.
The commission report in April 1983 recommended putting Peacekeeper in silos, and while arms control brought down strategic nuclear warheads, also deploying a mobile single-warhead missile that could survive a Soviet strike. Sen. Malcolm Wallop, Wyoming Republican, said the commission had solved the problem of how to make an elephant - Peacekeeper - run like a rabbit and make a rabbit - Midgetman - as strong as an elephant. We simply recommended we buy both an elephant and a rabbit.
With Mr. Reagan's extraordinary leadership, the House and Senate agreed to begin production of the Peacekeeper missile, and research and development for the smaller missile, dubbed Midgetman. The huge amount of energy put into the attempts to defeat Mr. Reagan's nuclear modernization program - aimed almost solely at these two missiles - resulted in the rest of the strategic nuclear weapons modernization program going through Congress largely unscathed.
The next year, just prior to the 1984 elections, with the Soviets pushing for a nuclear freeze, opponents of then-President Reagan tried again. Facing an election, they feared voting for the Peacekeeper and thus successfully fenced its funding. They hoped the election of Walter Mondale would eliminate any future deployments of the new land-based missile. Key sponsors of the legislation to do this were House members Patricia Schroeder, Edward Markey, Henry Waxman and Ron Dellums, and Sens. Joseph Biden, Christopher Dodd and Edward Kennedy. Just after winning a Senate seat from Massachusetts, John Kerry made his maiden speech in the Senate on how we should kill the funding for the Peacekeeper, joining this anti-Reagan crowd.
In March and April of 1985, the Reagan administration won 16 separate votes, one following the other, to release the funding for the Peacekeeper. Every yes vote was critical. Some votes we won by a margin of one; some by more. We could count on only a few Senate Democrats to help us. But some did. Democratic Sens. Sam Nunn, Al Gore and James Exon supported Mr. Reagan on the Peacekeeper. In the House, Reps. Norm Dicks, Dan Daniel, Sonny Montgomery, Sam Stratton, John Murtha and Les Aspin, among nearly 50 Reagan Democrats, stood strong in the face of the pressure from the nuclear-freeze enthusiasts. Democratic Sens. Dodd, Kerry, Biden, Kennedy and virtually the entire caucus voted no.
Unfortunately, the number of Democrats supporting a strong defense dwindled even further as the Cold War came to an end in 1990. In the Senate, even at the height of the conflict with the Soviets, Mr. Reagan always had to rely on a solid phalanx of Republican Senate soldiers to maintain America's strength.
In that spring 1985 fight, I remember speaking with Sen. Charles Mathias, a liberal-to-moderate Republican senator from my home state of Maryland. That state was dominated by far-left liberals and freeze supporters. It would have been easy for Mr. Mathias to vote their way. He could have risked the termination of Mr. Reagan's centerpiece on strategic nuclear weapons deployments. He asked me why we needed the Peacekeeper deployed at the time. I said: "The Soviets have modernized without pause for the past decade. Our opponents always urge restraint on us, but only in the false hope that the Soviets will follow suit, which they never do. The Peacekeeper is critical to hold at risk Soviet targets, so they do not remain in a sanctuary and embolden Moscow to take risks."
Soon after, Mr. Mathias walked onto the Senate floor and delivered a short speech in favor of Mr. Reagan and the deployment of Peacekeeper. It was a profile in courage - unlike the actions of all those who, in our hour of need, abandoned our country, even as they now pretend otherwise.
Peter Huessy is president of GeoStrategic Analysis.
-------- us politics
How Reagan Beat the Neocons
NYTimes.com
By JOHN PATRICK DIGGINS
June 11, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/11/opinion/11DIGG.html?ex=1087924313&ei=1&en=2f47713ac1e652e6
Almost everywhere in the press one reads that President Bush sounds an awful lot like Ronald Reagan. Commentators and politicians alike have drawn the comparison between Mr. Bush's "muscular" foreign policy and the Reagan doctrine. However macho and aggressive Mr. Bush's foreign policy may be, when it came to the Soviet Union, Mr. Reagan's was anything but.
In 1985, Mr. Reagan sent a long handwritten letter to Mikhail Gorbachev assuring him that he was prepared "to cooperate in any reasonable way to facilitate such a withdrawal" of the Soviets from Afghanistan. "Neither of us," he added, "wants to see offensive weapons, particularly weapons of mass destruction, deployed in space." Mr. Reagan eagerly sought to work with Mr. Gorbachev to rid the world of such weapons and to help the Soviet Union effect peaceful change in Eastern Europe.
This offer was far from the position taken by the neoconservative advisers who now serve under Mr. Bush. Twenty years ago in the Reagan White House, they saw no possibility for such change, and indeed many of them subscribed to the theory of "totalitarianism" as unchangeable and irreversible. Mr. Reagan was also informed that the Soviet Union was preparing for a possible pre-emptive attack on the United States. This alarmist position was taken by Team B, formed in response to the more prudently analytical position of the C.I.A. and then composed of several members of the present Bush administration. The team was headed by Richard Pipes, the Russian historian at Harvard, whose stance was summed up in the title of one of his articles: "Why the Soviet Union Thinks It Could Fight and Win a Nuclear War."
Not only did the neocons oppose Mr. Reagan's efforts at rapprochement, they also argued against engaging in personal diplomacy with Soviet leaders. Advisers like Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld, now steering our foreign policy, held that America must escalate to achieve "nuclear dominance" and that we could only deal from a "strategy of strength." Mr. Reagan believed in a strong military, but to reassure the Soviet Union that America had no aggressive intentions, he reminded Leonid Brezhnev of just the opposite. From 1945 to 1949, the United States was the sole possessor of the atomic bomb, and yet, Mr. Reagan emphasized to Mr. Brezhnev, no threat was made to use the bomb to win concessions from the Soviet Union.
The Star Wars missile defense system advocated by Mr. Reagan is often regarded as the final nail in the coffin of communism, as a military system that the Soviets could not afford and only fear. The first assumption was right, the second dubious. Margaret Thatcher, who urged Mr. Reagan to regard Mr. Gorbachev as "a man we can work with," also gave him more blunt advice on Star Wars: "I'm a chemist; I know it won't work." Like Mrs. Thatcher, Soviet scientists regarded it as a fantasy, and thus they were hardly impressed with Mr. Reagan's offer to share it with them once it was perfected. (It still hasn't been, nearly two decades later.)
Those advisers in the Bush administration who regard themselves as Reaganites ought to remember that Mr. Reagan ceased heeding their advice. According to George Shultz's memoir, "Turmoil and Triumph," Mr. Reagan would become uneasy when his hawkish advisers entered the Oval Office. In his own memoir, "An American Life," Mr. Reagan ridiculed the "macabre jargon" of warheads, I.C.B.M.'s, kill ratios and "throw weights," the payload capacity of long-range missiles. The president thought their figures sounded like "baseball scores" and dismissed his pesky advisers. Mr. Reagan rejected the neocons; George W. Bush stands by them no matter what.
The difference between Mr. Reagan and Mr. Bush's militant brain staff is that he believed in negotiation and they in escalation. They wanted to win the cold war; he sought to end it. To do so, it was necessary not to strike fear in the Soviet Union but to win the confidence of its leaders. Once the Soviet Union could count on Mr. Reagan, Mr. Gorbachev not only was free to embark on his domestic reforms, to convince his military to go along with budget cuts, to reassure his people that they no longer needed to worry about the old bogey of "capitalist encirclement," but, most important, he was also ready to announce to the Soviet Union's satellite countries that henceforth they were on their own, that no longer would tanks of the Red Army be sent to put down uprisings. The cold war ended in an act of faith and trust, not fear and trembling.
But many neocons came to hate Mr. Reagan, saying he lost the cold war since he left office with communism still in place. Some even believed that the cold war would soon be resumed. Dick Cheney, as President George H. W. Bush's defense secretary, dismissed perestroika ("restructuring") as a sham and glasnost ("opening") as a ruse, he insisted that Mr. Gorbachev would be replaced by a belligerent militarist; and warned America to prepare for the re-emergence of an aggressive communist state.
Mr. Reagan gave us an enlightened foreign policy that achieved most of its diplomatic objectives peacefully and succeeded in firmly uniting our allies. Today those who claim to be Mr. Reagan's heirs give us "shock and awe" and a "muscular" foreign policy that has lost its way and undermined valued friendships throughout the world.
John Patrick Diggins is a professor of history at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York and the author of the forthcoming, "Ronald Reagan: Morning in America."
-----
Tricky Dick Cheney
Antiwar.com
by Paul Sperry
June 11, 2004
http://www.antiwar.com/sperry/?articleid=2794
Nearly three years have passed since 9-11, yet one wonders if Vice President Dick Cheney ever abandoned his "secure undisclosed location."
He still seems to be secreted away somewhere, only coming out of hiding long enough to resell the Iraq war on some friendly neocon stage lent for the spread of more false propaganda.
After Cheney shovels it out, he flashes his sinister grin and scurries back into his hole, out of sight again and accountable to no one - not the press corps, not the Congress and not the American people, who will pay for the White House's dishonest war with their lives and treasure for decades to come.
Tricky Dick Cheney has been allowed to tell war whoppers with virtual impunity, including ones involving his old firm's war-profiteering, and they've now reached such a critical mass that the public must demand he answer for them either in a press conference or public testimony, or preferably both. And right now. The nation can't wait for, or count on, the vice presidential debates (assuming Cheney stays on the ticket) to melt back this congealed evil accumulating on its soul.
Whopper No. 1: On Oct. 10, 2003, Cheney told neocons at the Heritage Foundation that Saddam Hussein "had an established relationship with al-Qaeda," a charge contradicted by U.S. intelligence briefings Cheney has received.
The National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq found that Saddam's secular regime had no working relationship with al-Qaeda and would only take the "extreme step" of reaching out to such Islamic terrorists if it were attacked by the U.S. and had nothing to lose. Even then, the report said the intelligence community had "low confidence" in such a scenario.
Whopper No. 2: In the same speech, Cheney, doing his best impression of Baghdad Bob, still maintained Iraq was a weapons-of-mass-destruction powerhouse.
"If Saddam Hussein were in power today," he said, "this ally of terrorists would still have a hidden biological weapons program capable of producing deadly agents on short notice."
Apparently it was so hidden that no one, including Saddam, can find it - just like the nuclear weapons and stockpiles of chemical weapons the White House claimed he had before it launched an unprovoked attack on Iraq. To date, no banned weapons have been found despite an exhaustive multimillion-dollar search.
"I don't think they existed," concluded a glum David Kay, the ace-in-the-hole neocon inspector the White House handpicked to find the weapons evidence, after the fact.
Whopper No. 3: A month earlier, Cheney claimed they had found conclusive proof of an illicit Iraqi bioweapons program in the form of two old trailers rusting in the desert.
In a Sept. 14, 2003, interview with NBC's Tim Russert, he called them "mobile biological facilities" that can be used to produce deadly germ agents for terrorist attack.
Only, Kay said he couldn't "corroborate" that. The trailers, which came back negative for traces of warfare agents like anthrax, were more than likely used to fill hydrogen weather balloons.
In fact, Iraq may not have had any mobile bioweapons labs at all. Turns out another unreliable Iraqi defector tied to Ahmed Chalabi was the source of that prewar intelligence. The exile failed a lie detector test by the Defense Intelligence Agency and was labeled a "fabricator" before the war, yet the White House used him anyway to help build its case for invasion.
Whopper No. 4: Cheney in the same NBC interview claimed the pair of trailers discovered in Iraq could have been used to make smallpox.
"We've, since the war, found two mobile biological facilities that can be used to produce anthrax or smallpox or whatever else you wanted to use during the course of developing the capacity for an attack," he told Russert.
Major news, if true.
However, growing smallpox requires a bioreactor and a maximum containment lab. The trailers, which had canvas siding, had neither.
But then Cheney knew this.
He also knew that in the run-up to the war the U.S. intelligence community estimated the chances were only "even that smallpox is part of Iraq's offensive BW [biowarfare] program," according to the October 2002 NIE report.
Whopper No. 5: Further trying to justify the Iraq war, the vice president brazenly tried in the same interview to resuscitate the fable that hijacking ringleader Mohamed Atta met in Prague with Iraqi intelligence before 9-11.
He claimed the feds haven't been able to discredit it. "We just don't know," said Cheney, who a year earlier told Russert the allegation was "credible."
That's not what the FBI director said.
"We ran down literally hundreds of thousands of leads and checked every record we could get our hands on, from flight reservations to car rentals to bank accounts," Robert Mueller said in a little-noticed April 2002 speech in San Francisco. "The records revealed that Atta was in Virginia Beach [Va.] during the time he supposedly met the Iraqi in Prague." Whopper No. 6: Cheney has suggested Iraq sponsored 9-11, or at least harbored and supported the terrorists who attacked America.
"If we're successful in Iraq," he told Russert last September, "we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9-11."
His words belie the findings of his intelligence services, who unanimously agreed in the secret NIE dossier on Iraq that its government was not behind 9-11 or the first World Trade Center bombing or the U.S. embassy bombings in Africa or any other "assault," as Cheney put it, on American territory.
"We have no specific intelligence information that Saddam's regime has directed attacks against U.S. territory," the intelligence community advised Cheney and the president in the recently declassified executive summary of their report to the White House.
It's plain that Cheney knew this before the war, knew it when he went on national TV again last fall and knows it today - just as he knows that the "geographic base of the terrorists" who attacked America remains along the Pakistani border with Afghanistan, the real war front, and the one the White House continues to neglect at our peril.
Whopper No. 7: "I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had now for over three years," Cheney also told Russert last fall.
No interest, that is, except for a deferred annual salary and 433,333 shares of unexercised Halliburton stock options. That's right. The shares are worth millions, and Cheney's potential profit goes up with each new contract Halliburton lands.
The oil-field services giant's revenue is driven by contracts, and Cheney, who's spent most of his career in Washington, has been its rainmaker. That's why it hired him. Then in 2001, the board parachuted him into the White House with a $34 million payout, and two years later Halliburton wound up with one of the biggest federal contracts in history, financed at your expense.
Whopper No. 8: Russert asked Cheney if he had any role in the secret $7 billion contract the Pentagon gave Halliburton before the war to rebuild and run Iraq's oil system and even distribute its energy products outside Iraq. "Were you involved in any way in the awarding of those contracts?"
"Of course not, Tim," Cheney indignantly replied. "And as vice president, I have absolutely no influence of, involvement of, knowledge of - in any way, shape or form - of contracts led by the [Army] Corps of Engineers or anybody else in the federal government."
That's not what a Pentagon e-mail uncovered by government watchdog Judicial Watch suggests.
Dated March 5, 2003, it says the Halliburton contract "has been coordinated w VP's [vice president's] office." Three days later, the Army Corps of Engineers awarded Halliburton the no-bid contract.
Whopper No. 9: Russert: "Why is there no bidding?"
Cheney: "I have no idea."
But if his office was read in on the Pentagon deal as the e-mail indicates, then he had to have known why competitors were muscled out. There's no less than a 10-page Pentagon document justifying the secret Halliburton deal, declassified last week thanks to a Judicial Watch lawsuit.
In effect, it says Cheney's old firm was favored because it was the only one that could hit the ground running in Iraq - but the only reason it could do that was because the Pentagon gave it a head start. Halliburton got to study its secret contingency plan in November 2002. And the month before the final contract was inked, Halliburton was allowed to "pre-position equipment and personnel" for the Iraq oil project - an advantage Bechtel, Fluor and other competitors never got.
And bear in mind that even before 9-11, Cheney and his secret White House energy task force (which no doubt included Halliburton officials) were poring over maps of Iraqi oil fields, and sizing up foreign competitors for oil contracts there.
Tricky Dick Cheney is the MSG of Bush administration scandals - he shows up everywhere. Besides war-profiteering, he's been accused of pressuring CIA agents to cook up anti-Iraq intelligence; of intimidating ex-diplomat Joseph Wilson, who blew the whistle on the White House's phony Iraq uranium charge, by illegally blowing the cover of his undercover CIA officer wife; of schmoozing Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia to fix a lawsuit against his secret energy task force; and on and on.
Demand the vice president explain himself in a formal press conference. Call his office at (202) 456-7124, and let his staff know he can no longer duck accountability. Don't take no for an answer. Remember: he works for you, the people, and his arrogant lies are robbing you of your tax dollars and the lives of our nation's sons and daughters.
-----
Poll: Voters say Iraq didn't merit war
(AP)
6/11/2004
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-06-11-iraq-poll_x.htm
LOS ANGELES (AP) - A majority of American registered voters now say conditions in Iraq did not merit war, but most are reluctant to abandon efforts there, according to a new Los Angeles Times poll.
Voters are increasingly concerned that Iraq is a quagmire America cannot escape, and they are doubtful that a democratic government will be established there, according to the poll published in Friday editions of the Times.
Fifty-three percent of respondents said the situation in Iraq did not merit war, while 43% said war was justified. When the same question was asked for Times polls in March and November, the numbers were precisely reversed.
But less than 20% said America should withdraw its troops within weeks, and 25% said the U.S. should set a deadline for pulling out.
"I never thought we should go to war in Iraq," said Anne Wardwell, a retired museum curator in Cleveland. "But I think we have to see it through, because if we don't, it is going to be a disaster in the region."
Voters' mounting worries about the war have damaged their confidence in President Bush, the poll showed. Forty-four percent said they approved of Bush's handling of the war, compared to 51% in March.
The poll, which was conducted from Saturday to Tuesday, surveyed 1,230 registered voters nationwide. It had a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points.
Forty-one percent approved of Bush's handling of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal, while 37% disapproved of his performance.
A majority of voters said presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry has done little to help: The poll found that 34% said Kerry has not offered a clear plan to handle the war, while 15% said he has. The other voters said they didn't know.
--------
League of Women Voters Is Split on Paperless Computer Voting Systems
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
June 11, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/11/politics/campaign/11league.html?pagewanted=print&position=
Electronic voting is at the center of an internal battle in the League of Women Voters, whose national leadership is refusing to endorse demands by hundreds of members for a paper trail to guard against fraud, hackers and malfunctions.
Some local chapters are so angry that they are flouting regulations and planning to speak against the group's national position on Friday and Saturday at the league's convention in Washington. They are threatening to nominate new board members and a new candidate for president who would rescind the league's support for paperless voting systems.
"We think the league has in some way failed us," said Genevieve Katz, 74, a member of the Oakland, Calif., chapter, who has collected more than 700 signatures from members upset with the league's position on paperless terminals. "I can't remember an issue that has gotten members so upset."
The league, a nonpartisan group with 130,000 members, weighed in on the electronic voting controversy last year. Leaders said paperless terminals, which about 30 percent of the electorate will use in the November election, were reliable.
The group has "no reason to believe" computer terminals would "steal your vote," the league said officially.
That infuriated hundreds of members from chapters around the country - particularly in Silicon Valley - who argue that the systems jeopardize elections. Legitimate recounts are impossible without paper records of every vote cast, they say.
League bylaws stipulate that local chapters must act "in conformity" with the national organization's stances. Individuals who take contrary positions cannot identify themselves publicly as league members.
The league president, Kay Maxwell, says paperless computers, which can be equipped with headsets and programmed in multiple languages, make voting easier for the blind and the illiterate and for people who do not speak English.
Furthermore, Ms. Maxwell said, demanding a paper trail so close to the presidential election would require hundreds of counties that have installed electronic systems to spend millions of dollars on printers, paper and technical upgrades at the last minute.
Ms. Maxwell said that the league could reverse its stance, but that it was unlikely, particularly before November.
"We'll continue to look at this issue and others and take our stances based on where we think the facts lead us, not being concerned about anything else except being as honest as we can be," Ms. Maxwell said.
Founded by suffragettes, the league rarely shies from controversial subjects and has a history of vigorous internal debate.
Despite overwhelming support among members for the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the league took no national stance. Outraged members demanded systemic changes, and by 1974 the league amended its bylaws to give the national organization more power to advocate social change.
For current members, Ms. Maxwell said, voter registration problems and dismal turnout, particularly among minorities, should be bigger worries than potential hackers.
"From a voting rights perspective, we care a great deal about the openness of the system and access to the system, that everyone eligible be able to participate freely," Ms. Maxwell said. "But simply printing out a piece of paper will not, in our opinion, address all the security concerns. People are talking about a simple solution to a complicated issue."
Despite the league's official support for paperless voting systems, the technology has been questioned after several failures in elections across the nation.
In a January special election for a seat in the Florida House, 134 people using paperless voting terminals in Broward County failed to cast votes for any candidate. The race was decided by a margin of 12 votes. It is unclear why some voters did not select candidates; without a paper trail, poll workers could not figure out voters' intentions.
In North Carolina's 2002 general election, a software bug deleted 436 electronic ballots from six paperless machines in two counties. Election Systems & Software Inc., which built the terminals, determined that the machines erroneously thought their memories were full and stopped counting votes, even though voters kept casting ballots.
Earlier this year, the California secretary of state, Kevin Shelley, banned the use of a paperless system made by Diebold Inc. after he found uncertified software and other problems that he said "jeopardized" the outcome of elections in several counties. At least 20 states have introduced legislation requiring a paper record of every vote cast.
Some say the League of Women Voters' position has lulled politicians into thinking that the machines are reliable. Kim Alexander, a league member, called the group's support of paperless systems "a significant roadblock on the path to reform."
Barbara Simons, 63, past president of the Association for Computing Machinery, is running for league president on a paper-trail platform.
The league's endorsement is out of touch with younger, computer-savvy voters who "know computers are risky," Ms. Simons said. The average age of league members is above 50.
Marian Beddill, 68, recently resigned as second vice president for the chapter in Bellingham, Wash., because of the league's position on electronic voting.
"It was pretty severe,'' Ms. Beddill said of her action, "but I'm passionate about protecting our votes and our ability and competence in having our votes counted correctly."
--------
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
How Reagan Beat the Neocons
By JOHN PATRICK DIGGINS
June 11, 2004
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/11/opinion/11DIGG.html
Almost everywhere in the press one reads that President Bush sounds an awful lot like Ronald Reagan. Commentators and politicians alike have drawn the comparison between Mr. Bush's "muscular" foreign policy and the Reagan doctrine. However macho and aggressive Mr. Bush's foreign policy may be, when it came to the Soviet Union, Mr. Reagan's was anything but.
In 1985, Mr. Reagan sent a long handwritten letter to Mikhail Gorbachev assuring him that he was prepared "to cooperate in any reasonable way to facilitate such a withdrawal" of the Soviets from Afghanistan. "Neither of us," he added, "wants to see offensive weapons, particularly weapons of mass destruction, deployed in space." Mr. Reagan eagerly sought to work with Mr. Gorbachev to rid the world of such weapons and to help the Soviet Union effect peaceful change in Eastern Europe.
This offer was far from the position taken by the neoconservative advisers who now serve under Mr. Bush. Twenty years ago in the Reagan White House, they saw no possibility for such change, and indeed many of them subscribed to the theory of "totalitarianism" as unchangeable and irreversible. Mr. Reagan was also informed that the Soviet Union was preparing for a possible pre-emptive attack on the United States. This alarmist position was taken by Team B, formed in response to the more prudently analytical position of the C.I.A. and then composed of several members of the present Bush administration. The team was headed by Richard Pipes, the Russian historian at Harvard, whose stance was summed up in the title of one of his articles: "Why the Soviet Union Thinks It Could Fight and Win a Nuclear War."
Not only did the neocons oppose Mr. Reagan's efforts at rapprochement, they also argued against engaging in personal diplomacy with Soviet leaders. Advisers like Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld, now steering our foreign policy, held that America must escalate to achieve "nuclear dominance" and that we could only deal from a "strategy of strength." Mr. Reagan believed in a strong military, but to reassure the Soviet Union that America had no aggressive intentions, he reminded Leonid Brezhnev of just the opposite. From 1945 to 1949, the United States was the sole possessor of the atomic bomb, and yet, Mr. Reagan emphasized to Mr. Brezhnev, no threat was made to use the bomb to win concessions from the Soviet Union.
The Star Wars missile defense system advocated by Mr. Reagan is often regarded as the final nail in the coffin of communism, as a military system that the Soviets could not afford and only fear. The first assumption was right, the second dubious. Margaret Thatcher, who urged Mr. Reagan to regard Mr. Gorbachev as "a man we can work with," also gave him more blunt advice on Star Wars: "I'm a chemist; I know it won't work." Like Mrs. Thatcher, Soviet scientists regarded it as a fantasy, and thus they were hardly impressed with Mr. Reagan's offer to share it with them once it was perfected. (It still hasn't been, nearly two decades later.)
Those advisers in the Bush administration who regard themselves as Reaganites ought to remember that Mr. Reagan ceased heeding their advice. According to George Shultz's memoir, "Turmoil and Triumph," Mr. Reagan would become uneasy when his hawkish advisers entered the Oval Office. In his own memoir, "An American Life," Mr. Reagan ridiculed the "macabre jargon" of warheads, I.C.B.M.'s, kill ratios and "throw weights," the payload capacity of long-range missiles. The president thought their figures sounded like "baseball scores" and dismissed his pesky advisers. Mr. Reagan rejected the neocons; George W. Bush stands by them no matter what.
The difference between Mr. Reagan and Mr. Bush's militant brain staff is that he believed in negotiation and they in escalation. They wanted to win the cold war; he sought to end it. To do so, it was necessary not to strike fear in the Soviet Union but to win the confidence of its leaders. Once the Soviet Union could count on Mr. Reagan, Mr. Gorbachev not only was free to embark on his domestic reforms, to convince his military to go along with budget cuts, to reassure his people that they no longer needed to worry about the old bogey of "capitalist encirclement," but, most important, he was also ready to announce to the Soviet Union's satellite countries that henceforth they were on their own, that no longer would tanks of the Red Army be sent to put down uprisings. The cold war ended in an act of faith and trust, not fear and trembling.
But many neocons came to hate Mr. Reagan, saying he lost the cold war since he left office with communism still in place. Some even believed that the cold war would soon be resumed. Dick Cheney, as President George H. W. Bush's defense secretary, dismissed perestroika ("restructuring") as a sham and glasnost ("opening") as a ruse, he insisted that Mr. Gorbachev would be replaced by a belligerent militarist; and warned America to prepare for the re-emergence of an aggressive communist state.
Mr. Reagan gave us an enlightened foreign policy that achieved most of its diplomatic objectives peacefully and succeeded in firmly uniting our allies. Today those who claim to be Mr. Reagan's heirs give us "shock and awe" and a "muscular" foreign policy that has lost its way and undermined valued friendships throughout the world.
John Patrick Diggins is a professor of history at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York and the author of the forthcoming, "Ronald Reagan: Morning in America."
--------
Undecided Voter Is Becoming the Focus of Both Political Parties
June 11, 2004
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/11/politics/campaign/11VOTE.html?pagewanted=all&position=
ARDMORE, Pa., June 10 - They are more likely to be white than black, female than male, married than single, and live in the suburbs rather than in large cities. They are not frequent churchgoers nor gun enthusiasts. They are clustered in swing states like Ohio, Michigan and here in Pennsylvania. And while they follow the news closely, they are largely indifferent to the back and forth of this year's race for president.
These are what pollsters describe as the rarest of Americans in this election year: the undecided voters. And with aides to President Bush and Senator John Kerry increasingly confident about their ability to turn out their base voters, and thus create an electoral standoff in as many as 15 states, these people have become the object of intense concern by the campaigns as they try to figure out who these voters are and how to reach them.
Only about 5 percent of the voting public is undecided, about one-third of what is typical at this point in the campaign, according to several recent polls. That figure increases to about 15 percent when pollsters include supporters of Mr. Kerry and Mr. Bush who say they might change their minds. In addition to those who are torn between the two major-party candidates, and possibly Ralph Nader, there is a sizable number of Americans who are deciding whether to vote at all.
Here in this Philadelphia suburb, as well as elsewhere across the nation, the undecided voter was the rare exception in hours of interviews that produced vociferous declarations of support for Mr. Bush or Mr. Kerry. "I am very torn," said Marge Pyle, 52, a Republican who works as an administrative assistant at Bryn Mawr College. "I really - I just don't know who I'm going to vote for."
Carol Ferring Shepley, a college instructor in St. Louis who voted for Mr. Bush in 2000, and who is in many ways an archetype for this kind of voter, said: "I am really totally undecided. At this point, I couldn't vote for either of them."
Aides to Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry described this thimbleful of voters as a source of worry to the campaigns because they are disengaged from the presidential contest and thus less susceptible to traditional tools of political persuasion.
At the same time, many of them are closely following the news of the day, pollsters said, meaning they might well be rushed to one side in the last days of this contest by a major event, more turmoil in Iraq, good economic news at home, that is beyond the control of either campaign.
Mary Beth Cahill, Mr. Kerry's campaign manager, said that if the two parties succeeded at turning out their base vote, as both sides said now appears increasingly likely, "this election looks as though it's going to come down to these late deciders."
"We all read the daily polling," Ms. Cahill said, adding. "You have to try every possible way to reach them."
Both campaigns are struggling to adjust to this endlessly complicated electoral equation. Ms. Cahill said her campaign believed that one of the most effective ways to reach many of these voters was on radio shows, and had geared its surrogate speaker program to make Kerry advocates available for many radio shows.
The Bush campaign in May produced an advertisement on education featuring Laura Bush, appealing to suburban female voters, and placed it on the Web site of The Philadelphia Inquirer in an effort to reach voters in Philadelphia suburbs like this one.
"You can't get messages to them just by broadcasting on the major nets," said Matthew Dowd, a senior Bush strategist, referring to television networks. "Primarily, the way most of them make up their mind is with glimpses here and there that they catch of the president and Kerry."
And who are they? Undecided voters are likely to be younger, lower-income and less educated than the general electorate, said Ed Goeas, a Republican pollster.
These voters are more likely to put themselves at the center of the political scale: Stanley Greenberg, a Democratic pollster, said approximately 45 percent of undecided voters described themselves as moderate, compared with 23 percent of the general electorate.
As a group, undecided voters in some ways mirror the general electorate.
Pollsters and analysts said an in-depth examination of undecided attitudes have identified some shared characteristics of these voters that could be of concern for both candidates, but particularly for Mr. Bush.
These voters consider the environment an important issue, suggesting, some Democrats said, an opening for Mr. Kerry this fall. They tend to support abortion rights, and while they oppose gay marriage, they do not share the intensity of Republicans, said Andrew Kohut, who runs Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.
Here in Ardmore, Joan Donoho, 61, an accountant who was a convention delegate for George H. W. Bush in 1980, and who voted for Mr. Bush in 2000, said she was unsure who to vote for, in part because of Mr. Bush's strong identification with opponents of to abortion rights.
"I haven't decided - my concern is that Bush is too conservative," said Ms. Donoho "I'm disappointed that the son isn't more like the father." On two often revealing behavioral indicators, undecided voters were less likely than Mr. Bush's supporters to attend church services or own guns, findings that pollsters said should be a matter of concern for the White House. A poll of undecided voters in swing states by the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center released last week found that 33 percent of these undecided voters went to church weekly or more, compared with 40 percent of respondents at large.
Ellen Plotkin, 67, a retired surgeon's assistant who lives near here, said that she attended synagogue about twice a year, supported restrictions on gun ownership and was against restrictions on abortion. Ms. Plotkin described herself as a Democrat who voted for Mr. Bush in 2000, but who this year was put off by some of his social policies and the war in Iraq.
"But I'm not sure about Kerry," Ms. Plotkin said. "Based on all the things I've heard about him, he seems wishy-washy."
By large numbers, undecided voters, like the general electorate, think the nation is heading in the wrong direction. And in another measure of incumbent distress closely traced by pollsters, just 44 percent said they approved of Mr. Bush's job performance, the Annenberg poll found.
"To me, the most significant figure is that only 35 percent think things are going in the right direction," said Mark Penn, a pollster who released a survey of swing states on Thursday for the New Democratic Network, a Democratic advocacy group. "That means there is tremendous impetus for change."
Like most Americans, these voters generally supported Mr. Bush's decision to go into Iraq. But they are more likely to say that troops should be brought home right away, according to the Annenberg survey. And some pollsters said that the high number of married suburban woman, many with children, in this group could be a matter of concern for the White House because of the demands of the military to fight the war.
"The draft issue is a huge concern - I have a teenage son," Susan Wood, 43, an undecided voter interviewed in Columbus, Ohio.
Still, undecided voters are not convinced that Mr. Kerry would be any better than Mr. Bush at ending the conflict. Mr. Bush has a decided advantage over Mr. Kerry on the issues of security and foreign policy that the White House sees as pivotal in this election, according to the polls.
>From a tactical point of view, undecided voters present a special challenge to the campaigns because of their disinterest toward politics. The Annenberg poll found that 55 percent said they were not following the campaign closely or at all, compared with 32 percent of the general electorate in swing states, which has produced a bit of a conundrum for both campaigns.
"Sometimes I just don't even want to watch the news," Ms. Pyle said here, as she walked along an outside shopping mall here. She said that advertisements "don't affect me" because she does not believe what the candidates are telling her.
Ms. Plotkin said: "When I hear, `I authorized this ad,' I tune out."
Outside of Milwaukee, Karen Pauli, 52, said she saw no reason to pay attention to the contest before autumn. "Until then, I just ignore it because it's so much confusing hot air," Ms. Pauli said, adding: "I'm not even sure who Kerry is. Too early to tell."
A senior Kerry advisor describes this segment of the electorate as "the classic picture of a relatively low-information, relatively disengaged political person. Less likely to know about the candidates, less likely to think that politics is relevant to their lives at all."
"These are the people you focus on all the way through," said this adviser. "Most of them are not going to make their final decisions until the end."
As a rule, undecided voters ultimately go against the incumbent, rejecting someone they know in favor of someone they do not, a line of history noted by Mr. Kerry's advisers in arguing that the situation augurs well for the senator from Massachusetts this fall.
But Mr. Bush's campaign manager, Ken Mehlman, said that in this supercharged electoral atmosphere, voters would make their decisions based on security and economic concerns, and that would hurt Mr. Kerry.
And Mr. Mehlman argued that Mr. Kerry's wavering supporters were much more likely to drop away once they got to know Mr. Kerry and his record, or at least got to know him the way Mr. Bush is trying to portray him.
"The common theme among undecided voters is that they are not typically motivated," Mr. Mehlman said.
"We're talking about winning the war on terror and making the economy stronger. Our base voters care about that, and the swing voters care about. He's talking about why Bush is bad. His appeal is to his base, but undecided voters are motivated by different ideas and different issues."
-------- OTHER
-------- environment
Southeast Asian nations are becoming dumping ground for toxic waste, says Greenpeace
By Associated Press
Friday, June 11, 2004
http://www.enn.com/news/2004-06-11/s_24803.asp
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia - Recent illegal shipments of toxic waste from Taiwan to Malaysia reinforce the urgent need for Southeast Asian countries to agree on regulations to stop richer countries from using the region as a dumping ground, Greenpeace said Thursday.
The environmental group said Southeast Asia had become a favored destination for global waste traders, who in recent years have sent used lead acid batteries, old tires, medical and electronic waste variously to the Philippines, Thailand, and Cambodia.
Authorities have launched a criminal probe into Malaysian company's SynEnviro Sdn. Bhd.'s importation of 12,000 metric tons (13,200 short tons) of toxic waste from Taiwan, allegedly by using a forged import permit.
Officials said the Taiwanese company exported the material so it could be used to make bricks. Malaysia sometimes allows toxic waste to be brought in if the importer can demonstrate that it plans to dispose of it.
"The Southeast Asian region appears to be a particularly susceptible target to international waste traders due to the absence of a regional regulatory framework, coupled with weak national regulatory regimes," Greenpeace said in a statement.
It called on the 10 members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations to adopt the so-called Basel convention, an international pact that seeks to regulate the trade in hazardous waste.
-------- health
Weeds Overlooked as Medicinal Sources
June 11, 2004
GAINESVILLE, Florida, (ENS)
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2004/2004-06-11-09.asp#anchor8
Roadside weeds are sometimes better than their tropical rainforest cousins for preventing and curing diseases, according to new research from the University of Florida.
"If I had one place to go to find medicinal plants, it wouldn't be the forest," said John Richard Stepp, a University of Florida anthropologist who did the study. "There are probably hundreds of weeds growing right outside people's doors they could use."
Stepp defines weeds as short-lived, herbaceous, fast-growing plants that thrive in areas of human disturbance and sprout along the outskirts of jungles.
Reviewing the literature, Stepp found that although only about three percent of the world's 250,000 plant species are weeds, they make up roughly a third of the 101 plant species used in pharmaceuticals.
Still, as drug companies search for new remedies, weeds that may have healing properties are routinely overlooked, said Stepp.
Perhaps the world's best known medicinal weed is the poppy, from which morphine is derived, Stepp said.
Scopolamine, an important drug for treating motion sickness, also is weed-based, as are the cancer medicines vinblastine, for Hodgkin's disease, and vincristin, for childhood leukemia, he said.
Americans may be able to get similar benefits from weeds as do people in developing countries, such as the Mayans Stepp has studied, although he warns that people should not experiment with weeds on their own without professional advice.
In a classroom experiment with 15 undergraduate students in Georgia, Stepp had about half collect plants from weedy fields and half pick them from a forest.
Identifying the plants using a database developed by University of Michigan anthropologist Daniel Moerman, the students found that as many as 50 plants from the fields had been used medicinally by Native Americans compared with only 12 of those they gathered from the forest.
"The realization that medicinal plants are readily available in a living pharmacy right outside the door and along the sides of trails rather than deep in the forest could lead governments to encourage and promote traditional medicinal practices," Stepp said. "They are readily available, cost nothing to gather and are often more effective."
"With all the emphasis on the tropical rain forests, an entire area is being missed in natural products research," said Stepp, whose results appear in the current issue of the "Journal of Ethno-Pharmacology." "These findings suggest that we need to broaden our horizons if we're going to search for new drugs from plants."
-------- ACTIVISTS
Japan: Released Hostages Represent Country's New Generation
A Japanese activist who has filed a lawsuit against his own government, blaming it for the ordeal he suffered as a captive in Iraq, shows a new side to Japan's young people.
Suvendrini Kakuchi,
June 11, 2004
Inter Press Service
http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=24154
TOKYO, Jun 11 (IPS) - The filing of a suit against his own government by a Japanese activist, blaming it for his ordeal in Iraq when he was briefly held captive there, is an indication of a new side to Japan's young people.
More of them are heading overseas to troubled spots, in defiance of official warnings, to engage in their own brand of humanitarianism at the risk of being taken hostage by armed militants.
To date, five young Japanese have experienced the horrors and psychological trauma of being hostages in Iraq before being released.
Nobutaka Watanabe, 35, is seeking 46,000 U.S. dollars for mental and physical hardship he suffered during his four days as a hostage.
In his suit filed at the Tokyo District Court this week, Watanabe claimed he was in danger of being killed by his kidnappers who were enraged by President Junichiro Koizumi's decision to send troops to Iraq. He also questioned the constitutional legality of Koizumi's actions.
The deployment of troops to a war zone marks a precedent in post-war Japan's constitution that prohibits the sending of its troops overseas.
''His captors told him that he had been taken because he was from a country that had sent troops to Iraq,'' Watanabe's lawyer Masatoshi Uchida told reporters.
While in Iraq, Watanabe filed dispatches for his activist group from the southern city of Samawah, protesting Japan's deployment of some 550 Self Defence Forces (SDF) there on a humanitarian mission to rebuild infrastructure.
He was taken hostage along with freelance journalist Jumpei Yasuda while travelling near the besieged city of Fallujah on Apr. 14.
While mainstream Japanese media downplayed gory reports from Iraq, like the killing of four U.S. contract workers and the mutilation of their bodies, Watanabe's dispatches, however, were the opposite.
His reports were fiercely debated at home and many of his readers were bewildered at Iraq's sudden transformation into a land of anarchy. This was contrary to media reports that the Iraqis were grateful for Japanese humanitarian aid delivered by the SDF.
Watanabe infuriated his readers to such an extent that they started filing suits against the government in what they claimed as an unconstitutional act, by Tokyo, in sending the SDF to Iraq.
According to the 'Kyodo News' agency Watanabe's suit against the government was the 56th at the Tokyo District Court, on the same matter.
But the government is digging its heels in.
At the Group of Eight (G-8) summit in the U.S. state of Georgia, which ended Friday, Koizumi said Japan would keep its SDF troops deployed in Iraq under the just-endorsed United Nations Security Council resolution.
Before departing for the G-8 summit, the Japanese premier referred to the young Japanese as ''irresponsible'', and called them ''trouble makers'' for going to Iraq.
He added Japan would not recall its troops back home, just because Japanese were taken hostages.
This deeply upset Soichiro Koriyama, 32, a freelance photojournalist who was taken hostage together with Noriaki Imai, 18, and Nahoko Takato, 34. All three were released by their Iraqi captors on Apr. 14.
Imai was in Iraq to look into the effects of depleted uranium weapons and Takato worked with an aid agency in Baghdad.
''Living in Japan in this current environment, just stifles me,'' Koriyama told IPS.
Ironically, the photojournalist now wants to go back to Iraq.
Adding salt to Koriyama's injury was the storm of media criticism that greeted him and the other embattled young hostages when they returned home on Apr. 18.
Most media editorials lashed out at the released hostages.
''If one goes to a dangerous place after ignoring the government's advice, he or she should not automatically assume the government will come to their rescue,'' wrote the 'Yomuiri Shimbun', Japan's leading daily.
Adding to their torment was the Foreign Ministry's insistence that they fork out 20,000 U.S. dollars as charges for their rescue and costs for flying them back to Japan from Iraq.
According to analysts, the icy response at home represents a dangerous phenomenon in Japanese society following the tragic September 2001 events in the United States and Tokyo's subsequent decision to send SDF troops to Iraq.
''The hostage crisis shows clearly the government's resentment against any civilian who dares to pose a challenge to the state,'' Professor Hiroshi Komada, who teaches philosophy at Hitotsubashi University, told IPS in an interview.
But Komada pointed out: ''The captives also exposed the dark side of getting embroiled in a war overseas.''
Komada said Japanese now were targeted because of the government's support for the United States so-called war on terror.
But public scepticism over the deployment of Japanese troops to Iraq has grown as violence there surges, in some cases involving Japanese.
On Wednesday family members of two Japanese journalists killed in an ambush near Baghdad returned home with the victims' remains.
Shinsuke Hashida -- one of Japan's top freelance combat photographers -- and his nephew, Kotaro Ogawa, were killed May 27 after unidentified assailants opened fire on their car and blew it up.
''That disturbing spectre is something the government wants to avoid. In pacifist Japan, such a concern can be politically devastating,'' explained Komada.
Indeed Japan is facing an important turning point and the hostage crisis has already had far-reaching consequences, pitting conservatives against the new generation.
Professor Satoshi Daigo, who teaches economics at Tokyo University, warns the government's criticism of the hostages could backfire.
''The biggest mistake the hostages made was to challenge the Japanese government's position to send troops to Iraq. But the government's reaction in turn is dangerous and threatens democracy,'' Diago told IPS.
Daigo, angered by the government's strong armed tactics against the young Japanese, launched a website in April to support them.
The site gathered more than 6,000 signatures before it went off- line on May 31.
''What's amazing,'' said Daigo, ''was the large number of messages expressing fear and anger at what they consider is an attempt by the government to crush individualism in Japan.''
--------
BROADCAST
U.S. Religious Figures Offer Abuse Apology on Arab TV
June 11, 2004
By MARK GLASSMAN
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/11/politics/11FAIT.html
WASHINGTON, June 10 - American spiritual leaders from different faiths condemn the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib in a 30-second advertisement to be broadcast next week on the Arabic television networks Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya.
"The impetus for this ad was from the deep sense of moral regret that we were hearing from people of faith across the country," said Tom Perriello, the co-director of FaithfulAmerica.org - the month-old nonprofit advocacy group that created the ad.
"We believe that the abuses are both sinful and systematic and that the moral damage of this around the world will last a long time," he said.
FaithfulAmerica.org - which has also focused on the human suffering in western Sudan - raised about $36,000 from more than 1,000 donors to produce and broadcast the ad. It is paying $20,000 for 10 slots on the two networks beginning Tuesday.
In the ad, a Presbyterian, a Muslim, a Catholic and a Jew read a statement as written Arabic translations appear.
"A salaam aleikum," the Rev. Donald Shriver, a former president of the Union Theological Seminary in New York, begins. "As Americans of faith, we express our deep sorrow at abuses committed in Iraqi prisons. We stand in solidarity with all those in Iraq and everywhere who demand justice and human dignity. We condemn the sinful and systemic abuses committed in our name, and pledge to work to right these wrongs."
The ad continues with Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the founder and president of the American Sufi Muslim Association; Sister Betty Obal, of the Sisters of Loretto; and Rabbi Arthur Waskow, the director of the Shalom Center in Philadelphia.
Mr. Perriello said recent news articles about Justice Department memos discussing the legality of the abuse made the ad's message more salient.
"When the administration is even considering the legality of torture, that seems like a moral regression," Mr. Perriello said, adding, "We don't see this as a matter of legal terms, we see it as a matter of right and wrong."
--------
Refugees, AIDS Activists Protest Reagan
By LISA LEFF
The Associated Press
Friday, June 11, 2004; 8:16 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35285-2004Jun11.html
SAN FRANCISCO - As Ronald Reagan's body was carried back to California for burial, Central American activists staged a protest Friday of Reagan's foreign policies, linking them to thousands of deaths in El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua.
About 100 people, hoisting plywood crosses painted with the names of people thought to have been killed by military-backed death squads during the early 1980s, marched through San Francisco's heavily Hispanic Mission District in an angry answer to the accolades that accompanied the end of the 40th president's life.
"This man is a criminal. This man is a murderer and doesn't deserve any respect," said Zenaida Velasquez Rodriguez, a Honduran human rights activist whose brother hasn't been seen since 1981, when he was allegedly kidnapped by national security forces.
Participants faulted Reagan for supporting, arming and funding anti-communist dictators, military leaders or insurgents who used torture, kidnappings and murder to silence critics.
Participants said they saw nothing inappropriate about criticizing the late president on the day of his funeral, saying Reagan's record was being distorted amid the outpouring of posthumous honors.
"I have no problem criticizing the dead, especially when hundreds of thousands of Central Americans died without even a decent burial," said Sheila Tully, a San Francisco State University anthropologist who was a health care worker in Nicaragua during the mid-1980s.
Gay-rights groups held their own official day of mourning - for AIDS patients whose deaths they blame on Reagan's unwillingness to confront the disease during the first years of the epidemic. Some organizations, including the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force in Washington, D.C. and Equality California, a statewide lobbying group, shut their offices in remembrance of those who died of AIDS.
--------
Activists Ponder Small Turnout at Summit
By RUSS BYNUM
The Associated Press
Friday, June 11, 2004; 3:37 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33568-2004Jun11.html
SAVANNAH, Ga. - The protesters were few and disgusted. Five years after huge demonstrations wreaked havoc on trade talks in Seattle, fewer than 300 activists showed up to demonstrate at this week's summit of world leaders in coastal Georgia.
Some protesters may have been deterred by the massive security presence. Others may have been busy planning for the Democratic and Republican conventions this summer. But at least some activists are wondering whether their messages are getting lost when police clash with protesters.
"Marching and being herded together isn't being as effective in reaching large numbers of people," said Shauna Stribula, an anarchist from Washington. "A lot of people have come to recognize that more attention needs to be paid to local community organizing."
No one expected the Group of Eight summit in Sea Island to attract anything close to the 45,000 protesters at the 1999 World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle, where clashes between demonstrators led to millions of dollars in damage.
But even activists' more moderate expectations fell well short, despite efforts by anarchists, environmentalists and peace activists who spent months spreading word on the Internet to mobilize protesters.
Organizers had predicted 5,000 or more protesters for a three-day peace festival in Savannah that ended Thursday with barely 100 people showing up, from black-masked anarchists to couples with children.
As many as 200 more turned out in Brunswick and St. Simons Island, with the most excitement coming Thursday when about 35 demonstrators marched 7 miles to the security gates leading to Sea Island. Fourteen demonstrators were arrested for sitting in the street. There was no violence.
"You really have to go back to 1997, the Denver summit, to find numbers as small as here," said John Kirton, director of the G-8 Research Group at the University of Toronto.
Some large activist groups, such as Greenpeace, have scaled back participation in street marches since the violence in Seattle to avoid being associated with property destruction.
At the G-8, Greenpeace sponsored a photo exhibit on nuclear waste pollution in Russia rather than join any planned marches.
"We're very cautious about affiliating with anything that may cause violence," said Tom Clements, a Greenpeace activist who helped organize the exhibit.
Police have increased their presence at global summits since the Seattle protests. Many protesters say military-style police tactics employed most notably during November demonstrations at the Free Trade Area of the Americas conference in Miami have scared dissenters away.
With 20,000 police, National Guard troops and federal officers in coastal Georgia, security forces outnumbered protesters 67-to-1. That's the polar opposite of Seattle, which had 112 protesters for every officer.
Clements said he doesn't equate quiet streets with activist apathy.
"The street-protest part of this doesn't necessarily reflect that there is a growing movement to more sustainable development around the world," he said.
-------
------- 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.