Archive By Date | Today's Links to Search By
Activists' News | Nuclear | Depleted Uranium | Military | Police
Alternative Energy Etc. | From Subscribers
NUCLEAR
DOE seeks improved Hanford safety after close calls
Chinese firm wins first contract for Pakistani nuclear plant parts
Iraqi doctor learns from Hiroshima's past
59 Years After Hiroshima Two Traditions: WMD and Disinformation
Radioactive armour ruled out for new tanks
Nuke ships may enter Aussie waters
Deception was Marine recruiter's game
Iran's nuclear ambitions must be contained
It's almost surprising how poorly strategic sites are protected
Iraqi doctor learns from Hiroshima's past
Lest we forget
North Korean nuclear missile 'could reach US'
N. Korea expands missiles
Persecuted for their faith -- and ignored by the U.S.
Pentagon Prepares Missile Defense
Canada and Russia in 24 million dollar deal to decomission nuclear subs
Turning a blind eye to nukes
Nuclear-security contract draws fire
Interns get technical at Sandia symposium
Waste Control Specialists Submits Application
MILITARY
Afghan Troops, U.S. Warplanes Attack Guerrillas
2 Afghan aid workers killed
Japan eyes eased ban on military exports
$1.9 Billion of Iraq's Money Goes to U.S. Contractors
Halliburton to Pay $7.5 Million to Settle Probe
SEC: Halliburton under Cheney filed misleading reports
Halliburton investigation ends
CACI Gets $15 Million Iraq Contract Extension
Cease-Fire in Colombia
Iraq's New Form Of Justice Seems To Satisfy Few
Violence Claims 4 More Troops
Army Pushes a Sweeping Overhaul of Basic Training
Civilians Die as Iraqi Police and Rebels Clash in Mosul
Stressed Israeli soldiers to be treated with cannabis: army
Pregnant Palestinians Lose Babies, As Israel Keeps Frontier Shut: Police
Pakistan Allows Taliban to Train, a Detained Fighter Says
Russia and Georgia on war footing over breakaway Abkhazia
Cost of Shuttle's Return Escalates
MPs Blamed for Abu Ghraib Abuse
Woman With Leash Appears in Court on Abu Ghraib Abuse Charges
US Air Force denies appeal in Afghan friendly fire incident
POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS / JUSTICE
Court Offers Guidance on Sentencing In Md., Va.
Afghan opium a growing threat
Security Might Get Tighter Yet, Officials Say
Impervious Shield Elusive Against Drive-By Terrorists
Seriousness of Threat Defended Despite Dated Intelligence
New Qaeda Activity Is Said to Be Major Factor in Alert
In Age of Terror, How Long Should Security Stay Tight?
City complains about closures
Security boosted around U.S. Capitol
House begins series of hearings on 9/11 report
Athens turned into fortress
Police Corruption Plagues Argentines and President
Judge Refuses to Halt Military Hearings on Detainees
F.C.C. Seeks Equal Wiretap Access to Phone Calls via Internet
Defense to Cite 'U.S. Torture' in German 9/11 Case
POLITICS
Old Data, New Credibility Issues
Signature Achievements of George W. Bush
The Washington Post's creeping hawkishness
Where's Rumsfeld?
Intelligence Plan Reviewed
PARTY TIME AT THE DNC
ENERGY
World oil prices hit record highs
Growth in U.S. fuel supply cools crude
OTHER
Unsafe Mercury Levels Rising in U.S. Fish
Gulf War illness link to brain damage
Most Fish From Lakes Is Too High In Mercury
Get Antioxidants from Food, Not Supplements
Stressed Israeli soldiers to be treated with cannabis: army
ACTIVISTS
Life after the bomb
-------- NUCLEAR
-------- accidents and safety
DOE seeks improved Hanford safety after close calls
tri-cityherald
By Annette Cary
August 4th, 2004
http://www.tri-cityherald.com/tch/local/story/5382717p-5321058c.html
Two near-miss accidents at the vitrification plant under construction at Hanford led the Department of Energy to call for improvements at the end of June.
"These events extend a declining trend in worker safety this year that must be immediately corrected," wrote Roy Schepens, manager of DOE's Office of River Protection in a letter to contractor Bechtel National.
The project, the largest federal construction project in the nation this year, still has a much lower rate of accidents than the industry average.
It had 1.53 accidents per 200,000 construction hours worked for the first six months of this year compared with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's national average construction rate of 7 recordable accidents per 200,000 hours worked. That's the number of hours 100 people would work in a year.
But the near-misses, which are not included in the accident statistics, are being taken seriously because they had the potential to be life threatening if a worker had been in the wrong place.
On June 22, a 100-pound piece of steel supposed to be embedded in concrete fell 40 to 45 feet, according to a Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board report released Friday. It landed 8 feet from a worker.
Five days earlier, pieces of rebar fell when a "curtain" of crosshatched rebar was being lifted into the air by crane.
Other problems in late June included a worker who lost the end of a finger when his glove caught in a drill press, a worker who fell when a ladder slid out from under him and a worker who fell inside a wall of rebar.
The year had started with some other problems described in another safety board report. A 1,112-pound steel beam fell about 20 feet after the choker holding it contacted a handrail. The area had been cleared of people before work started, according to Bechtel National.
Also that month a stainless steel plate was dropped 8 feet and a section of telescoping brace was dropped 12 feet, according to the safety board.
After the June incidents, contractor Bechtel National stopped work on day and night shifts for a safety awareness day to emphasize its goal of zero accidents.
The day was used to gather information from workers to improve the project's safety performance and emphasize to workers that safety was more important than production or cost, said Jim Henschel, project director for Bechtel National.
Bechtel paid about $500,000 in wages that day although no work was done on the $5.7 billion vitrification plant.
About 1,300 craft workers, such as carpenters and pipefitters, are employed to build the plant. It will turn radioactive waste left from the past production of plutonium at Hanford for the nation's nuclear weapons program into a more stable glass form for disposal.
Work at the plant has taken on another degree of danger as walls go up on the massive buildings of the plant and more work is done high off the ground, Henschel said. The pretreatment building will stand 119 feet tall.
A safety analysis has determined that workers are most likely to have an accident in their first 90 days of work on the project, Henschel said. That presents a potential problem because of the number of workers being added to the construction project as work progresses.
New hires now are being identified with a green sticker on their hard hats for their first three months on the job.
Workers, who have an average age of 48 at the construction site, also are being reminded that muscular and skeletal injuries are more likely as they age.
In the first two years of construction at Hanford, 1943 and 1944, workers were racing to win World War II and 18 workers died, Henschel has pointed out to current construction workers.
"We live in a different time," he said. "We're serious about zero accidents."
-------- china
Chinese firm wins first contract for Pakistani nuclear plant parts
BEIJING (AFP)
Aug 04, 2004
http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040804145625.baanwech.html
A Chinese firm Wednesday signed the first contract to provide components for a second nuclear power station Beijing is building in Pakistan, state media reported.
China First Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. won public bids to supply the pressure vessel for the new reactor which will be built at Chashma, some 270 kilometers (167 miles) south of Islamabad, Xinhua news agency said.
The pressure vessel, where the core of the reactor will be placed, is the key component guaranteeing the security and durability of the nuclear power plant, it said.
The vessel will be built in the northeastern city of Dalian and it is due to be completed in 38 months.
It was the first equipment supply contract signed by China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC), which is constructing the 300-megawatt plant, it said.
CNNC and Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission in May signed an agreement to build the plant.
The 600-million-dollar C-2 (Chashma-2) project is likely to be completed in six years. A similar capacity plant built in Chashma with Chinese help became operational in 1999.
CNNC deputy general manager Huang Guojun told Xinhua that China's transfer of nuclear technology and its nuclear cooperation with Pakistan were strictly in accordance with international treaties.
The Chashma project had been under the supervision and inspection of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Xinhua said.
Pakistan has said the plant is for civilian use.
China, Pakistan's strongest and oldest ally, is also financing some 200 million dollars of a port project in Gwadar, southwest Pakistan.
Pakistan has relied heavily on China for its defence needs since 1990 when the United States stopped supplying it with military hardware over its nuclear programme.
Pakistan confirmed it had nuclear weapons in May 1998 when it matched tests conducted by India.
-------- depleted uranium
Iraqi doctor learns from Hiroshima's past
August 4, 2004
(Kyodo News)
Shinya Ajima and Shinsuke Takahashi
http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=feature&id=706
HIROSHIMA - An Iraqi doctor left his war-battered country in April. His destination was Hiroshima, and the purpose of his trip was to obtain knowledge and data on radiation effects in the city once devastated by the first atomic bombing in the world.
Hussam Mahmood Salih, 34, a pediatrician from Basra, said the number of child cancer cases jumped eightfold in the southern Iraqi city between 1988 and 2002, suspecting it was caused by the 1991 Gulf War, in which U.S. forces used depleted uranium shells.
There are also reports in Iraq about newborn babies lacking limbs or craniums. Depleted uranium has been long blamed for such birth defects in babies believed exposed to radiation while in the womb.
"We don't have any decent facilities in Iraq to check the amount of radiation in human bodies. But we can see the incidences of cancer increased greatly during the first four to five years of the 1990s," said Salih, now studying at Hiroshima University Hospital at the invitation of a Japanese civic group.
Under economic sanctions on Iraq that followed the war, Iraqi hospitals were prohibited from obtaining essential drugs as well as new medical equipment like tools for radio therapy because the international community feared they might be used for military purposes, he said.
"So, death and disease, and death and disease...this is the life of people in Iraq. I want to save Iraqi children," said Salih.
The U.S. military uses depleted uranium-tipped shells, known for their armor-piercing capability, against tanks and other hard military targets.
Although Iraqi doctors allege DU weapons cause leukemia and cancer, U.S. authorities deny direct links between DU and the cancer on the rise in Iraq since the 1991 war.
The medical community in Japan, a U.S. staunch ally, is also reluctant to admit a connection.
"Even so, it is sensible for him to visit Hiroshima, which has skills and knowledge on treating leukemia patients," said Atsuko Oe, a representative of Save the Iraq Children Hiroshima, the group that arranged Salih's visit.
In August last year, when some Iraqi doctors visited Japan to deliver lectures, they asked Oe and other civic group members to look for Japanese medical institutions that can train young doctors from Iraq.
Universities in Hiroshima and Nagoya then agreed to accept some doctors from hospitals in Basra through the civic groups.
Salih said he had never hesitated to come to Japan when chosen as a trainee due to his background as an expert on pediatric leukemia.
His visit apparently exposed a new face of Japan as the sole A-bomb victim in the world.
"Hiroshima had suffered a lot from war, deaths and radiation effects, and the Japanese doctors understand about these diseases...and all strategies about detection, treatment and follow-up. I think we cold learn very much from Japan's experiences," said Salih.
He added there are more Iraqi doctors hoping to learn in Japan and bring back advanced techniques, knowledge and equipment that have been unavailable to Iraqis.
"This is a great chance, a very nice chance. They could do better to save patients," he said.
Another civic group invited two other Iraqi doctors for training at Nagoya University Hospital, as well as a young patient whom Salih has treated.
The United States attacked Hiroshima with an atomic bomb on Aug 6, 1945, and dropped another on Nagasaki three days later. Japan surrendered to Allied forces Aug 15.
The bomb dropped on Hiroshima contained high quantities of highly enriched uranium. There are reports that a number of microcephalic babies were born in the western Japan city after the bombing, Oe said.
Salih is learning from Japanese professors at the university hospital, mainly about chemotherapy and bone-marrow transplants.
He has been given access to data stored in many facilities and organizations in this city, and has opportunities to talk with radiation victims as well as their families.
He is also going to attend the ceremony for the 59th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima next month.
"We wish Mr Salih could learn something by referring to the stored data and comparing them with those kept in Iraq," Oe said.
Salih will stay in Japan until the fall and return to Iraq, where his wife and two children live.
Governments in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are concerned about the aging of A-bomb victims. Their average age was 72.2 as of March, and thousands of the registered radiation victims die every year.
Both cities are forced to take measures to leave the victims' messages and experiences of the atrocities to succeeding generations.
Salih's stay in Hiroshima shows how Japan should be the first and hopefully last country of A-bomb victims in the world by taking on new roles no other country can undertake, Oe said.
"Each of us has our own role," she said, adding, "If we did not act, there would be a third following Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is important for us to think how individuals can be involved in peace or antinuclear activities."
--------
59 Years After Hiroshima Two Traditions: WMD and Disinformation
counterpunch.org
By MICKEY Z.
August 4, 2004
http://www.counterpunch.org/mickey08042004.html
"It is an atomic bomb. It is the greatest thing in history."
-President Harry S. Truman, August 6, 1945
"Congress should endorse the use of all necessary means to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
-John Edwards, September 2002
We are approaching August 6, 2004, the 59th anniversary of the U.S. terror bombing of Hiroshima, and it's apparent that the history and use of WMD is still not fully understood.
With "Good War" references and rhetoric bandied about by politicians and pundits of all stripes, it's instructive to consider how the U.S. and its allies, 60 years ago, allegedly engaged in a life-and-death battle to prevent a tyrant from wielding WMD. "Working at Los Alamos, New Mexico," writes historian Kenneth C. Davis, "atomic scientists, many of them refugees from Hitler's Europe, thought they were racing against Germans developing a 'Nazi bomb.'"
Surely, if it were possible for the epitome of evil to produce such a weapon, it would be the responsibility of the good guys to beat der Führer to the plutonium punch. While such a desperate race makes for excellent melodrama, the German bomb effort, it appears, fell far short of success.
Thanks to the declassification of key documents, we now have access to "unassailable proof that the race with the Nazis was a fiction," says Stewart Udall, who cites the work of McGeorge Bundy and Thomas Powers before adding that, "According to the official history of the British Secret Intelligence Service (SIS), those agents maintained 'contacts with scientists in neutral countries.'" These contacts, by mid-1943, provided enough evidence to convince the SIS that the German bomb program simply did not exist.
Despite such findings, U.S. General Leslie Groves, military commander of the Manhattan Project, got permission in the fall of 1943 to begin a secret espionage mission known as Alsos (Greek for "grove"). The mission saw Groves' men following the Allies' armies throughout Europe with the goal of capturing German scientists involved in the manufacture of atomic weapons.
While the data uncovered by Alsos only served to reinforce the prior reports that the Third Reich was not pursuing a nuclear program, Groves was able to maintain enough of a cover-up to keep his pet project alive. In the no-holds-barred religion of anti-communism, the "Good War" enemy was never fascism. Truman's daughter, Margaret, remarked about her dad's early presidential efforts after the death of FDR in April 1945, "My father's overriding concern in these first weeks was our policy towards Russia."
What will Bush daughters be confessing about their Dad one day?
---
The most commonly evoked justification for the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan was to save lives, but was it true? Would such an invasion even have been necessary? Finally, were the actions of the United States motivated by an escalating Cold War with the Soviet Union? Here are the facts that don't mesh with the long-accepted storyline:
Although hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives were lost in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the bombings are often explained away as a "life-saving" measure-American lives. Exactly how many lives saved is, however, up for grabs. (We do know of a few U.S. soldiers who fell between the cracks About a dozen or more American POWs were killed in Hiroshima, a truth that remained hidden for some 30 years.) In defense of the U.S. action, it is usually claimed that the bombs saved lives. The hypothetical body count ranges from 20,000 to "millions." In an August 9, 1945 statement to "the men and women of the Manhattan Project," President Truman declared the hope that "this new weapon will result in saving thousands of American lives."
"The president's initial formulation of 'thousands," however, was clearly not his final statement on the matter to say the least," remarks historian Gar Alperovitz. In his book, "The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb and the Architecture of an American Myth," Alperovitz documents but a few of Truman's public estimates throughout the years:
- December 15, 1945: "It occurred to me that a quarter of a million of the flower of our young manhood was worth a couple of Japanese cities . . ."
- Late 1946: "A year less of war will mean life for three hundred thousand-maybe half a million-of America's finest youth."
- October 1948: "In the long run we could save a quarter of a million young Americans from being killed, and would save an equal number of Japanese young men from being killed."
- April 6, 1949: "I thought 200,000 of our young men would be saved."
- November 1949: Truman quotes Army Chief of Staff George S. Marshall as estimating the cost of an Allied invasion of Japan to be "half a million casualties."
- January 12, 1953: Still quoting Marshall, Truman raises the estimate to "a minimum one quarter of a million" and maybe "as much as a million, on the American side alone, with an equal number of the enemy."
- Finally, on April 28, 1959, Truman concluded: "the dropping of the bombs . . . saved millions of lives."
Fortunately, we are not operating without the benefit of official estimates.
In June 1945, Truman ordered the U.S. military to calculate the cost in American lives for a planned assault on Japan. Consequently, the Joint War Plans Committee prepared a report for the Chiefs of Staff, dated June 15, 1945, thus providing the closest thing anyone has to "accurate": 40,000 U.S. soldiers killed, 150,000 wounded, and 3,500 missing.
While the actual casualty count remains unknowable, it was widely known at the time that Japan had been trying to surrender for months prior to the atomic bombing. A May 5, 1945 cable, intercepted and decoded by the U.S., "dispelled any possible doubt that the Japanese were eager to sue for peace." In fact, the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey reported shortly after the war, that Japan "in all probability" would have surrendered before the much-discussed November 1, 1945 Allied invasion of the homeland.
Truman himself eloquently noted in his diary that Stalin would "be in the Jap War on August 15th. Fini (sic) Japs when that comes about."
Many post-Hiroshima/Nagasaki sentiments questioned the use of the bombs.
"I thought our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives," said General Dwight D. Eisenhower while, not long after the Japanese surrender, New York Times military analyst Hanson Baldwin wrote, "The enemy, in a military sense, was in a hopeless strategic position. Such then, was the situation when we wiped out Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Need we have done it? No one can, of course, be positive, but the answer is almost certainly negative."
Was it the cold logic of capitalism that motivated the nuking of civilians? As far back as May 1945, a Venezuelan diplomat was reporting how Assistant Secretary of State Nelson Rockefeller "communicated to us the anxiety of the United States government about the Russian attitude." U.S. Secretary of State James F. Byrnes seemed to agree when he turned the anxiety up a notch by explaining how "our possessing and demonstrating the bomb would make Russia more manageable in the East . . . The demonstration of the bomb might impress Russia with America's military might."
General Leslie Groves was less cryptic: "There was never, from about two weeks from the time I took charge of this Project, any illusion on my part but that Russia was our enemy, and the Project was conducted on that basis."
During the same time period, President Truman noted that Secretary of War Henry Stimson was "at least as much concerned with the role of the atomic bomb in the shaping of history as in its capacity to shorten the war." What sort of shaping Stimson had in mind might be discerned from his Sept. 11, 1945 comment to the president: "I consider the problem of our satisfactory relations with Russia as not merely connected but as virtually dominated by the problem of the atomic bomb."
Stimson called the bomb a "diplomatic weapon," and duly explained: "American statesmen were eager for their country to browbeat the Russians with the bomb held rather ostentatiously on our hip."
"The psychological effect [of Hiroshima and Nagasaki] on Stalin was twofold," proposes historian Charles L. Mee, Jr. "The Americans had not only used a doomsday machine; they had used it when, as Stalin knew, it was not militarily necessary. It was this last chilling fact that doubtless made the greatest impression on the Russians." It also made an impression on J. Robert Oppenheimer, the scientific director at Los Alamos. After learning of the carnage wrought upon Japan, he began to harbor second thoughts and he resigned in October 1945.
In March of the following year, Oppenheimer told Truman:
"Mr. President, I have blood on my hands."
Truman's reply: "It'll come out in the wash."
Later, the president told an aide, "Don't bring that fellow around again."
"Why did we drop [the bomb]?" pondered Studs Terkel at the time of the fiftieth anniversary of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings.
"So little Harry could show Molotov and Stalin we've got the cards," he explained. "That was the phrase Truman used. We showed the goddamned Russians we've got something and they'd better behave themselves in Europe. That's why it was dropped. The evidence is overwhelming. And yet you tell that to 99 percent of Americans and they'll spit in your eye."
They'll also spit in your eye if you point out that the U.S. has waged several nuclear wars...against Japan in 1945, against Iraq from 1991 to present, in Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, and on military bases like Vieques. Or if you point out that the US and Britain did not call for a military strike after Saddam's infamous gassing of Kurds at Halabja in March 1988...in fact, both nations continued support for Hussein. Some will still spit in your eye if you mention the absence of WMD in Iraq today.
Americans are rather fussy about their WMD. We, of course, can have them, a few allies can openly possess such weapons, and we'll deftly look the other way when Israel's plutonium slip shows. Russia? Well, as long as they stay away from that communist stuff. As for tyrants like Hitler and Hussein: no way. The world simply can't risk having WMD in the hands of those likely to use them, right?
(Commonly referred to as the gassing of his own people, it's essential to clarify that if the Kurds were Hussein's people, then the Palestinians are Sharon's people, the Zapatistas are Vicente Fox's people, the Tibetans are Hu Jintao's people, the Chechens are Putin's people, the Seminoles were Andrew Jackson's people, and the Puerto Ricans who were bombed and radiated with depleted uranium are Bush's people.)
Mickey Z. is the author of two brand new books: "The Seven Deadly Spins: Exposing the Lies Behind War Propaganda" (Common Courage Press) and "A Gigantic Mistake: Articles and Essays for Your Intellectual Self-Defense" (Library Empyreal/Wildside Press). For more information, please visit: http://mickeyz.net.
-------
Radioactive armour ruled out for new tanks
AAP
August 4, 2004
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/08/04/1091557902426.html?oneclick=true
The government has ruled out equipping the Army's new Abrams tanks with nearly invulnerable depleted uranium armour, but what type of armour they will carry remains top secret.
Army chief Lieutenant General Peter Leahy and other officials today were tight-lipped about describing just what armour Australia would receive for an investment of more than $500 million in 59 rebuilt American tanks.
"We are getting very good armour, one that I have every confidence in and one that I would be happy for our soldiers to fight behind," Gen Leahy told a briefing on the new tank project in Canberra today.
Under the project, Australia will buy 59 used M1A1 Abrams tanks which will be rebuilt to zero-kilometres and zero-hours standard in the US. The first will arrive in 2007.
Both the government and defence say the army's nearly three-decade-old Leopard tanks need to be replaced because they were too vulnerable to widely available anti-tank weapons.
But the government has ruled out acquiring either DU armour or DU ammunition carried by US tanks in frontline units. DU is a uranium derivative which is extremely hard and has low radioactivity. Advertisement Advertisement
It has been blamed for causing health problems, particularly in southern Iraq where DU anti-tank ammunition was widely used in the 1991 Gulf War.
Lieutenant Colonel Duncan Hayward said the 59 Australian vehicles had been selected from a batch of low use vehicles which had spent most of their lives in storage.
"They have not had depleted uranium armour on them and they have not been used in operations," he said.
"During the rebuild process, they will be fitted with an advanced non-DU armour package.
"The armour we are getting is very close to depleted uranium armour. In some aspects it is better against some type of threats but I am unable to discuss that in this forum."
Colonel Hayward said armour technology remained a sensitive and classified area.
He said an Australian defence scientist who visited the US recently had confirmed that what Australia was getting offered a high level of protection.
Australian Defence Association executive director Neil James, who attended the briefing, suggested political considerations stopped the government from opting for the advanced DU armour.
But he said after the briefing he would be kicking up a much greater fuss if he believed Australian tanks crews were receiving an inferior product.
He said information on actual performance of tank armour remained highly classified.
"Within the limit of what is publicly available, we are reasonably satisfied that it is probably a good solution," he said.
"If we thought the greenies were kicking up a fuss and soldiers were going to be endangered as a result, you would be hearing the screaming."
-------
Nuke ships may enter Aussie waters
AAP
04/08/04
http://seven.com.au/news/nationalnews/107109
Defence Minister Robert Hill has refused to rule out the use of nuclear-powered US vessels in exercises near a joint US-Australia training facility.
John Cherry (AD,QLD) asked Defence Minister Robert Hill if nuclear-powered vessels would be allowed into Australian waters during joint exercises at the Shoalwater Bay military training area in central Queensland.
Senator Cherry also asked if environmentally harmful devices such as weapons which used depleted uranium would be permitted in the training area.
Senator Hill said the Defence Department was aware of environmental standards which needed to be met at Shoalwater Bay.
"Defence is very proud of its environmental record in relation to Shoalwater Bay," Senator Hill told parliament.
"In relation to military vessels, we don't prohibit any specific military vessels.
"But there are well-established rules under which they have to operate; again, in part to ensure the highest possible environmental standards."
Senator Cherry later said the government should publicly release the text of its agreement with the US to upgrade Shoalwater Bay for joint-exercises.
"It just isn't good enough that the Australian community is being kept in the dark about what is planned to be built at Shoalwater Bay and what the enhanced training centre will mean for the intensity of training exercises in the area," he said in a statement.
--------
Deception was Marine recruiter's game
August 04, 2004
Brattleboro Reformer
By MIKE KALIL
http://www.reformer.com/Stories/0,1413,102~8862~2298883,00.html
BRATTLEBORO -- When Staff Sgt. Jimmy Massey worked as a Marine recruiter, he felt like a god.
Now, he prays to God for forgiveness.
"I pray to God every day for his forgiveness for what I've done," he said Tuesday.
Massey, of Waynesville, N.C., encouraged people at the Robert H. Gibson River Garden to be tough on military recruiters. He told a crowd of roughly 100 to be there during every step if their child is considering joining the military and to be aware that their children need not remain on recruiters' prospect lists.
Massey recruited Marines for three years, during which time he said he brought 75 men and three women on board. About 95 percent of those recruits, he said, are most likely serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
That is not OK with him.
The war in Iraq is not legitimate, he said; the only war he considers a just one was World War II.
Massey was part of the first wave of Marines that spearheaded the U.S. invasion of Iraq last March. What he saw still disturbs him, he said.
His platoon killed innocent civilians, he said, and the news was covered up. The military has used depleted uranium munitions in the war, he said, shooting the armor-piercing ammo at vehicles.
"I saw children playing in and around these vehicles that we shot at," he said.
Much as the scenes of war have disturbed him, it was Massey's recruitment methods that he spoke most forcefully about.
As a recruiter, he said he had access to a list of all the juniors and seniors in a high school. He would start stalking potential recruits early.
"As long as he's 17 and he's fixing to be a senior, I can sign him up," he said.
He said he would feed off the student's desires and weaknesses -- money, self confidence. He would drive around in a brand-new Ford Mustang to show that his way of life brings in the money, even though Massey could hardly afford the car payments.
This was his job, he said, and not doing it brings punishment. Nevertheless, he said parents and students have a choice: They can opt out of allowing the military to get their children's name through public schools.
His message was met with seemingly no opposition, and the groups sponsoring the event are all for his cause. The event was sponsored by the Brattleboro Area Peace and Justice Group, Alternatives to Recruitment by the Military, American Friends Service Committee and Veterans for Peace, Chapter 88.
"For the record, our group never tells (anyone) not to join the military," said Ellen Kaye of the Brattleboro Area Peace and Justice Group, adding that their mission is to help people make more informed decisions about signing up.
The Iraq war has hit the Green Mountain state hard. So far, 10 Vermonters have died in combat in Iraq. An 11th man died in Kuwait of natural causes.
Army Pfc. Kyle Gilbert, 20, was the first and so far the only Windham County resident to die in Iraq. He was killed on Aug. 6, 2003.
Leo Fchiff, member of Alternatives to Recruitment by the Military, acted as master of ceremonies Tuesday. The event also featured Nancy Brown, a Rochester woman whose son in the Vermont Army National Guard, Ryan, is presently stationed in Baghdad, and Windham's Gary Cheney, a Vietnam War veteran who belongs to Veterans for Peace and Alternatives to Recruitment by the Military.
Brown said it puzzles her how the United States can send Guardsmen over to Iraq, when that is clearly not the job they signed up for. She said she also struggles with the idea that Guardsmen have longer deployments than actual active duty members.
Brown is the founder of the Vermont Chapter of Military Families Speak Out, which is a national group whose members oppose the Iraq war and have relatives or loved ones in the military. "They've got mothers. They're with kids. They've got fathers," she said before she spoke. "I don't understand the rationale of the whole thing."
Vermont National Guard members are preparing for what could be their largest deployment since World War II. Guardsmen and women have been put through a two-day screening process over the past few weeks. Between 1,300 and 1,500 soldiers were expected to be prepared for mobilization by the end of July.
-------- iran
Iran's nuclear ambitions must be contained
NYT
August 04, 2004
http://www.iht.com/bin/print.php?file=532568.html
The invasion of Iraq, which President George W. Bush has often said would help stabilize the Middle East, is now hindering efforts to deal with a real nuclear threat: Iran. Despite its ritualistic denials, Iran gives every indication of building all the essential elements of a nuclear weapons program. And while the United States has hoped to pressure Iran into halting that program, the government in Tehran has clearly concluded that it has little to fear for now from an American government whose diplomatic credibility has been damaged and whose military capacities have been stretched by the war in Iraq.
Given Washington's unsatisfactory options right now, the best choice is to support Britain, France and Germany as they search for a diplomatic settlement. The chances of success do not look good; the European initiative has had minimal results and seems to be losing ground.
Iran announced Saturday that it had resumed the construction of centrifuges that are capable of producing material for a nuclear bomb. Tehran says it is still honoring a pledge not to operate any of these centrifuges, but it proclaims its right to resume enrichment at any time.
There would be little reason for Iran to take the provocative step of restarting centrifuge construction now unless it also intended to resume operations at some later date. And since there are other, safer ways for Iran to get the less-enriched uranium used in power-producing reactors, it is fair to presume that Iran means to use the centrifuges to produce bomb fuel.
Constructing uranium centrifuges is, regrettably, legal under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Using them to produce fuel for bombs is not. Diplomacy can resolve this issue only if both sides ultimately want a deal, and it is not at all clear that Iran's ruling clerics do. They may just be playing for time to develop their enrichment capacity before quitting the nuclear treaty and building bombs.
The tone of Iran's dealings with the outside world has changed for the worse since early this year, when hard-line clerics seized control of Parliament by excluding many of their once-formidable reformist rivals. That shut down an experiment in partial democracy that many hoped would eventually lead to less confrontational foreign policies, like decisions to close the nuclear program and end support for terrorist groups. Since then, Iran has stepped up its meddling in Iraq, stopped trying to improve its abysmal human rights reputation and turned more belligerent in the nuclear negotiations with Europe. Britain, France and Germany want Iran to renounce, permanently and verifiably, all technology capable of making nuclear bomb fuel. In exchange, they offer an equally firm commitment to use outside suppliers to guarantee an adequate supply of uranium for civilian power reactors. Such a deal could work only if Iran returned the spent fuel to the outside suppliers. Otherwise, plutonium could be extracted from it and reprocessed to make nuclear weapons. Unless Iran changes its position and forswears all rights to enrich uranium or reprocess plutonium, there can be no deal.
For want of a better alternative, Europe is right to give Iran a little more time to change its mind. But the world cannot afford to wait long. Once the new centrifuges are completed, Iran's ambitions will become much harder to contain. If no agreement is reached soon, this apparent drive to build nuclear weapons should be recognized as a threat to international peace and security and taken up by the United Nations Security Council later this year.
-------- israel
It's almost surprising how poorly strategic sites are protected
By Ze'ev Schiff,
Haaretz Analysis
Wed., August 04, 2004
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/459865.html
If a sophisticated terror cell were to make the intelligence-gathering and operational effort, it could expose sensitive weak points and carry out a serious strategic attack in Israel - that, in effect, is the bleak conclusion of a report prepared by a special Knesset subcommittee that examined security at sensitive sites around the country. Headed by Labor MK Ephraim Sneh, the subcommittee of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee included Likud MK Omri Sharon and National Union MK Aryeh Eldad. Its purpose was to examine the defensive measures taken to protect strategic sites in Israel, and it was set up after the Ashdod terror attack in March, when two Palestinians managed to penetrate the port and kill 10 Israelis. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz and other ministers who are responsible for various strategic sites cannot ignore the report issued yesterday by the three MKs.
There is a tendency in Israel to claim the Americans exaggerate in their security measures, but now it turns out that those who deserve the mocking are the Israelis for their low standards of security at key sites. Because of justified censorship, most of the report cannot be published. At one site, the spot check by the MKs found illegal foreign workers, including Palestinians, living in shacks next to the rusting fence of an important strategic facility, said MK Sneh.
The special committee's findings confirm what was discovered by the Defense Ministry's comptroller, Brig. Gen. (res.) Yosef Beinhorn. His people examined the safety and protection of various Israel Defense Forces bases, which were found to be poorly protected.
Particularly worrisome is that the committee found a simplistic approach to the matter in the army. Each branch makes its own definitions about what are strategic sites, and the army seems to take a "trust me" approach to the entire matter. There is no master list of strategic facilities, nor is there a checklist for the minimum actions required to protect a strategic facility.
On the other hand, the subcommittee was impressed by the Defense Ministry's Field Security department's approach to protecting facilities like the two nuclear reactors and the various military industries that are under the ministry's aegis. The police also take a much more serious approach than the army on the issue of protecting its facilities.
-------- japan
Iraqi doctor learns from Hiroshima's past
Shinya Ajima and Shinsuke Takahashi,
August 4, 2004
Japan Today
http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=feature&id=706
HIROSHIMA - An Iraqi doctor left his war-battered country in April. His destination was Hiroshima, and the purpose of his trip was to obtain knowledge and data on radiation effects in the city once devastated by the first atomic bombing in the world.
Hussam Mahmood Salih, 34, a pediatrician from Basra, said the number of child cancer cases jumped eightfold in the southern Iraqi city between 1988 and 2002, suspecting it was caused by the 1991 Gulf War, in which U.S. forces used depleted uranium shells.
There are also reports in Iraq about newborn babies lacking limbs or craniums. Depleted uranium has been long blamed for such birth defects in babies believed exposed to radiation while in the womb.
"We don't have any decent facilities in Iraq to check the amount of radiation in human bodies. But we can see the incidences of cancer increased greatly during the first four to five years of the 1990s," said Salih, now studying at Hiroshima University Hospital at the invitation of a Japanese civic group.
Under economic sanctions on Iraq that followed the war, Iraqi hospitals were prohibited from obtaining essential drugs as well as new medical equipment like tools for radio therapy because the international community feared they might be used for military purposes, he said.
"So, death and disease, and death and disease...this is the life of people in Iraq. I want to save Iraqi children," said Salih.
The U.S. military uses depleted uranium-tipped shells, known for their armor-piercing capability, against tanks and other hard military targets.
Although Iraqi doctors allege DU weapons cause leukemia and cancer, U.S. authorities deny direct links between DU and the cancer on the rise in Iraq since the 1991 war.
The medical community in Japan, a U.S. staunch ally, is also reluctant to admit a connection.
"Even so, it is sensible for him to visit Hiroshima, which has skills and knowledge on treating leukemia patients," said Atsuko Oe, a representative of Save the Iraq Children Hiroshima, the group that arranged Salih's visit.
In August last year, when some Iraqi doctors visited Japan to deliver lectures, they asked Oe and other civic group members to look for Japanese medical institutions that can train young doctors from Iraq.
Universities in Hiroshima and Nagoya then agreed to accept some doctors from hospitals in Basra through the civic groups.
Salih said he had never hesitated to come to Japan when chosen as a trainee due to his background as an expert on pediatric leukemia.
His visit apparently exposed a new face of Japan as the sole A-bomb victim in the world.
"Hiroshima had suffered a lot from war, deaths and radiation effects, and the Japanese doctors understand about these diseases...and all strategies about detection, treatment and follow-up. I think we cold learn very much from Japan's experiences," said Salih.
He added there are more Iraqi doctors hoping to learn in Japan and bring back advanced techniques, knowledge and equipment that have been unavailable to Iraqis.
"This is a great chance, a very nice chance. They could do better to save patients," he said.
Another civic group invited two other Iraqi doctors for training at Nagoya University Hospital, as well as a young patient whom Salih has treated.
The United States attacked Hiroshima with an atomic bomb on Aug 6, 1945, and dropped another on Nagasaki three days later. Japan surrendered to Allied forces Aug 15.
The bomb dropped on Hiroshima contained high quantities of highly enriched uranium. There are reports that a number of microcephalic babies were born in the western Japan city after the bombing, Oe said.
Salih is learning from Japanese professors at the university hospital, mainly about chemotherapy and bone-marrow transplants.
He has been given access to data stored in many facilities and organizations in this city, and has opportunities to talk with radiation victims as well as their families.
He is also going to attend the ceremony for the 59th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima next month.
"We wish Mr Salih could learn something by referring to the stored data and comparing them with those kept in Iraq," Oe said.
Salih will stay in Japan until the fall and return to Iraq, where his wife and two children live.
Governments in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are concerned about the aging of A-bomb victims. Their average age was 72.2 as of March, and thousands of the registered radiation victims die every year.
Both cities are forced to take measures to leave the victims' messages and experiences of the atrocities to succeeding generations.
Salih's stay in Hiroshima shows how Japan should be the first and hopefully last country of A-bomb victims in the world by taking on new roles no other country can undertake, Oe said.
"Each of us has our own role," she said, adding, "If we did not act, there would be a third following Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is important for us to think how individuals can be involved in peace or antinuclear activities." (Kyodo News)
----
Lest we forget
Nearly six decades after the US dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Justin McCurry reports on efforts to ensure that the horrors of a nuclear strike remain etched on the collective memory
Wednesday August 4, 2004
UK Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,1276045,00.html
On Friday, the people of Hiroshima will come together to remember the morning of August 6th 1945, when their city became the target of the first atomic bomb unleashed on a civilian population.
Gathering within sight of the burned out shell of the former industrial promotion hall near the epicentre of the blast, they will remember the 200,000 people who perished in the immediate aftermath or who died later from the effects of exposure to radiation.
Remembering the A-bomb, though, is becoming an increasingly local affair. Representatives of just two of the world's seven acknowledged nuclear powers - Pakistan and Russia - will attend.
Almost six decades after the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, collective horror at their consequences is being replaced by collective amnesia. And to forget, say those who survived, is to invite the prospect of a disastrous repeat of the radioactive infernos of the summer of 1945.
The hibakusha - the Japanese name for those who survived the bombings - are falling victim to the passage of time and shifts in the geopolitical environment that are concentrating minds on terrorism and regime change at the expense of more traditional threats, such as nuclear war.
In Japan itself, the anti-nuclear movement has been marginalised. What was once a mass movement - a largely silent but powerful majority committed to upholding the country's pacifist constitution and non-nuclear principles - has become too closely associated with the impotent political parties of the far left.
To many, the rallying cry of "No More Hiroshimas!" sounds cloying and hopelessly out of date.
It is little wonder, then, that the voices of the hibakusha are being drowned out amid the din of real politik, especially in a region that is coming to terms with a North Korea emboldened by a nuclear weapons programme.
Inevitably, age, too, is an obstacle. Most of the survivors are in their 70s, 80s and 90s. Many are in poor health.
Yet they are determined not to be written off as mere unfortunates in a singularly tragic event. They still have battles to be won - for recognition and to secure their rightful place in history, lest, they say, it be repeated.
"They are not forgotten, but they have been forced to exist in a historical file labelled 'A-Bomb'," said Kazumi Mizumoto, an associate professor at the Hiroshima Peace Institute.
"At the same time, they are the only people to have experienced the effects of the military use of nuclear bombs. Whenever the world faces the danger of nuclear weapons, they alone can tell the world what the result will be. In that sense they are still important, and I think the world understands that."
The community of atomic bomb survivors is now a diaspora spread between Japan, North and South Korea, China, the United States and Brazil - separated geographically, but united in their experience of coming under nuclear attack and by fear that many are not getting the official assistance that they deserve in their old age.
The subjects of numerous books, magazines and recordings, their recollections will survive long after they are gone.
In one of the biggest such projects, conducted just over 40 years after the attacks, NHK, Japan's public broadcaster, and the Hiroshima Peace Cultural Centre, asked 100 survivors to talk about the day their world fell apart.
Among them was Toshiko Saeki, a 26-year-old-woman who rushed to Hiroshima from her home in the suburbs on the afternoon of August 6 1945 to search for her mother and other family members.
Saeki, who lost 13 relatives in the attack, made perhaps the most eloquent case for not allowing the voices of the A-bomb survivors like her to fade into obscurity.
"Our experience must not be forgotten," she said. "What we believed in during the war turned out to be worth nothing. I went through hell on earth [so that] Hiroshima should not be repeated again. That is why I keep telling the same old story over and over again. And I'll keep on repeating it."
Hers is just one of countless similar experiences that Mizumoto believes will remind the region and the world of what they stand to lose should they ever be pushed to the brink of nuclear war. Simply rationalising the political consequences, he says, is not enough.
"People are often motivated more by emotion than by logical discussion," he said. "That is where the meaning behind Hiroshima and Nagasaki plays a part, and will continue to play a part."
-------- korea
North Korean nuclear missile 'could reach US'
The Guardian
Jonathan Watts
August 4, 2004
http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,2763,1275587,00.html
North Korea is deploying a new missile which may be able to strike the US mainland with a nuclear warhead, a report in Jane's Defence Weekly says today.
In the most alarming and detailed picture yet painted of Pyongyang's deterrent force, the authoritative military publication said the navy had customised a dozen scrapped Russian submarines to launch ballistic weapons of mass destruction.
Rumours have been circulating for several years that North Korea is developing an intercontinental missile - the Taepodong 2 - but the latest report suggests that the country's leader, Kim Jong-il, may also have ordered his military to attempt a short cut.
If confirmed, North Korea would join an exclusive club capable of covertly launching atomic weapons from submarines.
Only the five permanent members of the United Nations security council - the US, UK, France, China and Russia - and possibly Israel possess such a strategic advantage.
The article, which appears in this week's edition of Jane's, says North Korea's new systems appeared to be based on a decommissioned Soviet submarine-launched ballistic missile, the R-27.
It notes that several Russian missile experts from Chelyabinsk, a city in the Urals, were blocked in an attempt to enter North Korea in 1992, but others succeeded in subsequent years.
Much of the technology was reportedly transferred in the form of scrap in 1993, when a Japanese trading firm sold 12 decommissioned Foxtrot and Golf II class submarines to North Korea.
Although many key mechanisms were removed, the magazine said the vessels still contained launch tubes and stabilising sub-systems.
By customising these devices, it said, North Korea had developed and deployed a land-based missile with a range of 2,500km to 4,000km, as well as a sea-based missile with a range of 2,500km (1,500 miles).
The version of the missile capable of being launched from submarines or ships "is potentially the most threatening," Jane's said.
"It could finally provide its leadership with something that it has long sought to obtain - the ability to directly threaten the continental US."
North Korea's nuclear and missile programmes have long been a concern to the world.
In 2002, President George Bush named North Korea, alongside Iran and Iraq, as part of an axis of evil.
Pyongyang is now locked in a standoff with Washington over its withdrawal last year from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
Although the country has never successfully tested a nuclear weapon, it is thought to have reprocessed sufficient plutonium for one to eight warheads.
According to the South Korean military, North Korea has 600 Scud missiles with a range of 600km and 100 Nodong missiles with a range of 1,300km. It also test-fired a multi-stage Taepodong 1 rocket over Japan in 1998.
A second-generation Taepodong capable of hitting Hawaii, Alaska and possibly the western seaboard of the US is under development. Although the CIA believes that North Korea possesses an arsenal of biological and chemical weapons, Jane's news editor, Ian Kemp, said there was no doubt that the new missiles were primarily designed to carry nuclear warheads.
But Japanese military analysts are sceptical that North Korea possesses the miniaturisation technology to fit a nuclear warhead into a missile.
--------
N. Korea expands missiles
August 04, 2004
(Agence France-Presse)
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
LONDON - North Korea is developing a pair of new ballistic-missile systems, including a sea-launched model that soon could enable the communist state to target the continental United States, a leading military publication said yesterday.
"Both these new land- and sea-based systems appreciably expand the ballistic-missile threat presented by the DPRK," a report in Jane's Defense Weekly said, using the official name for the country, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
The version of the missile capable of being launched from submarines or ships "is potentially the most threatening," the weekly said.
"It would fundamentally alter the missile threat posed by the DPRK and could finally provide its leadership with something that it has long sought to obtain - the ability to directly threaten the continental U.S."
Information about North Korea's military capabilities is sketchy because of the ultra-secretive nature of the hard-line communist regime, which has been ruled for the past half-century by father-and-son dictators Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il.
However, the country is known to possess ballistic-missile technology. In August 1998, Pyongyang stunned the world by test-launching a Taepo-Dong-1 missile over Japan, officially saying it was a satellite launch.
Four years later, the United States said North Korea had acknowledged that it was developing nuclear weapons, prompting a series of as-yet unsuccessful talks involving Washington as well as China, South Korea, Russia and Japan.
According to Jane's Defense Weekly, North Korea is working on a pair of missile systems based on Russian technology, completely different from the Taepo-Dong-1 and its mooted successor, the Taepo-Dong-2.
The new systems are based on the defunct Soviet R-27 submarine-launched ballistic missile, known to NATO at the time as the SS-N-6, Jane's said.
The land-based model has an estimated range of 1,560 to 2,500 miles, bringing into range all of East Asia, as well as Hawaii and U.S. military bases on the Pacific islands of Okinawa and Guam.
The sea-launched model could be fired at least 1,500 miles, the article said.
The origin of the new missiles is thought to have been shown by an incident in 1992, when specialists from the Makeyev Design Bureau in Chelyabinsk, Russia, which developed the R-27, were detained as they tried to leave for North Korea.
"Reports indicate that other groups of missile specialists successfully traveled to the DPRK," Jane's said.
Then in 1993, the North Korean navy bought 12 decommissioned Russian submarines, ostensibly for scrap metal.
Some of these had been equipped to blast ballistic missiles. All missiles and firing systems were removed, but the submarines still had "significant elements" of launch systems.
"This technology, in combination with the R-27 design, provided the Korean People's Navy with elements crucial to the subsequent development of a submarine or ship-mounted ballistic-missile system," the report said.
-------- mideast
Persecuted for their faith -- and ignored by the U.S.
If Bush truly believes religion is the "first freedom of the human soul," why isn't his administration pressuring countries that persecute people for their beliefs?
By Judd Legum
Aug. 4, 2004
Salon
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/08/04/religious_freedom/print.html
Even staunch defenders of the U.S.-Saudi alliance, such as former Secretary of State James Baker, would be hard-pressed to assert that Saudi Arabia respects religious freedom. A 2003 State Department report flatly states that "freedom of religion does not exist" in that nation. The State Department has also concluded that "non-Muslim worshippers risk arrest, lashing, deportation and sometimes torture for engaging in religious activity." Even Muslim members of the Shiite minority "are the subject of officially sanctioned political and economic discrimination," according to the same report.
Yet the evidence in the report, mandated by the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, was not quite persuasive enough for the Bush administration. For the past several years, the State Department has ignored the recommendation of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom -- an independent body created by the IRFA -- to list Saudi Arabia as a country of "particular concern for religious freedom."
Saudi Arabia isn't the only country whose crackdown on religious expression is ignored by the administration. The State Department also turned a blind eye to its own findings on Pakistan, Eritrea and Turkmenistan and failed to list them as countries of "particular concern."
The requirement that the president (via the secretary of state) designate countries that "engage in or tolerate violations" of religious freedom as being of "particular concern" is one of the most significant provisions of the IRFA. Rabbi David Saperstein, the first chairman of the Commission on International Religious Freedom, explained that this process is important because countries "often try to accommodate U.S. concerns to avoid [that] designation." As a result, a number of countries have made changes "that made life noticeably better" for individuals who had been mistreated because of their religion.
The law requires the president to make this designation each year by Sept 1. But the Bush administration's last designation was in March 2003 -- more than 16 months ago. Saperstein says the administration's failure to comply with the timetable of the law "undermines the consistency of diplomatic efforts across the globe and eases the pressure" on countries that persecute people on the basis of religion.
The IRFA is the fulfillment of America's obligation under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a document adopted by U.N. General Assembly in 1948 to protect "the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family." Every signatory is obliged to do what it can to make sure that the principles expressed in the declaration are respected, including the affirmation that "everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion" (from Article 18). The 1998 act was an aggressive effort to ensure that the United States fulfills its part of the bargain with respect to religious freedom. The bill passed Congress unanimously and was championed by the religious conservatives whom Bush considers the core of his political base. Although the act requires the executive branch to take significant and specific steps to promote international religious freedom, the Bush administration, in contradiction to its public statements, has failed to comply with the letter or the spirit of the law.
The administration touts international religious freedom as a priority of its foreign policy agenda. Page 3 of the president's June 2002 National Security Strategy describes religious tolerance as one of the "nonnegotiable demands of human dignity." Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage recently called religious freedom "a central tenet of United States foreign policy." Bush himself, in a May 2001 speech to the American Jewish Committee, said with uncharacteristic eloquence, "It is not an accident that freedom of religion is one of the central freedoms in our Bill of Rights. It is the first freedom of the human soul -- the right to speak the words that God places in our mouths. We must stand for that freedom in our country. We must speak for that freedom in the world."
The State Department explained in February that promoting international religious freedom has a renewed importance since 9/11 because it "reinforces the development and strength of civil societies, and it dampens the appeal of religious extremism and religion-based violence."
Saudi Arabia, as a nation known to have provided recruits and funding for the 9/11 terrorist attacks, ought to be the prime target of such a policy. In May, the annual report of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom revealed: "There are numerous serious reports, which warrant official U.S. government investigation, that Saudis are funding efforts to propagate globally a religious ideology that promotes hate, intolerance, and other human rights violations toward non-Muslims and disfavored Muslims." Michael Young, current chairman of the commission, said the State Department's repeated refusal to list Saudi Arabia, Eritrea, India and Pakistan as countries of concern was "wrong" and not "in the interest of the people in those countries ... [or] the global community."
What's more, the administration has failed to take actions authorized by law to improve the conditions of religiously persecuted people in the countries that were designated as being of "particular concern" in March 2003: Burma, China, Iran, Iraq, North Korea and Sudan. The IRFA requires the administration to impose one or more of 15 specified penalties on designated countries. The penalties range from an official condemnation to the suspension of security assistance to economic sanctions. Instead, for each of these countries, the administration has invoked a provision in the law that allows the president to waive the requirement if "pre-existing sanctions are adequate." For example, no additional sanctions were imposed on China because of existing restrictions on U.S. exports of crime control and detection equipment to that country.
The Commission on International Religious Freedom calls the reliance on preexisting sanctions "technically correct under the statute" but "unacceptable as a matter of policy." "Reliance on pre-existing sanctions," the commission says, "provides little incentive for [countries] to reduce or end severe violations of religious freedom." According to the commission, "the failure to take additional action under IRFA suggests that nothing further can, or will, be done by the U.S. government to those countries that are deemed the world's worst violators of freedom of religion or belief."
Since 2001, the State Department has also failed to meet the reporting requirements of the IRFA. The law requires the secretary of state to transmit to Congress an annual report by Sept. 1 of each year or the first day after that on which Congress is in session. In 2003, the State Department didn't complete its report until mid-December, and when the report was finally submitted, it was incomplete. According to the Commission on International Religious Freedom, the State Department "has not made public any actions it has taken" regarding countries that violate religious freedom "despite statutory provisions ... that require public dissemination of that information." The State Department has also "not submitted to the Congress the required evaluation of the effectiveness of prior actions."
What explains the administration's failure to take seriously the issue of international religious freedom? Why, after top officials publicly declared it a priority, has the administration failed to meet even the minimum statutory requirements? The extent of its neglect of those requirements suggests that the administration's failure goes beyond incompetence or carelessness. Clearly, despite repeated public statements to the contrary, the administration does not view international religious freedom as a priority.
Robert Seiple, the first U.S. ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom, attributes the administration's neglect of the issue to "the limited amount of political oxygen in Washington," adding that the neglect is "disappointing to those of us who have been working the issue." It should be disappointing to anyone who values human rights, national security, the rule of law -- and religious liberty. For all the White House's talk about religious freedom and its open appeal to religious constituencies in the election campaign, Bush's record in this area is stunning for its lack of interest, consistency and results.
-
About the writer Judd Legum is deputy research director at the Center for American Progress in Washington and coauthor of the Progress Report.
Sound Off Send us a Letter to the Editor http://www.salon.com/about/letters/index.html
Related stories Bush's bungled Saudi deal-making http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/07/23/saudi_deals/index.html President Bush and his lawyer, the former U.S. ambassador in Riyadh, wasted a golden opportunity to pressure the Saudis to crack down on terrorism. By Charles Tiefer 07/23/04
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/08/04/religious_freedom/print.html
-------- missile defense
Pentagon Prepares Missile Defense
PolitInfo.com
Aug 4, 2004
Pentagon
http://www.politinfo.com/articles/article_2004_08_4_1100.html
By the end of this year, the Pentagon is set to have in place a system designed to protect the United States from an attack by a long range missile that could be carrying a weapon of mass destruction.
When President Bush took office three years ago, he quickly embarked on a controversial, multibillion dollar plan to put in place a missile shield capable of intercepting a nuclear warhead fired at the United States by a rogue nation. Largely unnoticed by the public and the media, a Pentagon agency has been moving ahead with work on an elaborate air, land and sea-based defense system capable of knocking out an enemy missile heading toward the United States.
Despite questions over whether it will work, the Bush Administration is confident it will and considers the system essential to the nation's defense, given the increasing number of countries, such as Iran and North Korea, that are working to acquire nuclear weapons. "Over the next five, 10, 15, 20 years or more, we can expect offensive missiles to become far more capable than they are now and so we need to ensure we have the defense against that type of missile," says Rick Lehner of the Missile Defense Agency, the Pentagon office charged with deploying the multi-layered missile shield. "The goal is to have an operational system against long range missiles by the end of this year."
Six years ago, North Korea stunned its Asian neighbors and the world when it test fired a medium range missile that flew over Japan. That same year, a congressionally mandated commission looked into America's vulnerability to a missile attack and determined North Korea in particular was well on its way to developing ballistic missiles that could threaten the United States. The head of the commission was Donald Rumsfeld, who was then a private citizen and is now defense secretary.
Missile defense has been one of the most controversial aspects of the Bush administration's foreign policy. In order to move ahead with deployment, the United States withdrew in 2002 from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with the Soviet Union, a move opponents, including Democratic Congressman Rush Holt of New Jersey, believes could encourage America's enemies to build better missiles.
"It leads to destabilization," he argues. "The potential enemies will think that this is a threat to them and it will lead to an arms race."
There are also questions about whether a system untested in battle can, in fact, protect the nation from a missile attack. In tests conducted by the Pentagon in recent years, just five out of eight were judged fully successful. Of those that failed, some failed to separate from their booster rockets; others missed their targets.
"The system is very early in its development phase," says Physicist Lizabeth Gronlund with the Union of Concerned Scientists.
The Union of Concerned Scientists is a research group that believes the system has not demonstrated an ability to handle an attack involving multiple warheads and decoys.
"In other words, I think that the system can be made to work against one missile if that missile takes no steps to make the job of the defense more difficult," she adds. "But that's a really unrealistic assumption."
Rick Lehner of the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency says the entire project is still in the testing phase.
"It will continue to be very much a work in progress in terms of keeping up with the threat to make sure that the system that we are deploying is capable of being reliable and effective against all types of ballistic missiles," he notes.
Opponents also point out that the deadliest ever attack on the nation came not from missiles, but from terrorists already in the country.
"The most likely threat to the U.S. from terrorists is something of the sort that happened on 9/11," says Lizabeth Gronlund. "The worst threat you could think of from terrorists is that they would acquire a nuclear weapon or highly enriched uranium or plutonium that they need to make a nuclear weapon. There are hundreds of tons of this material primarily in Russia and the U.S. and it's not well guarded and that is where we should be putting our efforts."
Construction and testing on the missile shield are moving ahead. A total of 20 interceptor missiles are set to be deployed at Alaska's remote Fort Greely Army base and at Vandenburg Air Force Base in California by the end of next year. This article uses material from VOA.
-------- russia
Canada and Russia in 24 million dollar deal to decomission nuclear subs
OTTAWA (AFP)
Aug 04, 2004
http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040804201912.dzu6oqqm.html
Canada said Wednesday it had signed a 24 million dollar deal (18 million US dollars) to help Russia dismantle nuclear submarines, under a scheme devised to keep radioactive material out of the hands of terrorists.
"Spent nuclear fuel in Russian submarine reactors presents an international security risk and an environmental threat to the Arctic and Barents Sea," said Foreign Minister Pierre Pettigrew
The deal is part of the Group of Eight industrialised nations Global Partnership, which provides 20 billion dollars in funding to target vulnerable stocks of radioactive material in post-Soviet Russia.
Russia currently has 56 retired nuclear submarines in the Barents Sea region awaiting disposal.
Canada will help dispose of three Victor class submarines at first and over the next three years sign three new deals to provide a total of 116 million dollars to decommision 12 submarines.
Britain, Norway, Germany and the United States have already made contributions to dispose of Russian nuclear submarines.
-------- treaties
Turning a blind eye to nukes
IHT
Jonathan Power
August 04, 2004
http://www.iht.com/bin/print.php?file=532538.html
The U.S. and Saudi Arabia?
LONDON In his forthcoming memoir, Strobe Talbott, a former Deputy Secretary of State, recounts the surprise and alarm that swept through the State Department on May 11, 1998, when the first reports came in over CNN television that India had tested a nuclear weapon. Yet The Statesman, an influential Indian daily, had published articles on April 8 and April 15 of that year, that argued that now that the Indian nationalists of the Bharatiya Janata Party had come to power, India was going to go nuclear very quickly. The information was around for those who had eyes and ears. It was as if Washington didn't want to know until it had to.
Similarly, the reports are emerging today suggesting that Saudi Arabia may be the latest Middle Eastern country to engage in a planning program on nuclear weapons - but as long ago as 1989, the International Institute for Strategic Studies, in London, remarked on the Saudi purchase of Chinese CSS-2 rockets: "Missiles of such range are difficult to justify unless they carry nuclear weapons." "They are too elaborate and expensive to make sense for anything else," I was told at the time.
But Washington didn't want to know and still doesn't want to know. Despite worrying new intelligence reports, not one senior Bush administration figure is talking about Saudi Arabian nuclear weapons plans. Neither will the United States confirm on the record what everyone knows - that Israel has about 200 nuclear weapons.
Washington prefers, when it is in its immediate strategic interest (albeit not its long-term one), to put its telescope to its blind eye. It couldn't allow itself to be too agitated about India's nuclear research because it had kept quiet for so long about Pakistan's, its close ally. When the Soviet Army poured into Afghanistan during the Carter administration, the United States suspended its nuclear nonproliferation policy so that Pakistan could escape sanctions and receive the military and economic aid that the United States wanted it to have. Yet everyone knew that Pakistan was developing its nuclear weapons' capability at a fast rate. And today we know that Pakistan's chief nuclear weapons scientist was selling nuclear technology and equipment far and wide - to North Korea, Libya, Iran and, now the spooks say, a "fourth customer," which can only be Saudi Arabia.
How can Washington be a credible force against proliferation when it has a record of doing little or nothing until too late? Talbott gives a hair-raising ringside view of the Indian-Pakistani nuclear crisis of 1999. He reports that President Bill Clinton thought that it brought the antagonists closer to nuclear war than the United States and the Soviet Union were at the time of the Cuban missile crisis.
We know, too, that when Saudi Arabia bought sophisticated Chinese missiles in 1988, Israel was nervous enough to warn Saudi Arabia that it would engage in a pre-emptive nuclear strike if it ever had cause for suspicion they would be used against it. Some observers are still convinced that only U.S. pressure stayed Israel's hand in March and April 1988. (Saudi Arabia, for its part, attempted to reassure Israel by saying it acquired the rockets for defense against Iran, not Israel.)
Diplomatically, it is very difficult for Washington to rally international opinion behind a hard line on nuclear nonproliferation in North Korea and Iran when its recent performance has been so ambiguous and inconsistent.
The credibility of the Bush administration is further undermined by its lack of action in securing "loose nukes" and "near-nukes" in Russia. Graham Allison, of Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, has described the attitude of the Group of Eight nations toward this issue as "lackadaisical and unfocused." Despite the United States having agreed in principle to work with Russia on the issue, less plutonium and highly enriched uranium was secured in the two years after Sept. 11, 2001, than in the two years before. President George W. Bush does not give the issue his direct personal attention.
Meanwhile, at home, rather than setting a good example by freezing weapons development, the administration has been seeking an increase in research funding for two new kinds of nuclear weapons.
Jonathan Power is a commentator on foreign affairs.
-------- u.s. nuc facilities
Nuclear-security contract draws fire
August 04, 2004
UPI Correspondent
By Thom J. Rose
http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20040803-062204-5654r.htm
Washington, DC, Aug. 3 (UPI) -- A new round of force-on-force security tests to be carried out in U.S. nuclear facilities beginning in November will be based around "hostile forces" trained and employed by the same company that employs many of the guards to be tested.
Wackenhut Corporation, which provides guard forces to 30 of the United States' 64 nuclear power plants, has been chosen by an industry group to create two handpicked, specially trained teams to test guards' performance across the country.
"They're going to be in essence testing themselves in a lot of places," Peter Brand of the watchdog group Project on Government Oversight told United Press International. "The flipside is that they're going to be testing their competitors."
The industry group that selected Wackenhut for the job, the Nuclear Energy Institute, counters that Wackenhut is the best-qualified company for the job and has employees uniquely qualified to play hostile forces.
"This program has (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) oversight from start to finish," said Steve Kerekes, a spokesman for the NEI.
Kerekes said Wackenhut's testing-team members will not be permitted to test guards at facilities where they have worked and said a number of similar safeguards will be in place to avoid compromising the integrity of the coming force-on-force tests.
Brand said Wackenhut's position as both tester and tested represents an inherent conflict of interest, however, and questioned the NEI's role in choosing Wackenhut for the hostile-force job.
"The nuclear industry is exerting undue influence over the process of homeland security," Brand said.
Fear of terrorism since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks has greatly increased the amount of attention paid to security at nuclear plants. The specter of suicide attackers -- who would not have to both enter and escape a nuclear plant, but simply enter -- has raised considerable concern among members of the public and nuclear-security experts.
Kerekes said the nuclear-power industry has taken significant steps to increase the security of its plants since Sept. 11. He said power-plant operators have spent $1 billion on additional security since the attacks, adding 2,000 guards across the country for a total of 7,000.
"Our facilities are extremely well protected," Kerekes said.
At the same time, the Government Accountability Office, Congress's investigative arm, and other groups have questioned the safety of some U.S. nuclear facilities.
In an April report, the GAO questioned the standards of protection the Department of Energy has set, which it said do not pay enough attention to the threat of improvised nuclear bombs that terrorists might be able to assemble very quickly.
Additionally, a number of accusations of shoddy security work at nuclear power plants and government nuclear sites have raised public concern.
In fact, some of the most high-profile security questions have involved Wackenhut guards.
A "protective force performance test" of Wackenhut security guards stationed at a nuclear site in Oak Ridge, Tenn., performed by the Department of Energy in June 2003 is one of the most controversial examples.
The test, which was intended to measure security forces' readiness to protect the highly enriched uranium stored at the site, drew the department's attention since the Wackenhut officers being tested received uncharacteristically high scores. A subsequent investigation indicated that Wackenhut officers might have cheated on the 2003 test and perhaps on many other tests at Oak Ridge from the mid-1980s on.
Witnesses told the Department of Energy that private guards had studied plans for the simulated attacks before they were carried out, had disabled the laser sensors they wore during tests to determine when they were "shot" by mock enemies, arranged trucks and other obstacles to help foil simulated attacks, created special non-standard plans to help them perform better on tests and put more guards on duty at the time of tests than would normally have been present.
Wackenhut has denied any wrongdoing at Oak Ridge, but the Project on Government Oversight and others continue to question the company's record.
Kerekes defended Wackenhut's work and reiterated that the company is well qualified to perform the planned force-on-force tests.
"Wackenhut has the best capabilities to achieve the ends of this program," Kerekes said. "I would challenge (the Project on Government Oversight) or anyone else to find security experts who are better qualified to do this."
The Project on Government Oversight has also questioned the decision to put a foreign-owned firm in charge of guarding sensitive U.S. sites. Wackenhut is owned by the British company Securicor.
"The Department of Homeland Security won't contract out airport security to foreign companies," said Brand.
The Project on Government Oversight has sent a letter to Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Nils Diaz objecting to Wackenhut's involvement in the new force-on-force tests, but Diaz has made no public response. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission could not be reached for comment.
-------- california
Interns get technical at Sandia symposium
August 04, 2004
trivalleyherald
By Lea Blevins
http://www.trivalleyherald.com/Stories/0,1413,86~10671~2313267,00.html
LIVERMORE -- While some people barely trust a college student to bag their groceries, the government is entrusting some young adults with scientific projects with national security implications. Student interns at Sandia National Laboratories in Livermore presented their summer projects Tuesday at the Student Symposium, showing off their vast knowledge of science.
And the trust in students is evident. Interns often work on their own projects or help with other projects that actually will be put into use.
Christina Bonebreak, a student from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, assisted in designing a machine that will be used to help detect uranium and plutonium in nuclear reactors so the United States can monitor other countries' materials that could be used for weapons of mass destruction.
"For what I've created, I'm the expert, so if they have questions about it, I'm really the best person to ask," said Bonebreak, adding that she may still work with her team after she goes back to school.
Bonebreak, 21, got to travel to San Clemente, where the San Onofre Nuclear Generation Station is located and where her designs will be tested.
"I was actually there to put it together and troubleshoot," said Bonebreak, a Maryland resident.
Intern Nick Degnan is working from start to finish on another innovative project.
A student at the University of California, Davis, Degnan has put together a vibrating machine controlled by a computer, which also collects data generated by the device.
The machine is designed to simulate different circumstances so lab employees can determine how certain items will respond to various vibrations, such as something being transported on a truck.
"It's challenging, and it's exciting for my field," said Degnan, 21.
He said the employees at Sandia have treated him as an equal rather than as just a student intern.
"They've made me feel like I'm a part of that team," he said.
Although Sandia's work in various fields of science is often what gets the lab recognized, opportunities are available for interns interested in other careers.
Janine Scott, 19, has been interning at Sandia for four years in the public and community relations department.
The Las Positas College student, who is transferring to the University of California, Los Angeles, in the fall, has combined science and working with the public.
She has helped organize Family Science Nights at local elementary schools, where families can get hands-on experience with science experiments.
"All the people here are really easy to work with," said Scott, a Livermore resident. "They really give a lot of opportunities to the interns."
Lea Blevins covers education in Livermore, Pleasanton and Dublin. Contact her at (925) 416-4819 or lblevins@angnewspapers.com .
-------- us nuc waste
Waste Control Specialists Submits Application for State Waste Disposal License
PRNewswire
Aug. 4, 2000
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/08-04-2004/0002225194&EDATE=
DALLAS, -- Waste Control Specialists LLC (WCS), announced today that it has filed an application for state approval to operate a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility 30 miles west of Andrews,Texas. A $500,000 license application fee to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) was included as part of the 4,000 page license application submittal.
"The application demonstrates to the state and its citizens that WCS is committed to providing an environmentally safe and scientifically sound disposal facility and has the financial resources to do so," said George E. Dials, president and chief operating officer of WCS.
The permit application was submitted to the state under comprehensive regulatory legislation approved by the Texas Legislature last session to provide for the safe and permanent disposal of low-level radioactive waste generated by hospitals, research institutions, power plants and industrial activities. Under this legislation, a licensed private company may, upon issuance of a permit from the TCEQ, dispose of low-level radioactive waste from the Texas Compact and federal facilities, although the amount of federal waste that can be received is limited. The disposal activities will be regulated by agencies of the state of Texas. The Texas Compact is a federally approved agreement that provides for Texas to host a low-level radioactive waste disposal site to dispose of waste from Texas, Maine and Vermont. Under the Texas Compact, the state will receive hosting fees from the other states of up to $50 million, and the state will also receive disposal fees from waste generators as waste is received at the site's facility.
"The application reflects WCS' commitment to operate a low-level radioactive waste disposal site that relies heavily on proven technology, good management and excellent geology to protect public health and the environment," Mr. Dials said. "Our application goes well beyond the stringent technical requirements set by the TCEQ," he said. "More than 80 engineers, technicians and scientists spent nearly 30,000 staff-hours putting the document together." The extensive application and accompanying documentation covers such diverse issues as engineering and design, operations, closure, geology, archeology, ecology, climatology, hydrology, site characteristics and socio-economic impacts. Mr. Dials said, "part of the strength of WCS' application is its location in Andrews County. There is more than 800 feet of clay beneath the surface, which will prevent the percolation of water and will contain any waste far longer than the time needed for it to decay to natural background levels."
Efforts have been ongoing to locate such a low-level radioactive waste facility in Texas for more than 20 years before adoption of the new legislation.
A qualified disposal site will let Texans and the citizens of the Texas Compact states continue to take advantage of activities that produce low-level radioactive waste such as in medical treatment applications and research, as well as in some industries that produce items like smoke alarms, computer disks and reflective signs. Research facilities and power plants also produce low-level radioactive waste. Mr. Dials emphasized that low-level radioactive waste to be disposed at the site does not include spent fuel from nuclear generators or uranium or plutonium from inside nuclear weapons.
WCS currently holds licenses from the state and federal government for the management and disposal of hazardous waste as well as the storage and processing of low-level radioactive waste.
Mr. Dials stated, "The Andrews facility has an excellent environmental compliance record and an outstanding safety record. In May 2004, WCS completed three years of operations without a lost-time accident. The company's management and staff have extensive credentials and industry backgrounds in hazardous and low-level radioactive waste management activities."
Once the application has been determined to be administratively complete by the Texas regulators, which determination may take several weeks, the application can be viewed from a link on WCS' website, which is http://www.wcstexas.com .
WCS owns and operates a facility in West Texas for the processing, treatment, storage and disposal of a broad range of hazardous, toxic and certain types of low-level radioactive waste. WCS is a subsidiary of Valhi, Inc. (NYSE: VHI).
SOURCE Waste Control Specialists LLC Web Site: http://www.wcstexas.com
-------- MILITARY
-------- afghanistan
Afghan Troops, U.S. Warplanes Attack Guerrillas
Dozens Killed Near Border
Associated Press
Wednesday, August 4, 2004; Page A15
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37818-2004Aug3.html
KABUL, Afghanistan, Aug. 3 -- Afghan troops backed by U.S. warplanes killed as many as 70 guerrillas in a day-long battle near the Pakistani border, military officials said Tuesday.
An Afghan commander said government forces heard radio messages in Arabic and Chechen suggesting that al Qaeda fighters were involved.
"We could hear the enemy," said Gen. Nawab, the Afghan commander. "I'm sure there were foreigners involved."
The battle began about 2 a.m. Monday when dozens of guerrillas armed with rockets, mortars and machine guns attacked a border post in the province of Khost, a former al Qaeda stronghold 100 miles southeast of the capital, Kabul.
A U.S. spokesman, Maj. Rick Peat, said the U.S. military sent in a B-1 bomber, A-10 ground-attack aircraft and helicopter gunships and flew in Afghan reinforcements, eventually forcing the assailants to flee "in panic." Peat said no U.S. ground troops were involved.
Pilots reported seeing 40 to 50 bodies on the battlefield near the mountainous Pakistani border, Peat said, and several wrecked vehicles were spotted.
Nawab put the rebel toll as high as 70, saying the guerrillas had dragged away many dead and wounded as they retreated into Pakistan. Afghan forces recovered only 10 bodies, he said.
The U.S. military said one of more than 100 Afghan soldiers involved in the fighting was killed and three others were wounded. However, another Afghan commander, Khial Baz, said two of his men had died.
The guerrilla death toll appeared to be one of the heaviest since U.S. planes pounded Taliban forces before the hard-line Islamic movement was driven from power in late 2001.
Assaults led by U.S. Marines in a Taliban stronghold in southern Afghanistan in May and June killed more than 100 guerrillas, commanders have said, but it was unclear how many fell in a single engagement.
Khost borders Pakistan's Waziristan tribal area, where Pakistani officials say hundreds of foreign fighters have found refuge among sympathetic Pashtun tribesmen, the same ethnic group from which the Taliban draws much of its strength.
--------
2 Afghan aid workers killed
Battle near Pakistani border leaves up to 70 militants dead
MSNBC News Services
Aug. 4, 2004
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5580383/
KABUL, Afghanistan - An Afghan aid worker and his driver have been killed by unidentified gunmen in southeastern Afghanistan in the latest attack on humanitarian agencies which have been increasingly targeted by Islamic militants.
A field officer working with a partner organization to the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees was shot dead in the attack on Tuesday on a road between Gardez, south of Kabul, and the nearby town of Zormat, a UNHCR spokesman said on Wednesday.
His driver was seriously wounded and later died after being airlifted to the U.S. military base at Bagram north of the capital, said Mohammad Nader Farhad.
More than 30 aid workers have been killed in Afghanistan since the beginning of 2003, most of them by suspected remnants of the ousted Taliban militia who have vowed to halt humanitarian work and derail elections planned for October and April.
The Medecins Sans Frontieres agency announced last week it was leaving Afghanistan after 24 years because of concerns over security. Five of its staff were killed in an attack in the northwest of the country in June.
Up to 70 militants killed
On Tuesday, military officials said as many as 70 militants were killed in a daylong battle against Afghan troops backed by U.S. warplanes near the Pakistani border.
An Afghan commander said government forces heard militant radio messages in Arabic and the Chechen language, suggesting al-Qaida fighters were involved.
"We could hear the enemy," said Gen. Nawab, an Afghan commander who uses one name. "I'm sure there were foreigners involved."
Only two Afghan soldiers were reported killed in the fighting, an indication of the militants' vulnerability to American air power.
The battle began at about 2 a.m. Monday, when dozens of militants armed with rockets, mortars and machine guns hit a border post in Khost province, a former al-Qaida stronghold 120 miles south of the capital, Kabul.
Aerial assault
The U.S. military said it sent a B-1 bomber, A-10 ground-attack aircraft and helicopter gunships and flew in Afghan reinforcements, eventually forcing the assailants to flee "in panic."
U.S. spokesman Maj. Rick Peat said pilots reported seeing 40 to 50 bodies on the battlefield near the mountainous Pakistani border. Several wrecked vehicles were also spotted.
Nawab put the rebel toll as high as 70, saying the militants had dragged away many dead and wounded as they retreated into Pakistan. Afghan forces recovered only 10 bodies, he said.
The U.S. military said one of more than 100 Afghan soldiers involved in the fighting was killed and three others were wounded. However, another Afghan commander, Khial Baz, said two of his men died.
Peat said no U.S. ground troops were involved.
The death toll appeared among the heaviest since the aerial poundings of Taliban troops by U.S. planes before the hard-line regime folded in late 2001, and confirms a surge in violence ahead of the October presidential elections.
Assaults led by U.S. Marines in a Taliban stronghold in southern Afghanistan in May and June killed more than 100 militants, commanders have said, but it was unclear how many fell in a single engagement.
"The coalition and Afghan security forces continue to reap outstanding results" against militants, a U.S. statement said, "refusing to allow them to gather enough strength to affect progress toward a democratic government in Afghanistan."
Border refuge
Khost borders Pakistan's Waziristan tribal area, where officials in the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, say hundreds of foreign fighters have found refuge among sympathetic Pashtun tribesmen, the same ethnic group from which the Taliban draws its main strength.
Pakistani troops have mounted a string of operations to crush the militants, sparking battles that have left scores of dead this year. American officials said recently they had no firm fix on the whereabouts of al-Qaida leaders Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahri, who could have found refuge in the area.
Peat said it was unclear if the attack in Khost was a response to that increased pressure or to a spate of arrests of suspected al-Qaida members in Pakistan.
The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.
-------- arms
Japan eyes eased ban on military exports
Asia Times Online Ltd
By David Isenberg
Aug 4, 2004
http://atimes.com/atimes/Japan/FH04Dh01.html
Japan is not known for making bold, radical moves on military and foreign-policy issues, but over the past several months there have been signs that it is contemplating modifying one of its sacrosanct policies: the prohibition on the export of weapons, or any hardware or technology that could be defined as having a military purpose.
On July 20 the Nippon Keidanren, or Japan Business Federation, called on the government and opposition in a position paper to review the ban and consider amendments, while still adhering to United Nations bans on exports to certain countries and those involved in international conflicts.
Some observers suggest that growing public acceptance of Japan's need to bolster its military capabilities raises the chances that the export ban will be amended this year when the government revises its mid- and long-term defense policies.
The current ban, in place since 1967 in the administration of prime minister Eisaku Sato, is a result of Japan's constitution, which renounces "war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes", as well as an earlier parliamentary decree from the 1960s.
Japan has adhered to guidelines prohibiting arms exports to communist states and countries subject to any embargo under United Nations Security Council resolutions, as well as those involved in or likely to be involved in international conflicts. Over the years, there have been minor amendments to the ban. In 1976 prime minister Takeo Miki expanded the ban to include arms exports to other nations. In a major but not unexpected change, in 1983 prime minister Yasuhiro Nakasone decreed that Japan could provide arms technologies to the United States.
But the current government has adopted a more flexible interpretation of the pacifist constitution than its predecessors, as evidenced by sending the Japanese Self-Defense Forces to southern Iraq in what has been described as a humanitarian mission.
In its appeal on July 20, the Japan Business Federation said that because of the curbs, the country's defense industry had been left out of international military hardware and technology trends and markets. "While respecting the basic principle of [the ban] rather than an outright restriction [on exports] it is necessary to rethink export management, technology exchange and investment in light of our national interest."
Of course, Japan's military-industrial complex is far from being a heavyweight contender in the world's weapons-production arena. The 2002 list of the world's top 100 arms-producing companies, compiled by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, listed only five Japanese companies. The United States had 41.
The real motive: Not to be left behind If the ban is modified - and an act of the Diet (parliament) would be required - Japanese and foreign observers do not expect Tokyo suddenly to start flooding the market with weapons systems. Observers point out that the real motivation is a desire not to be left behind as military technology marches on.
Critics of the ban say that unless it is reviewed, Japan will fall woefully behind in defense technology. They point out that advanced military systems are increasingly being developed through joint programs and that if Japanese companies are prohibited from participating in international joint development projects, their technology will fall behind global standards.
Specifically, the Keidanren's main concern is that the ban prevents Japanese contractors from participating in joint development efforts such as the US-led 13-nation development of the Joint Strike Fighter.
Japanese military contractors are under pressure after the government's move to cap military-equipment spending, while shifting 100 billion yen (US$902 million) out of annual procurement of about 700 billion yen to a missile defense system to be imported from the US.
In fact, the missile defense system is an important influence on the move to modify the ban. Last December, when the government decided to introduce the missile defense system, then chief cabinet secretary Yasuo Fukuda said a review of the principles of non-export "should be considered".
One aspect of joint development of the missile defense system means that Japan will provide weapons parts to the United States. Japanese officials have said it is likely that the Pentagon would place orders for covers on the tips of anti-ballistic missiles and other components.
Yet the Japanese military-industrial complex is far from having to declare bankruptcy. As an industry it benefits from a military budget that, in purely monetary terms, is surpassed only by those of the United States, Russia and China. This fiscal year alone, total military spending will amount to the equivalent of $45 billion.
Some independent analysts are supportive of the move. Christopher Preble, director of foreign-policy studies at the Cato Institute in Washington, DC, and author of a forthcoming study on Japanese security policy in regard to the US, said in a telephone interview: "In general I was encouraged by the news. The Japanese are becoming more like a normal country. It is an expression of willingness on the part of Japan to assert their independence." He noted that this was another sign of Japanese willingness to assume a greater role in world affairs. "There is a growing domestic political dynamic moving to reexamine a whole range of restraints that have been imposed on Japan. It is easier to make that case now with the rise of a new generation."
Export ban could be eased this year The government will revise its mid- and long-term defense capabilities this year, and the ban could be amended and eased.
Already this year a committee on defense policy headed by Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi also recommended reviewing the ban. Shigeru Ishiba, head of Japan's Defense Agency (JDA) and minister of state for defense, said the ban should be lifted to allow Japanese companies to develop advanced weapons.
The ban is to be revisited this year when an advisory panel and a JDA panel release reports on Japanese defense. By mid-December, the government is planning to endorse the first new defense guidelines in a decade.
In March, a subcommittee of the Liberal Democratic Party's National Defense Division proposed a new set of principles to provide greater export latitude. This would limit the weapons ban to nations branded by United Nations resolutions and others as harboring terrorists and abusing human rights, to nations singled out by UN resolutions for a ban on arms exports, to regions of ongoing international conflict, and to nations whose trade-control systems are woefully inadequate.
Ironically, lifting the ban could also expose Japan's protected industry to international competition, possibly harming the 1,000 companies that provide the JDA with military-related products.
David Isenberg, a senior analyst with the Washington-based British American Security Information Council (BASIC), has a wide background in arms control and national-security issues. The views expressed are his own.
-------- business
$1.9 Billion of Iraq's Money Goes to U.S. Contractors
By Ariana Eunjung Cha
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 4, 2004; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A37822-2004Aug3?language=printer
Halliburton Co. and other U.S. contractors are being paid at least $1.9 billion from Iraqi funds under an arrangement set by the U.S.-led occupation authority, according to a review of documents and interviews with government agencies, companies and auditors.
Most of the money is for two controversial deals that originally had been financed with money approved by the U.S. Congress, but later shifted to Iraqi funds that were governed by fewer restrictions and less rigorous oversight.
For the first 14 months of the occupation, officials of the Coalition Provisional Authority provided little detailed information about the Iraqi money, from oil sales and other sources, that it spent on reconstruction contracts. They have said that it was used for the benefit of the Iraqi people and that most of the contracts paid from Iraqi money went to Iraqi companies. But the CPA never released information about specific contracts and the identities of companies that won them, citing security concerns, so it has been impossible to know whether these promises were kept.
The CPA has said it has awarded about 2,000 contracts with Iraqi money. Its inspector general compiled records for the major contracts, which it defined as those worth $5 million or more each. Analysis of those and other records shows that 19 of 37 major contracts funded by Iraqi money went to U.S. companies and at least 85 percent of the total $2.26 billion was obligated to U.S. companies. The contracts that went to U.S. firms may be worth several hundred million more once the work is completed.
That analysis and several audit reports released in recent weeks shed new light on how the occupation authority handled the Iraqi money it controlled. They show that the CPA at times violated its own rules, authorizing Iraqi money when it didn't have a quorum or proper Iraqi representation at meetings, and kept such sloppy records that the paperwork for several major contracts could not be found. During the first half of the occupation, the CPA depended heavily on no-bid contracts that were questioned by auditors. And the occupation's shifting of projects that were publicly announced to be financed by U.S. money to Iraqi money prompted the Iraqi finance minister to complain that the "ad hoc" process put the CPA in danger of losing the trust of the people.
Kellogg Brown & Root Inc., a subsidiary of Halliburton, was paid $1.66 billion from the Iraqi money, primarily to cover the cost of importing fuel from Kuwait. The job was tacked on to a no-bid contract that was the subject of several investigations after allegations surfaced that a subcontractor for Houston-based KBR overcharged by as much as $61 million for the fuel.
Harris Corp., a Melbourne, Fla., company, got $48 million from the Iraqi oil funds to manage and update the formerly state-owned media network, taking over from Science Applications International Corp. of San Diego. The new television and radio services and newspaper have been widely criticized as mouthpieces for the occupation and symbols of the failures of the reconstruction effort. When it was being financed with U.S.-appropriated funds, the contract drew scrutiny because of questionable expenses, including chartering a jet to fly in a Hummer H2 and a Ford pickup truck for the program manager's use.
Fareed Yaseen, one of 43 ambassadors recently appointed by Iraq's government, said he was troubled that the Iraqi money was managed almost exclusively by foreigners and that contracts went predominantly to foreign companies.
"There was practically no Iraqi voice in the disbursements of these funds," Yaseen said in a phone interview from Baghdad, where he is awaiting his diplomatic assignment.
Even Iraqi officials who served in the government while the CPA was in charge complained they had little say in the use of their own country's money. Mohammed Aboush, who was a director general in the oil ministry during the occupation, said he and other Iraqi officials were not consulted about expanding the KBR contract. But he said he informed his American "advisers" at the CPA that the Iraqis felt KBR's performance had been inadequate and that he'd prefer that another company take over its work.
Aboush said that he was ignored and that he believes the decision to go with KBR was political. "I am old enough to know the Americans and their interests and they are not always the same interests as the Iraqi interests," he said.
U.S. officials contend the CPA was faithful to the terms of a United Nations resolution that gave the United States authority to manage the Iraq oil money during the occupation. "We believe that contracts awarded with Iraqi funds were for the sole benefit of the Iraqi people, without exception," Brig. Gen. Stephen M. Seay, head of contracting activity for the successor to the CPA's office, wrote in a response to a critical CPA inspector general report released last week.
The CPA identified the best company for each job, said Army Lt. Col. Joseph M. Yoswa, a Defense Department spokesman. He said shortcomings in the contract-award process should be looked at in the context of the volatile work environment in Iraq, where the need for speed and security were critical.
Critics of the CPA accused the occupation authority of using Iraqi money to bypass U.S. contracting rules on competition, oversight and monitoring for controversial projects.
"With American firms charging 10 times as much as Iraqi firms for construction work, with sole-source contracts being awarded, with allegations of money-wasting . . . is it likely that the CPA was doing its best to ensure Iraqi money was spent in Iraqi interests? It doesn't look like it," said Anthea Lawson, an analyst for Christian Aid, a nonprofit group that has been investigating the spending of Iraqi oil money.
Svetlana Tsalik, director of the Iraq Revenue Watch project of the Open Society Initiative think tank, said there were few clear distinctions between which pot of money -- U.S. or Iraqi -- the CPA would use to pay for reconstruction. "Whenever it had expenses that looked unpalatable for the U.S. public they would just dip into Iraqi funds," Tsalik said.
While it ran Iraq, the CPA had at its disposal at least $45 billion -- the biggest reconstruction fund since the Marshall Plan rebuilt Europe after World War II. The money included $22 billion that Congress appropriated in two supplemental spending bills, and $23 billion in two Iraqi accounts, one holding proceeds from oil sales and the other seized assets, including frozen overseas bank accounts from the Hussein years.
In most cases, to spend congressionally appropriated funds, CPA officials had to coordinate with officials in Washington, keep detailed records, advertise contracts widely and conform to waiting periods for bids to come in. Some of the money was held up by a turf war between the Pentagon and the State Department over who controlled the reconstruction.
It was simpler to use the Iraqi money.
Nearly all the Iraqi assets were held in what was known as the Development Fund for Iraq. It was used primarily to support Iraqi government ministries by paying salaries and expenses, according to budget documents. But some of the fund was used to pay private contractors for reconstruction projects. The main restriction on spending the money was that it be used for the benefit of the Iraqi people.
To get access to the funds, all that was usually needed was the recommendation of an entity called the Program Review Board, made up of 10 members and a chairman, according to former CPA officials. The final authorization required a single signature -- that of L. Paul Bremer, the occupation's top civil administrator.
CPA officials have acknowledged that contracts were sometimes shown to a just a few bidders and that winners were picked within days. Several of the large contracts that went to U.S. companies, for example, were awarded with no competition, including a $16.8 million contract awarded to Custer Battles LLC of McLean to provide security for the main U.S. military base in Baghdad, and a $15.6 million contract for police radios awarded to Motorola Inc. of Schaumburg, Ill., the CPA inspector general's compilation shows.
Iraqi company executives have complained since the first days of the occupation that the process favored U.S. firms. They said in interviews that they could not get through the heavily guarded gates of the occupation headquarters in the Green Zone to meet with contracting officers. They also said the process was so secretive that they had to bribe CPA translators to get information about what requests for bids were coming up.
In April, the CPA announced that contracts worth less than $500,000 awarded from the Iraq oil fund should go only to Iraqi companies.
The biggest contract obligation paid with Iraqi money went to KBR. The oil-services company's work began in early 2003, before the war with Iraq began, when the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers gave it a no-bid contract worth as much as $7 billion to repair Iraq's oil infrastructure. There were fears that Hussein would set the oil fields ablaze, and the U.S. government believed that it needed a contractor lined up to go in right behind invasion forces.
The first tasks KBR performed under the contract -- training for and advising on a safe shutdown of oil facilities, pre-positioning spill equipment and preparing repair plans -- were paid for with U.S. funds.
But in fall 2003, the occupation was confronted by a different kind of oil problem. It had become clear that pipeline sabotage was causing a shortage and the occupation authority decided that it had to import fuel to prevent a full-blown crisis.
Meanwhile, some members of Congress expressed their disapproval of using more U.S. money for KBR's no-bid contract. In meetings on Nov. 11 and Nov. 29 in Baghdad, the CPA authorized tapping Iraqi funds to import fuel and fix the distribution system, according to minutes of CPA meetings. The task was added to KBR's contract and no new bids were sought, even though the funding source changed.
In all, KBR was paid $2.53 billion, $1.64 billion of which came from the Iraqi funds, according to an analysis for The Washington Post by Andre Verloy, a researcher for the Center for Public Integrity.
Verloy said the commingling of U.S. and Iraqi money to pay for tasks under a single contract raises significant oversight issues. "It is often difficult enough to find out where the money is coming from, but if U.S. taxpayer funds are used alongside Iraqi money, who has the ultimate oversight?" he said. "Can Congress oversee work funded with Iraqi assets? Should U.S. government agencies even pay U.S. companies with Iraqi money?"
The CPA also shifted the funding source for several other contracts.
As U.S. money for Stevedoring Services of America Inc.'s contract to manage the port of Umm Qasr began to dwindle, CPA officials on March 6 authorized an infusion of Iraqi money to keep the company in place until the transfer of authority. Sometime this spring, a few months into Harris Corp.'s media contract, the CPA stopped using Defense Department money to pay Harris and began charging the Iraqi oil funds.
On April 24, a little over a month after complaints by a losing bidder of political favoritism and a flawed contracting process prompted the U.S. Army to cancel a $327 million contract funded by U.S. money to Nour USA Ltd. of Vienna, the CPA awarded the company a different contract from Iraqi money. The new $9.9 million contract was for supplying the Iraqi security forces with vehicles.
Two recently released audits point to numerous problems with the procedures the CPA used to account for, authorize and disburse Iraqi money.
The United Nations, in a report dated July 15, noted that metering of oil extracted from Iraq was not functioning so it was impossible to tell whether all of it had been accounted for. The U.N. report also criticized the CPA's program review board for authorizing funds in at least 10 cases when it lacked a quorum. The audit also noted that only one of the review board members was Iraqi, and he had attended only two of the 43 meetings held by December 2003. "Controls were insufficient to provide reasonable assurance . . . whether all [Iraqi oil-funded] disbursements were made for the purposes intended," the audit concluded.
The CPA's inspector general found in audits released last week that the occupation failed to establish "effective funds controls and accountability" for hundreds of millions of dollars that were held in cash. In fact, the investigative unit said, the keys to one of the safes that held the cash was "kept in the disbursing officer's unattended backpack."
It also studied 60 disbursements from assets seized from the former regime and found that no documentation existed for five of them, totaling $99.1 million in payments. Paperwork had not been properly filled out for items such as furniture, carpets and vases, meaning, the inspector general said, that the CPA was not able to ensure that the assets "would be available for the use and benefit of the Iraqi people."
Special correspondent Omar Fekeiki in Baghdad contributed to this report.
--------
Halliburton to Pay $7.5 Million to Settle Probe
By Carrie Johnson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 4, 2004; Page E01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37936-2004Aug3.html
Halliburton Co. yesterday agreed to pay $7.5 million to settle Securities and Exchange Commission charges that it failed to disclose a change in accounting practices that allowed the Houston oil services company to report higher earnings over six quarters in 1998 and 1999.
The SEC also cited Halliburton for unspecified "unacceptable lapses" in conduct that delayed regulators' access to information during the investigation. The company and its former controller, R. Charles Muchmore Jr., who paid $50,000 to settle related charges, did not admit or deny wrongdoing. Simultaneously, the SEC filed a lawsuit against former chief financial officer Gary V. Morris, who is not involved in the settlement.
Dick Cheney was Halliburton's chief executive from 1995 to 2000. Cheney, who was not charged with wrongdoing, provided sworn testimony and "cooperated willingly and fully" with the investigation, according to a news release issued by the SEC. Cheney's lawyer, Terrence O'Donnell, said his client's tenure at Halliburton was "proper in all respects."
The charges stem from a change in the way Halliburton accounted for revenue from construction projects from which the company received fees that were set in advance. Sometimes, however, Halliburton would seek reimbursement for extra, unplanned costs. For years, the SEC said, Halliburton booked such fees in the quarter when disputes with clients were resolved. But in the second quarter of 1998, the company changed its policy and began to offset losses with revenue from projects in which Halliburton officials thought recovery of additional fees was "probable." At that time, Halliburton was preparing to merge with Dresser Industries Inc.
Regulators said yesterday that the company's failure to tell investors about the change until 2000 was "materially misleading."
The SEC said the accounting change increased Halliburton's pretax income for 1998 by $87.9 million, or 46 percent. In the second quarter of 1998 alone, when the change was put into effect, the company was able to report a 34 percent increase in net income compared with the year before. Otherwise the increase would have been 6.7 percent, regulators said.
"Comparability of results is important for investors," said SEC enforcement chief Stephen M. Cutler.
Spencer C. Barasch, head of enforcement at the agency's Fort Worth office, said in a written statement that the Halliburton penalty "serves as yet another reminder that the Commission will not tolerate lapses by companies that serve to delay or hinder the Commission's investigative processes."
In recent years the SEC has levied a $10 million penalty against Bank of America Corp. and a $3 million penalty against Dynegy Inc. for failing to fully cooperate with regulators.
"We are pleased to bring closure to this matter," David J. Lesar, Halliburton's chairman and chief executive, said in a prepared statement. "The resolution of this issue and the pending resolution of the company's asbestos liability will help us focus on strengthening our business in energy services and engineering and construction."
Timothy R. McCormick, a lawyer for Morris, who left Halliburton in August 2002, said, "We think the commission is using a novel theory of disclosure which is not supported by the precedent. . . . We intend to defend this case vigorously."
McCormick said Halliburton had followed accounting rules and would not need to restate its earnings for the six quarters flagged by the SEC. He added that "this is not a situation where there was any investor harm."
A lawyer for Muchmore, who is now a vice president for financial controls at Halliburton, did not return calls.
Halliburton officials said they do not believe that the SEC is continuing to investigate any current employees in relation to the 1998 accounting change. But other government investigators are examining whether Halliburton unit Kellogg Brown & Root Inc. overcharged for food and fuel in Iraq, and the Justice Department is investigating its business practices in Nigeria and Iran.
Halliburton said it would adjust its previously announced results for the second quarter of 2004 and record an additional $7.5 million in expenses to cover the cost of the settlement. The adjustments broaden Halliburton's second-quarter net loss to $667 million ($1.52 per share) from $663 million ($1.51).
--------
SEC: Halliburton under Cheney filed misleading reports
USA TODAY
GREG FARRELL
August 4, 2004
Halliburton filed "mate