NucNews - December 4, 2004




-------- NUCLEAR 


-------- britain

Michael Harrison's Outlook: Green is the colour, nuclear is the name

independent.co.uk
04 December 2004

http://news.independent.co.uk/business/comment/story.jsp?story=589553

British Energy may have lived to fight another day. But the more interesting question is whether there is a long-term future for nuclear energy in this country. As we saw this week, the state-financed rescue of the company that dare not speak its name has turned into a gravy train for professional advisers and managers alike ­ the former have already picked up £104m for saving it from the scrap heap and the latter stand to net £30m if they make a success of the business over the next three years. But what does that mean for energy policy over the next 30 years and will atomic power have a role to play?

Over the next six months, at least, the Government's energy policy is clear ­ make sure the lights do not go out between now and the next election. It would, we are told, take a Siberian winter of the type Britain experiences only once in every 50 years to put a serious squeeze on supplies. Even then, we are assured, "market mechanisms" would step in to keep the lights on. Industry would find it more profitable to stop production and sell its surplus power back to the grid and even the most uneconomic generating plants would come out of mothballs as the wholesale price of electricity went through the roof. In short, the market would ensure there was enough gas to meet domestic demand for heating and enough electricity to avoid blackouts.

There are some sceptics, including a few who run the country's gas terminals, who doubt that the market will perform quite so perfectly. But even if it were to, and the UK avoids any serious power shortages this winter and next, by which time more gas import capacity will have come on stream, are we right to be as sanguine about the longer term?

There are two issues which continue to dominate UK energy policy and nuclear power, for better or worse, sits squarely in the middle of both. One is security of supply. The other is diversity of supply and the fuel mix Britain will need to meet its environmental goal of a 60 per cent cut in carbon emissions by 2060.

As far as security of supply is concerned, the predictions are coming true more quickly than anyone expected. In its Energy White Paper last year the Government calculated that Britain would become a net gas importer by 2006. In fact, we have already reached that point. Meanwhile, much of the UK's economically viable deep mined coal will have been exhausted by 2010, by which time European legislation governing sulphur emissions may have forced the closure of most of the country's coal-fired stations anyway.

Should this worry us? The optimists say no, arguing that much of the imported gas will come from Norway, a country with such affection for Britain that it still sends us a Christmas tree each year as a thank you for Allied support in the Second World War. The pessimists say yes, pointing out that the rest of the gas will need to be imported from places such as North Africa, the Middle East, Latin America and Russia.

So, as far as security of supply is concerned, the argument is balanced. The case for nuclear power on environmental grounds is more compelling. Leaving aside for one moment the issue of what to do with the radioactive waste it produces, nuclear is the greenest of fuels. It currently produces nearly a quarter on the UK's electricity but not a single tonne of carbon dioxide or sulphur emissions. But, twenty years from now, its contribution to energy production will have dwindled to 2 per cent, supposing no new nuclear plants are built.

The Government is relying upon renewable energy, mainly in the form of onshore and offshore wind farms, to fill the void in generation and spearhead the fight against global warming. It has also made some highly ambitious assumptions about the contribution that energy efficiency could make to reducing emissions. But few energy experts, including most of those building wind farms, believe the target will be met of generating 20 per cent of our electricity from renewable sources by 2020. As for energy efficiency, it is hamstrung by the absence of fiscal incentives to make energy saving attractive to domestic consumers. The energy industry continues to bang on Gordon Brown's door, but so far to no effect.

So what future for nuclear? Well, the near death of British Energy did it no favours, exposing an industry which was uneconomic in its own right and only exists today because the taxpayer has relieved it of some £5bn in liabilities.

As Patricia Hewitt, the anti-nuclear Trade and Industry Secretary, re-iterated only a month ago, there is not exactly a queue of developers knocking on her door for permission to build new nuclear reactors. For that to change, three things will have to happen. First, nuclear will have to prove its profitability. If the new management of British Energy get even close to earning their £30m bonus then they will have demonstrated that. To trigger the maximum payout, the company's operating profits would need to increase eight-fold to £1.6bn.

Second, some mechanism will need to be established which sends out long-term price signals to the market. This will enable developers to build new plant in the knowledge that they will be able to earn an economic return for baseload power such as nuclear over the long-term.

Third, the price of other fuels will need to reflect their own back-end costs so that nuclear is not disadvantaged by its legacy costs. Back in the days when British Energy was state-owned, we paid for these through something called the nuclear levy. So what about a gas levy or a coal levy?

Where there is a will, there is a way. Left to its own devices, wind power would be too expensive to be attractive, which is why the Government has a renewables obligation requiring electricity suppliers to meet 10 per cent of their needs from green energy. It is a levy in all but name. Likewise, if coal is to enjoy a renaissance in the UK, it will require some serious investment in expensive clean coal technology, which in turn means some fiscal instrument ­ call it a coal levy or a fossil obligation ­ to guarantee it a market.

So don't discount the idea of another energy white paper after Tony Blair (a nuclear fan) has won the next election, putting atomic power back on the agenda.

The thing he and the nuclear lobby will then have to grip is the thorny issue of what to do with the waste nuclear fission produces. Reprocessing is an economic nonsense. Moreover, it leaves more waste behind in a more concentrated form, with all the proliferation issues that raises. On the other hand, there is no agreed strategy for waste storage, much less an agreed location for storing it. During the course of an energy debate Arthur Scargill once produced a lump of coal from his pocket and volunteered to eat it if the nuclear executive sat opposite did likewise with a piece of plutonium. Crack that, and nuclear could have a future once more.

m.harrison@independent.co.uk  



-------- china 

China Launches New Class of Nuclear Sub

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: December 4, 2004
Filed at 12:11 a.m. ET

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-US-China-Submarine.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- China has launched the first
submarine in a new class of nuclear subs designed
to fire intercontinental ballistic missiles, U.S.
defense officials said Friday.

The submarine is, at a minimum, months away from
having missiles installed and going on a cruise,
one official said, discussing foreign weapons
developments only on the condition of anonymity.
Still, it is further evidence of China's
intentions to expand both its nuclear weapons and
submarine forces, officials say.

It was widely known that China was building the
new class of nuclear-missile submarine, called the
``Type 094,'' but the launch is far ahead of what
U.S. intelligence expected, one official said.

The launch was first reported in The Washington
Times. The newspaper reported that U.S.
intelligence spotted the sub at a shipyard 250
miles from Beijing.

It would be China's first submarine capable of
launching nuclear weapons that could reach the
United States from the country's home waters,
officials said.

The Chinese military has also been developing a
new class of submarine-launched ballistic missile,
called the JL-2, that is expected to have a range
in excess of 4,600 miles. The Type 094 submarine
would carry these missiles, but it is not clear
whether the missiles are ready for deployment.

Previously, China has had only one submarine
capable of launching nuclear missiles, called the
Type 092, or Xia, class. In 2001, a Pentagon
report said the Xia was not operational. Its
missiles were of an older class that could fly
only 600 miles.

Successful cruises by the Type 094 would give
China a new strategic deterrent against the United
States, no longer limited to land-based ICBMs and
weapons carried on aircraft. But U.S. defense
officials say China lags behind the United States
in its ability to hide submarines from
sophisticated sonars and other sensors.

China is also modernizing its land-based nuclear
missile force, replacing its estimated 20 ICBMs
with more modern versions. In a report on China's
military issued last May, the Pentagon said
China's cache of ICBMs could increase to 30 by
next year and 60 by 2010.

Although considered unlikely in the near term, the
most likely avenue for conflict between the United
States and China is over Taiwan, which China
regards as a rogue province. Taiwan is seeking
high-tech weaponry from the United States,
including diesel submarines and anti-submarine
aircraft.

The United States, France, Russia and the United
Kingdom all have submarines capable of launching
ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads.

On the Net:

Defense Department: http://www.dod.gov



-------- iran

Rumsfeld warns Iran on nuclear 'mistakes'

AFP December 04, 2004

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,11582591%255E2703,00.html

WASHINGTON: US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld yesterday warned Iran it was "making a lot of mistakes" but said action to prevent the Islamic state acquiring nuclear weapons was a call for George W. Bush and other world leaders to make.

Mr Rumsfeld issued the warning as the US State Department denounced Iran for not allowing inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency to visit military sites suspected of housing work on nuclear weapons.

Spokesman Richard Boucher said that if Iran was sincere about not seeking nuclear weapons, "they should have absolutely no problem at all in allowing inspections of any facility, anywhere, on any suspicion, on any grounds, because they would have nothing to hide".

"We expect Iran to provide prompt and unrestricted access to the International Atomic Energy Agency," Mr Boucher said. "This is an issue where Iran needs to try to demonstrate the truth and sincerity of its statements."

In a separate development, London-based Iranian opposition group the National Council of Resistance claimed Tehran was developing medium and long-range missiles that could reach western Europe and target US-led forces in Iraq.

The group said the new long-range missiles, the Ghadr and Shahab-4, had a planned range of 1900km, which would allow them to reach as far as Berlin.

It also claimed the Iranian regime was working to create nuclear and chemical warheads for the missiles and had "made enormous efforts in this field". Iran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes such as power generation.

Asked whether the US could allow Iran to become another North Korea, which is believed to have nuclear weapons, Mr Rumsfeld said: "The Iranians are making a lot of mistakes, let me just put it that way."

Earlier, he said Mr Bush had decided to work through the Europeans and the UN to put diplomatic pressure on Iran to abandon its nuclear program. "It's up to the countries of the UN to decide what kind of steps they may or may not want to take," he said.

Asked about the likelihood the US would have to confront Iran militarily, Mr Rumsfeld said: "I guess those are calls for the President ... or for other leaders of other countries to make."

In Iran yesterday, about 200 volunteers for suicide operations gathered at the Behesteh Zahra cemetery south of Tehran as a hardline group unveiled a monument to the "martyrs" who carried out the 1983 bombing of a US marine barracks in Beirut that killed 241 troops.

Chanting "death to America" and "death to Israel", the crowd included masked women who had pledged to die in suicide bombings. 

-----

Iran bought metal useable in atomic bombs: diplomats

The News International
December 04, 2004

http://jang.com.pk/thenews/dec2004-daily/04-12-2004/main/main19.htm

VIENNA: Intelligence reports accuse Iran of buying large amounts of beryllium, a metal that has many civilian uses but which some US and other countries’ officials believe Tehran wanted exclusively for an atomic bomb, diplomats say.

A diplomat, citing intelligence gathered by his country, said Iran bought "huge amounts of beryllium from a number of countries", but gave no details on the amount or states involved. Beryllium can also be combined with polonium-210 (Po-210), a substance Iran is known to have worked with, to initiate the chain reaction in a bomb.

Other diplomats and one US official, all speaking on condition of anonymity said they had intelligence Iran had acquired and worked with beryllium. They also said the IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei knew about it but had withheld the information from the IAEA board of governors. Annoyed over the matter the US officials crticised ElBaradei for not following credible intelligence provided to his agency.

David Albright, a former UN weapons inspector and head of a Washington-based think-tank, said about the beryllium question: "The US really believe there’s something there." Head of the US delegation to the IAEA Jackie Sanders brought up beryllium issue to the IAEA board of governors this week, while Iranian officials claimed that Iran never procured or worked with beryllium.

Washington hardliners see ElBaradei as soft on Iran and was deliberately undermining the US attempt to push the IAEA board to get tough on Tehran. One non-US diplomat did not hide his desire to see ElBaradei out of his job, said in his three-page memorandum that said Tehran’s work with beryllium was mentioned in an early draft of the IAEA’s report on inspections in Iran but it was omitted after negotiations between the Iranians and ElBaradei.

IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said many issues included in early drafts fail to meet the tough threshold of the final report. She held that it was part of the drafting process. The US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, meanwhile, said in Washington that Iran was "making a lot of mistakes". He was asked in an interview with Fox News television whether the United States could allow Iran to become another North Korea.

He said President Bush had decided to work through the Europeans and the United Nations to put diplomatic pressure on Iran to give up nuclear programme. And it’s up to the countries of the United Nations to decide what kind of steps they may or may not want to take.

Rumsfeld noted that a large population of young people in Iran were dissatisfied with the clerical rule. "I hope we will see a shift in that country, just as we saw a shift from the Shah to the Ayatollah," he said.

Also in Washington, the State Department spokesman Richard Boucher denounced Iran for not allowing inspectors from the IAEA to visit two military sites suspected of housing work on nuclear weapons. "It is an anomaly in Iran’s behaviour. Iran can build confidence in the world that they’re indeed sincere and true, and that they were not developing nuclear weapons. They should allow inspections of any facility, anywhere, on any suspicion, on any grounds."

He added: "They should provide prompt and unrestricted access to the IAEA to demonstrate the truth and sincerity of its statements. They should do it with gusto." He referred to Iran’s refusal to allow inspectors to visit the Parchin military site near Tehran where there may have been nuclear weapons technology testing. He said they legally restricted inspectors from checking out buildings known as Lavizan-II near Tehran. Iranian resistance spokesmen have said secret uranium enrichment was allegedly going on there.


-----

Taking Europe for a Ride

Arab News 
Amir Taheri
4 December, 2004

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article=55525&d=4&m=12&y=2004

In a manner that recalls haggling in a Persian bazaar, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Islamic Republic of Iran are engaged in a tussle about the meaning of their recently concluded bargain over Tehran’s nuclear program.

Earlier this month Tehran agreed to “completely freeze” its uranium enrichment program in exchange for economic and technological goodies from the European Union. But just moments after the deal was announced Tehran declared that the promised “freeze” was neither complete nor permanent.

“This is a voluntary and temporary freeze,” Hassan Rouhani, the mulla who headed Tehran’s team in talks with the EU said. “We can end it whenever necessary.”

Then Muhammad El-Baradei, the head of the IAEA, reported that the “freeze”, had ended before it started because Tehran insisted it should keep 20 centrifuges running, producing hexafluoride gases needed to make atomic bombs. A couple of days later Tehran came back with another promise to honor the deal, thus calming the game and postponing confrontation for a few more months. In another context, and another time, this was known as the “ cheat-and-retreat” tactic.

Cartesians would describe the method used by the European Union to deal with Iran’s nuclear ambitions as “drowning the fish”. In other words the EU has chosen to completely miss the point. The Iranian nuclear program is a geostrategic issue that concerns vital aspects of regional and international politics, not a technical one about centrifuges and a temporary “freeze” in uranium enrichment. (Incidentally, the deal left out Iran’s plutonium program altogether.)

Let us make a few points clear before tackling the real issue.

First, the problem between the IAEA and Tehran is not about an attempt by big powers, especially the United States, to deprive Iran of its rights. A recent article in The Washington Post presents the whole issue as an attempt by the Bush administration to prevent poor little Iran from arming itself with nuclear weapons against Russia, Pakistan, and Israel. Iran may well be threatened by the countries mentioned; and, even if it is not, its leaders may have the right to mistakenly assume such a threat. Iran also has the right to develop nuclear weapons. What it does not have the right to do is to continue enjoying the benefits of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as a signatory while violating it by developing a nuclear weapons’ “surge capacity”.

Contrary to what The Washington Post article pretends, nobody is trying to impose anything “imperialistic” or “neoconic” on the mullas who may or may not be as angelic as he thinks. All that is demanded is that they either comply with the NPT or get out and do as they please. Membership of he NPT is not obligatory for any country. Many countries that wanted to develop nuclear weapons stayed out of the NPT — among them France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, Egypt and, more recently, North Korea.

But even then this is not the real issue. Everyone knows that the current Iranian leaders have decided to develop a nuclear weapons capacity as part of the National Defense Doctrine that they put place in the mid-1990s. The nuclear capacity is one of the three pillars of that doctrine. (The other two are a large ground army to sustain heavy casualties in a long war, and a missiles program to make up for the weakness of the Iranian Air Force. All that is no secret. EU ambassadors in Tehran would know this by reading the newspapers, following the debates in the Islamic Consultative Assembly, and listening to Friday sermons by establishment mullas.

My guess is that the EU knows that Tehran is determined to obtain a nuclear weapons capacity. The EU must also know that Tehran will not abandon a key element of its defense doctrine to please powers that it regards as “satanic”.

So, why is the EU playing this charade?

One reason is that EU is run by techno-bureaucrats masquerading as politicians. The techno-bureaucrat cannot conceive of an adversary that does not play the game by his rules. We are witnessing a clash of cultures. On the European side we have the products of a society in which politics is defined as the art of distributing resources, accommodating differences, and placing laws made by consensus above faith and ideology. In that type of politics there is no right and wrong, no good and evil, as such — only legal and illegal.

The practitioner of that type of politics interprets his lack of critical judgment as tolerance of diversity.

On the other side we have the Khomeinist politicians who regard their brand of Islam as the only true religion that should, one day, conquer the world. They claim that, with the Soviet Union in the dust bin of history, their regime offers the only alternative vision of the world to that of the United States.

They see the Middle East as the immediate battleground between the two visions because both the Islamic Republic and the United States are now committed to changing the regional status quo. The US wants to do so by fostering democratic regimes, starting with Afghanistan and Iraq. The Islamic Republic wants to unite the region under the banner of Khomeinist Islam. The US is promoting a two-state solution for the Palestine-Israel conflict. The Islamic Republic is committed to a one-state solution, to be known as Palestine, in which Jews would ultimately become a minority. The US, and the West in general, regard their concept of human rights as the highest of values. The present leaders in Tehran see it, in the words of Khomeini, as a “Jewish-Crusader plot” to undermine Islamic culture.

The mullas know that, sooner or later, these two visions will clash in the Middle East. They are not prepared to let the US remold the Middle East after its own fashion. They also believe that they can win the battle of ideas. Their only fear is that, at some point, American military power would not only check their ambitions but threaten their regime. They see nuclear weapons as a deterrent against the use of American military power to thwart their plans for the kind of Middle East that the late ayatollah dreamed of.

“Had Saddam had nuclear weapons, he would still be in power,” says Hashemi Rafsanjani, one of the key figures in the Tehran establishment.

The EU knows that it cannot prevent Iran from building a nuclear arsenal. The diplomatic circus, in which the IAEA is enlisted as clown, is aimed at fudging the issue by nurturing false hopes of a negotiated solution. Michel Barnier, the French foreign minister, let the cat out of the bag when he said that all that the EU wanted was “to prevent another Iraq.” In other words, the EU has organized this Punch-and-Judy show to deprive the US, regarded by Barnier & Co as a “rogue hyper-power”, of an excuse to use force against the mullas. This may well be a laudable objective. But it does not answer the real question: Can the region, and, indeed, the world, including the EU, be comfortable with the prospect of a regime with messianic ambitions being armed with nuclear weapons in the Middle East? 



-------- korea

Korea, U.S. trade barbs on Iraq-North link 12th in a series

JoongAng Daily
December 04, 2004

http://joongangdaily.joins.com/200412/03/200412032237328509900090309031.html

In New York, Yoon Young-kwan, then the South Korean foreign minister, and U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell met on Sept. 26, and Seoul officials recalled recently that the meeting was turbulent. "At that time, Washington was reluctant to hold the meeting, but Seoul insisted on having one," a senior South Korean official said. "Mr. Powell was in Washington that day, but the U.S. government said it would try to arrange something. Washington probably anticipated that we would give a positive answer to its request for troops for Iraq."

That expectation, if it existed, was dashed. "As the talks went on, Mr. Powell stiffened. Mr. Yoon practically told him that Seoul would link the nuclear issue with the troop dispatch," the official said. The New York Times reported that South Korea had told the United States it would not consider sending more troops to Iraq unless Washington made a concession to Pyeongyang. South Korean officials said later, however, that Mr. Yoon's message was not that strong.

"At the meeting, Mr. Yoon read Seoul's instructions, and he handed a book, "Crisis on the Korean Peninsula: How to Deal with a Nuclear North Korea," to Mr. Powell." The book was written by Michael O'Hanlon and Mike Mochizuki, two U.S. foreign policy analysts.

"The book argued for comprehensive resolution of the North Korean issues," the official said. "After listening to Mr. Yoon's explanation, Mr. Powell became extremely angry." U.S. media quoted Mr. Powell as curtly telling Mr. Yoon at the talks, "That is not how allies deal with each other."

The Yoon-Powell meeting had continuing effects. The atmosphere at the South Korea-U.S.-Japan talks on Sept. 29-30, 2003, to coordinate the North Korea's nuclear issue was also tense.

"The U.S. side cornered us," a South Korean official familiar with the talks said. "There was even talk that the foreign minister talks had ruined the friendship that President Roh Moo-hyun fostered by visiting the United States in May."

The Yoon-Powell meeting also stirred up Seoul's foreign affairs and security team. The Blue House claimed that it had never ordered a link of the nuclear crisis with Seoul's willingness to send more troops to Iraq. "Our situation was very difficult," a Blue House official said. "We wanted to say that we would send more troops to Iraq, but that there should also be some progress in the nuclear talks. But, the two matters were seen as firmly linked at the Yoon-Powell talks."

On the other hand, Seoul officials who were involved in the talks said that Minister Yoon had faithfully followed the Blue House's orders.

Seoul began efforts to smooth U.S.-South Korea relations; President Roh sent a letter to his counterpart in Washington.

"Mr. Roh intended to send a direct message regarding the North Korean nuclear issues and South Korea's dispatch of more troops to Iraq to U.S. President George W. Bush in a personal letter," another Seoul official said. "The idea for sending a letter came from Ra Jong-yil. On Oct. 12, Mr. Ra visited the United States and delivered the letter. The letter said that Seoul, despite its difficult circumstances, was considering the U.S. request for more troops to Iraq seriously. It also said the North's nuclear issues must be resolved peacefully. The letter did not promise the troop dispatch."

Mr. Roh's letter to Mr. Bush was the second of its kind. After the United States notified the South in June 2003 of a reduction of U.S. troops on the peninsula, Mr. Roh had sent a letter to Mr. Bush in July asking Washington for another review and to not make the decision public.

After Mr. Roh sent the letter, the two countries began to haggle. On Oct. 18, Seoul announced that it would send more troops to Iraq. On Oct. 20, Mr. Bush, at a meeting in Bangkok, said that the United States had plans to provide a security assurance to North Korea in a multilateral framework. In return for freezing its nuclear programs, the North had been demanding such a guarantee.

That was the first time that Mr. Bush had mentioned of the possibility of assuring the security of North Korea. Although negotiations between South Korea and the United States were not smooth, the nuclear crisis and Seoul's dispatch of more troops to Iraq were eventually linked, although the United States had also begun its controversial plans to shake up its troop presence here.

At the Roh-Bush summit, Mr. Roh asked Mr. Bush to allow him to decide on the nature, timing and the size of the additional contingent to be sent. Mr. Bush agreed to do so, but asked him to send as many troops as he could.

In November 2003, Mr. Roh made several grumbling comments about his foreign affairs team. Mr. Roh said Foreign Minister Yoon often challenged him, presumably on the issue of Seoul's sending more troops to Iraq. Mr. Roh also said Mr. Yoon was too focused on maintaining good relations with the United States.

Mr. Roh also praised the National Security Council at the Blue House for providing extremely useful reports. He said, "No other ministry can do such a job in place of the National Security Council."

After the United States said it was willing to provide multilateral security assurances to the North, Pyeongyang reacted positively. South Korea, China, Japan, Russia and the Untied States held more bilateral and multilateral talks, and the conditions appeared right for another round of six-nation talks. But North Korea did not agree to more negotiations without another blow to the process. As 2004 began, Pyeongyang took another step and showed two U.S. visitors jars of what it said was plutonium, a core material for nuclear weapons.

by Oh Young-hwan, Jeong Yong-su <myoja@joongang.co.kr>

-----

N Korea says US ‘red line’ can trigger war

The News International
December 04, 2004

http://jang.com.pk/thenews/dec2004-daily/04-12-2004/world/w2.htm

SEOUL: North Korea said the United States had no right to unilaterally set limits on Pyongyang’s nuclear activities and these "red line" limits could spark a war.

The term "red line" is used informally by diplomats from five countries involved in stalled negotiations aimed at dismantling the North’s nuclear programme to refer to actions by the North that could trigger a breakdown of the talks.

Analysts believe the North would breach the "red line" if it transferred nuclear weapons or a significant component of such a weapon out of the country.

"Now the US bellicose forces are going to make the red line the starting point of a war," the North’s main newspaper Rodong Sinmun said.

"The red line means a limit to the DPRK’s promotion of (the) nuclear programme unilaterally set by the US," Rodong Sinmun said in an article carried by the official KCNA news agency.

DPRK is the acronym for the North’s official name, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

The United States has pressured the North with "distorted rumours" about the nuclear issue, "threatening a military punishment," the newspaper said.

"This is aimed at provoking a second Korean War come what may, charging the DPRK with the possession of nuclear weapons and sponsorship of terrorism," it added.

"They (the US) had better stop crying for the North’s nuclear red line and make a switchover in its policy intended to stifle the DPRK," the newspaper said.

North Korea technically remains at war with South Korea as the 1950-53 Korean War ended in a truce and not a full peace treaty.

The United States has denied any intention to attack North Korea, but Pyongyang has demanded the withdrawal of what it called a hostile US policy before it would return to the nuclear talks.

North and South Korea, the United States, Japan, Russia and China have met for three rounds of the talks but made little substantive progress. A fourth round scheduled for September never materialised.

South Korea, China and the United States are picking up diplomatic efforts to restart the talks. They want an informal meeting of the six countries this month.

The United States has rejected the North’s demand for major energy and political concessions in return for abandoning the nuclear programme.

A senior US State Department official said in a statement in Seoul that North Korea must play by international rules.

The countries need to encourage the North "to honour international agreements, such as the NPT and its safeguards agreement with the IAEA", Director of Policy Planning Mitchell Reiss said, referring to the nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and the United Nations nuclear agency.

North Korea unilaterally pulled out of the NPT in January 2003 after expelling IAEA inspectors.

"North Korea cannot expect to be treated as a normal state unless and until it behaves like one," Reiss said.

-------- 

N. Korea and U.S. Met Twice This Week

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: December 4, 2004
Filed at 1:26 a.m. ET

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-North-Korea-US.html

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) -- North Korea on Saturday
said its U.N. diplomats met U.S. officials in New
York twice in the past week but concluded that
Pyongyang should hold off on nuclear negotiations
until the U.S. administration changes its
``hostile'' policy toward the country.

The report, from Pyongyang's official news agency
KCNA, said officials met on Tuesday and Friday.

``Our analysis of the results of the contact in
New York prompts us to judge that the U.S. side
showed no willingness to change its policy toward
us and intends to use the six-party talks as a
leverage for forcing us to dismantle all our
nuclear programs including the nuclear development
for a peaceful purpose first,'' a North Korean
spokesman was quoted as saying by KCNA.

Three rounds of six-nation talks aimed at
persuading the North to halt weapons development
have taken place since last year, but without a
breakthrough. North Korea boycotted a fourth round
scheduled for September, and analysts believed it
was holding out for a change in the White House.

North Korea contends that President Bush's
administration holds a ``hostile'' policy toward
Pyongyang.

North Korea wants to maintain nuclear facilities
for power generation and medical and agricultural
research but says it will abandon its nuclear
weapons development if the United States provides
economic compensation and security guarantees.

Washington has demanded an immediate dismantling
of all the North's nuclear activities.

Since Bush's November re-election, diplomacy has
resumed. Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Dai Bingguo
met in Washington with outgoing Secretary of State
Colin Powell on Thursday, and North Korea's
nuclear program was a key topic.

----

U.S., Allies in Flurry of Nuclear Talks

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: December 4, 2004
Filed at 10:29 a.m. ET

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Koreas-Talking-for-Talks.html

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) -- The key players in
international efforts to curb North Korea's
nuclear ambitions are picking up the pace in what
has become a protracted ritual of talking about
talks and discussing how to entice the North's
recalcitrant government back into negotiations.

But the communist North dug in Saturday, saying
its U.N. diplomats met U.S. officials in New York
on Tuesday and again on Friday but concluded that
Pyongyang should hold off on negotiations until
President Bush's administration changes
Washington's ``hostile'' policy toward Pyongyang.

``Our analysis of the results of the contact in
New York prompts us to judge that the U.S. side
showed no willingness to change its policy toward
us and intends to use the six-party talks as a
leverage for forcing us to dismantle all our
nuclear programs, including the nuclear
development for a peaceful purpose first,'' a
North Korean spokesman said, according to KCNA.

Three rounds of six-nation talks aimed at
persuading the North to halt weapons development
have taken place since last year, all without a
breakthrough. North Korea boycotted a fourth round
scheduled for September, and analysts believed it
was holding out for a change in the White House.

North Korea wants to maintain nuclear facilities
for power generation and medical and agricultural
research but says it will abandon its nuclear
weapons development if the United States provides
economic compensation and security guarantees,
including a peace treaty to replace an armistice
that ended the 1950-53 Korean War. Washington has
demanded an immediate dismantling of all the
North's nuclear activities.

``The U.S. should come out to replace the unstable
state of cease-fire with a durable peace mechanism
... to co-exist with the (North) if the bilateral
nuclear issue and other security issues are to be
fairly solved,'' KCNA said in another dispatch.

The American-led U.N. Command, which defended
South Korea during the war, signed a truce, not a
peace treaty, with North Korea at the end of the
war, leaving the Korean Peninsula technically
still at war.

Since Bush's November re-election, diplomacy has
resumed.

Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Dai Bingguo met in
Washington with outgoing Secretary of State Colin
Powell on Thursday, and North Korea's nukes were a
key topic.

Before Dai's trip, China sent its ambassador for
the nuclear dispute, Ning Fukui, to North Korea to
sound out the North on the issue.

South Korean Deputy Foreign Minister Lee Soo-hyuck
arrived in Washington Thursday, while President
Roh Moo-hyun, on a visit to London, urged that the
``six-party talks ... be reconvened as soon as
possible.''

On Saturday, North Korea said it was not in a
hurry.

``As the second Bush administration has not yet
emerged, we would like to wait a bit longer to
follow with patience what a policy it will
shape,'' the North Korean spokesman said.

The United States wants the fourth round of talks
to begin before February.

``The North Koreans hold the key to when the talks
will take place,'' said Lee Kyo-duk, a North Korea
expert at Seoul's Korea Institute for National
Unification. ``But they will wait until Bush
completes his lineups for his second-term
administration to have a clear picture of who they
will have to deal with.''

Paek Sung-joo, chief North Korea analyst at
Seoul's Korea Institute for Defense Analysis, said
talks would likely resume in the first quarter of
2005 but probably only on the condition that
Washington promises to resume free fuel oil
shipments to the energy-starved North.

The United States and its allies stopped those
shipments after Washington accused North Korea in
2002 of running a clandestine nuclear program.
North Korea retaliated by withdrawing from the
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and by restarting
its nuclear facilities frozen under a 1994 deal.

In Seoul on Friday, Mitchell B. Reiss, director of
policy planning at the State Department, urged
North Korea to change its strategy.

``The North likes to loudly declare that it is the
United States -- or Japan, or South Korea, or even
the United Nations -- that makes things hard for
North Korea,'' Reiss said in a speech. ``But the
leaders of North Korea need look no further than
their own choices to understand how they came to
their current predicament. They have cheated on
agreements.''



-------- missile defense

Ballistic Missile Defence = Space Weapons

Douglas Roche
4 December 2004

http://www.cndyorks.gn.apc.org/yspace/articles/bmd/bmd_equals_space_weapons.htm
 
Statement by Hon. Douglas Roche, Former Canadian Ambassador for Disarmament, to Council of Canadians, Victoria Chapter, Victoria, B.C., December 4, 2004, 1 pm.

The Canadian government must not be fooled by U.S. President Bush's assurance that the Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) system does not imply the weaponization of space.

This assurance given to Prime Minister Martin during the President's visit to Canada this week has as much credibility as President Bush's previous assertion that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.

The website of the Missile Defence Agency contains a clear statement of the intention to eventually include space-based interceptors in its arsenal. This program, currently called the Space-Based Interceptor Test Bed, was granted $10 million by Congress for 2005. More money will be sought in 2006 for additional experiments. By 2008, the U.S. intends to deploy a test bed of space-based kinetic-energy kill vehicles to destroy high- speed collision test targets in space.

Despite the President's verbal assurance, space-based missile defence is a real program with a real budget. The plan is for the Missile Defence Agency to orbit three to six interceptors for testing in 2012. Because kinetic-energy kill vehicles designed to intercept missiles could also function as anti-satellite weapons, other countries will feel compelled to develop means to counter these U.S. space weapons.

Prime Minister Martin has repeatedly said that Canada would not participate in the weaponization of space.

It is impossible for the Canadian government to join the BMD system and still proclaim that it opposes weapons in space. BMD, though starting with ground-based interceptors in Alaska, will evolve into a multi-layered system in space. The U.S. government states: "Over time, [the Missile Defence Agency's] acquisition approach will yield a fully integrated and layered BMDS capable of defeating ballistic missiles of all ranges in all phases of flight."

The Canadian government is playing with fire in trying to pretend that the U.S. BMD program will not lead to weapons in space and will not start a new nuclear arms race.

The French, Russian and Chinese governments have all told Ottawa that the U.S. program will re-start the nuclear arms race. On November 17, 2004, President Putin, in a speech to top ranking commanders of the Russian armed forces, confirmed that Russia is "carrying out research and missile tests of state-of-the-art nuclear missile systems," and that Russia would "continue to build up firmly and insistently our armed forces, including the nuclear component."

The majority of Canadians oppose ballistic missile defence because they understand that it will lead to great insecurity, not more security.

It is time for Canada to say no to BMD and start working harder to protect the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which shows the way to the complete elimination of nuclear weapons.

Contact: djroche@shaw.ca

----

Quebec Liberals reject Canadian participation in U.S. missile defence plan

Canadian Press
EILIS QUINN
Dec 4, 2004
	
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1845&ncid=737&e=3&u=/cpress/20041205/ca_pr_on_na/liberals_que_meeting

MONTREAL (CP) - The Quebec wing of the Liberal Party of Canada overwhelmingly adopted a resolution Saturday calling for Canada to abstain from participating in the American ballistic missile defence plan.

"I feel there is always a time where we have to take a stand and the Liberals from Quebec took a stand today," Liberal MP Denis Coderre told reporters.

But Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew cautioned that the resolution was just the beginning of the debate.

"The dialogue continues," Pettigrew said. "We will continue to work on (this)."

The issue will be debated at the party's national convention in March 2005 and Prime Minister Paul Martin has promised to put the divisive issue to a vote in the House of Commons.

In a speech last Wednesday in Halifax, U.S. President George W. Bush (news - web sites), encouraged Canada "to move forward on ballistic missile defence co-operation," a speech that ruffled the feathers of a number of Liberals.

Pablo Rodriguez, president of the party's Quebec wing, said Saturday's vote wouldn't cause fissures between Martin and Liberals in Quebec.

"We are against the missile shield but 100 per cent behind Mr. Martin," he said.

Meanwhile, Federal Transport Minister Jean Lapierre told reporters Saturday that he has ordered an investigation into missing airport uniforms Saturday and alerted Canada's airport screeners to double-check identification.

"Since 1 p.m. this afternoon, at the 89 airports across the country, we're double-checking the identification cards, not only when (employees) enter the premises, but also during the work shift," Lapierre said following the Saturday meeting.

His comments were in response to a report by CBC-TV's The National that hundreds of uniforms and badges worn by Canadian airport security screeners have gone missing in the months following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks despite heightened security.

Lapierre said Jacques Duchesneau, president of the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, will have results of the investigation by Monday when they will also be made public.

In the meantime, Lapierre said Canadians have nothing to worry about.

"When (employees) enter an airport, it has nothing to do with the uniform," he said. "It has to do with the identity card." 

--------

Bush Visit Leaves Canada's Leader With Missile Defense Dilemma

By CLIFFORD KRAUSS
December 4, 2004 NY TIMES

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/04/international/americas/04canada.html?oref=login&pagewanted=print&position=

TORONTO, Dec. 3 - In the wake of President Bush's visit to Canada this week, Prime Minister Paul Martin has been left in an embarrassing position over his hesitation to decide whether to join Washington's plans for a continental missile defense system.

The proposed system has emerged as the most disputed foreign policy issue facing Mr. Martin, one that could further weaken his government, which has shaky control over the House of Commons. He is trying to balance his desire to improve relations with the United States with his efforts to keep his party united and to strengthen his popularity in preparation for parliamentary elections as soon as next year.

Before Mr. Bush arrived in Ottawa, Mr. Martin's aides assured journalists that missile defense would not be a highlighted issue on an agenda concentrating on trade, border security and antiterrorism efforts.

Government officials were happy to douse expectations because missile defense divides the government's Liberal caucus in the House of Commons and is unpopular in public opinion polls, especially in Quebec, where Mr. Martin hopes to do better in the next parliamentary elections.

But when Mr. Bush on two occasions publicly urged Canada to join in building a missile defense system, the Canadian news media and opposition members of Parliament jumped on the issue as a crucial feature of a visit that otherwise accomplished no breakthroughs on trade or other matters. Shouting matches in the House of Commons and a series of ambiguous government statements have resulted.

How Canada might take part in a future missile defense system has not been defined publicly.

After a cabinet meeting on Thursday, Mr. Martin reiterated the long-held Canadian position opposing deployment of any weapons in space.

Describing his private talks with Mr. Bush, he said, "The president says it does not imply the weaponization of space." But he added that he would continuing consulting with the administration "to make sure that there is no weaponization of space."

Mr. Martin would not say when his government would decide on its involvement, which has been under consideration in Ottawa for at least two years.

Mr. Martin's statements came a day after the leader of the opposition New Democratic Party, Jack Layton, during a raucous session of the House of Commons, contended that following private talks with Mr. Bush and his senior aides, he had no doubt that a missile defense system would mean putting weapons in space.

"Will the prime minister say no to the Canadian flag on George Bush's missiles?" Mr. Layton asked.

-----

Missile Interceptor Set for Calif. Base

Saturday, December 4, 2004; Page A07

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A34160-2004Dec3?language=printer

The military will install a long-range missile interceptor in a silo at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., on Tuesday, the Pentagon said.

The interceptor is part of the Bush administration's missile defense program, designed to shoot down incoming ballistic missiles fired from North Korea or elsewhere in eastern Asia.

It is the first interceptor to be placed at Vandenberg. Six other interceptors are already in place at the primary site in Fort Greely, Alaska; the Vandenberg site will receive a second missile this month.

The multibillion-dollar system is still being tested. The military has no date set for activating the missile defenses but intends to put them on alert by the end of the year.

The system includes a tracking radar on the Aleutian island of Shemya in Alaska, an early-warning radar at Beale Air Force Base, Calif., and command centers at Colorado Springs and Fort Greely. 

--------

Ballistic Missile Defence = Space Weapons

  Statement by Hon. Douglas Roche, Former Canadian Ambassador for Disarmament, to Council of Canadians, Victoria Chapter, Victoria, B.C., December 4, 2004, 1 pm.

            The Canadian government must not be fooled by U.S. President Bush’s assurance that the Ballistic Missile Defence BMD) 
system does not imply the weaponization of space.

            This assurance given to Prime Minister Martin during the President’s visit to Canada this week has as much credibility as President Bush’s previous assertion that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.

            The website of the Missile Defence Agency contains a clear statement of the intention to eventually include space-based interceptors in its arsenal.  This program, currently called the Space-Based Interceptor Test Bed, was granted $10 million by Congress for 2005.  More money will be sought in 2006 for additional experiments.  By 2008, the U.S. intends to deploy a test bed of space-based kinetic-energy kill vehicles to destroy high-speed collision test targets in space.

            Despite the President’s verbal assurance, space-based missile defence is a real program with a real budget.  The plan is for the Missile Defence Agency to orbit three to six interceptors for testing in 2012.  Because kinetic-energy kill vehicles designed to intercept missiles could also function as anti-satellite weapons, other countries will feel compelled to develop means to counter these U.S. space weapons.

            Prime Minister Martin has repeatedly said that Canada would not participate in the weaponization of space.

            It is impossible for the Canadian government to 
join the BMD system and still proclaim that it opposes weapons in space.  BMD, though starting with ground-based interceptors in Alaska, will evolve into a multi-layered system in space.  The U.S. government states:  “Over time, [the Missile Defence Agency’s] acquisition approach will yield a fully integrated and layered BMDS capable of defeating ballistic missiles of all ranges in all phases of flight.”

            The Canadian government is playing with fire in trying to pretend that the U.S. BMD program will not lead to weapons in space and will not start a new nuclear arms race.

            The French, Russian and Chinese governments have all told Ottawa that the U.S. program will re-start the nuclear arms race.  On November 17, 2004, President Putin, in a speech to top ranking commanders of the Russian armed forces, confirmed that Russia is “carrying out research and missile tests of state-of-the-art nuclear missile systems,” and that Russia would “continue to build up firmly and insistently our armed forces, including the nuclear component.”

            The majority of Canadians oppose ballistic missile defence because they understand that it will lead to great insecurity, not more security.

            It is time for Canada to say no to BMD and start working harder to protect the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which shows the way to the complete elimination of nuclear weapons.

Contact:  djroche@shaw.ca <mailto:djroche@shaw.ca>

Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD, MEd
ICIS-Institute for Cooperation in Space
Email: alw@peaceinspace.com <mailto:alw@peaceinspace.com>
CAMPAIGN: http://www.peaceinspace.org
SIGN OUR U.N. PETITION: 
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/832338563



-------- terrorism

Are we prepared for the unthinkable?

Long Beach Press Telegram
By Denny Freidenrich
December 04, 2004

http://www.presstelegram.com/Stories/0,1413,204~21479~2576684,00.html

I don't care what color threat people are living under these days, the recent news out of Washington is frighteningly red-hot: (a) the nation's first responders still aren't prepared for a bioterrorist attack; and (b) the president's 2005 budget calls for funding cuts in state and local preparedness as well as hospital bio-preparedness.

Given what is, or isn't, happening in places like Iraq, Iran and Korea, some military experts believe America actually could be more vulnerable now to an attack than before Sept. 11, 2001. If this is true, then I suppose it makes sense to continue vaccinating people against smallpox.

What's not exactly clear is this: Should I die from smallpox - or be vaporized in a nuclear explosion brought on by some terrorist cell - will my life insurance company pay out on my policy? In other words, will my beneficiaries receive any money? Notwithstanding the hundreds of millions of dollars donated to the victims' families after 9/11, has anyone thought through the economic implications of such a disaster?

In a backhanded way, the answer is yes. Harvard security analyst Graham Allison has in his new book, "Nuclear Terrorism."

According to Allison, if a 10-kiloton bomb were exploded in Long Beach, for example, "No survivors would be found amid nearly 100 square blocks, and buildings in about 400 square blocks would be totally destroyed or left looking like the Oklahoma City federal building after it was crushed by one truck bomb." This means a bomb dropped at the intersection of Ocean and Pine, would wipe out everyone living between the Queen Mary and Second Street.

Allison and others agree that the most likely form of nuclear terrorism is a "dirty bomb," where radioactive material is scattered by a conventional explosive or perhaps an attack on a nuclear reactor.

"The gravest danger, however, and the one requiring the most urgent attention, is the possibility that terrorists could obtain highly enriched uranium or plutonium for use in an improvised nuclear device," according to Senate Foreign Relations Committee chair Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) and former Sen. Sam Nunn, now head of the nonprofit Nuclear Threat Initiative.

Charles Burress, a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer, reports the Lugar and Nunn warning "comes in the opening pages of another sobering new book, 'The Four Faces of Nuclear Terrorism," from the Center for Nonproliferation Studies in Monterey, the nation's largest nongovernmental organization focusing exclusively on nonproliferation issues. Based on a two-year study, the book says terrorist organizations are now able to build crude nuclear bombs."

It truly is hideous to think of oneself as a casualty of war; still, it is necessary to be prepared. With this thought in mind, I wonder about other life insurance policyholders. What will happen, heaven forbid, if 10,000 people perish in a day? Left unchecked, one dirty bomb could end up being responsible for 70,000 deaths in a week or 300,000 in a month.

Talk about your proverbial run on the banks. Victims stacked up in makeshift morgues would be a catastrophe for health care workers. The financial meltdown insurance companies would experience would be catastrophic. If the average life insurance payout is $100,000, this could equal - get this - as much as $30 billion in one month or nearly a third of a trillion dollars in a year.

Since I barely passed Econ. 101 in college, I'm clearly not smart enough to know where this kind of money will come from. All I know is it will be virtually impossible to make good on such a staggering amount all at once.

According to the Northwestern Mutual Financial Network, 165 million Americans, or more than 75 percent of all households, depend on life insurance for their financial security and retirement. In the late 1990s, U.S. life insurance companies paid an estimated $44 billion to beneficiaries of deceased policyholders.

With its $1 trillion of life insurance coverage in force, what will Prudential do if a million American policyholders die from a toxic bomb explosion? Ditto for Jackson National, Guardian, Pacific Life and the rest of the big insurance companies.

When I took out my life insurance policy years ago, most people - including this particular policyholder - had never heard the term bioterrorism. Today, people casually talk about it over cocktails.

If, as the president has said, we are all soldiers in the long fight against terrorism, then isn't it equally clear we are all potential victims of war? Given their exclusionary practices of the past, life insurance companies typically haven't paid out policyholders killed in battle. Does anyone think they will voluntarily reverse course and pay out zillions of dollars if it comes to that?

Now that the 2004 election is over, my hope is President Bush will turn his attention to this impending financial disaster. With basic life insurance protections in place, there is no question in my mind that tens of millions of patriots will line up to fight the good fight. Absent these basic protections, I wonder how long Americans will soldier on in the fight against terrorism?

A former congressional staff assistant, Denny Freidenrich is a founder of First Strategies consulting of Laguna Beach.



-------- u.n.

UN nuclear chief angrily denies charges of collaboration with Iran

VIENNA (AFP)
Dec 04, 2004

http://www.spacewar.com/2004/041204220756.b4lkqrz2.html

UN nuclear chief Mohamed ElBaradei angrily denied Saturday charges he had collaborated with Iran ahead of publishing written reports on his investigation of the Islamic Republic's controversial nuclear program.

"We never show a report to any single member" of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), "not the least of course an inspected country," ElBaradei told AFP in a telephone interview.

ElBaradei was reacting to news reports that he had heeded Iranian demands to drop mentions of IAEA requests to visit the Parchin military site and Iran's use of the strategically sensitive metal beryllium in a report he had made to the IAEA board on September 1.

AFP had in September quoted a US official as saying the IAEA had dropped the mention of Parchin in the written report, as well as a reference to concern about Iran's work with beryllium.

The United States wants the IAEA to take Iran to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions for what Washington says is a covert nuclear weapons program but ElBaradei says the "jury is still out" on whether Tehran's program is peaceful or not.

Diplomats said there were elements in the administration of US President George W. Bush who feel ElBaradei, who is Egyptian and a Muslim, is too soft on Iran and oppose his winning a third term in 2005 as IAEA chief.

The official US position is that heads of international organizations should not serve more than two terms, as ElBaradei will have done by next year.

ElBaradei said it was a "gutter accusation" to accuse him of an Islamist bias.

He said whether a country he works on "is Muslim or Buddhist makes not an iota of difference," especially since IAEA reports are a "collective process" involving international teams of experts.

"All the Arab, Israeli, US, North Korean, Iraqi and Iranian media are criticizing me at one point or another and this just might show that we are doing the right thing," ElBaradei said, referring also to IAEA investigations of North Korea and Iraq's nuclear programs.

A US official has told AFP that a draft copy of the September IAEA report was actually given ahead of time to the Iranians, in order for them to suggest changes, in comments echoed by a diplomat from another IAEA member country.

ElBaradei also characterized this as a "gutter accusation."

"We don't leak to any single person outside the 10 or 20 people who are involved in the process," of drafting reports at IAEA headquarters in Vienna, ElBaradei said.

He said the IAEA did not "even discuss" the report ahead of time with Iran beyond technical requests for information.

The IAEA has issued seven written reports on Iran in an investigation which began in Febuary 2003. The reports are filed ahead of IAEA board of governors meetings that decide how tough the agency will be on Tehran over its nuclear program.

ElBaradei said items like Parchin and the question of beryllium metal do not make it to his reports until they are ready.

ElBaradei said the last report on Iran, a 28-page document released on November 15, contained "every piece of relevant information."

Iran is still refusing to allow IAEA inspectors to visit the Parchin military site, 30 kilometres (18 miles) southwest of Tehran, although ElBaradei said he expected the visit to take place soon.

US officials have said the Iranians may be testing in Parchin "high-explosive shaped charges with an inert core of depleted uranium" as a dry test for how a bomb with fissile material would work.

Beryllium has civilian applications but can also be used in combination with polonium, another metal, to make a neutron trigger for a nuclear bomb.

--------

Trashing the IAEA Again

Antiwar.com
by Gordon Prather
December 4, 2004

http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=4110

When asked about the passage last week of the International Atomic Energy Agency Resolution on the implementation of its Safeguards agreement with Iran, President Bush replied

"The Iranians agreed to suspend – but not terminate – their nuclear weapons program. Our position is they ought to terminate their nuclear weapons program."

What nuclear weapons program? The Iranians vehemently deny that they have – or ever had or intend to have – a nuclear weapons program.

Nevertheless, the neo-crazies – in and out of government – have been working overtime to convince you that Iran does have an active nuke program.

The neo-crazies all hope that you don't know that the IAEA has just finished a two-year go-anywhere, see-anything search – similar to the one they were conducting in Iraq in the months before Bush "preemptively" launched Gulf War II – for evidence of a nuke program.

The IAEA search was intrusive and exhaustive. They investigated every intelligence tip made to them, no matter how unreliable the source. They even investigated tips passed on to them by the Pentagon. The whole world now knows how unreliable those tips can be.

Result in Iran? The IAEA found no evidence whatsoever of a nuke program.

The IAEA came close to thwarting the neo-crazies in Iraq, giving the lie to their reports of a revitalized Iraqi nuke program. The IAEA may well thwart them in Iran.

So, Bush is continuing the propaganda campaign to discredit the IAEA – with respect to the effectiveness of their Safeguarded programs in North Korea, Iraq, and now Iran – that the neo-crazies began shortly after the end of the Gulf War I.

Perhaps it would help you decide whether Bush is attempting to deceive you – or is simply illiterate – to read, for yourself, excerpts from that IAEA resolution:

"(c) Noting specifically the Director General's assessment that Iranian practices up to October 2003 resulted in many breaches of Iran's obligations to comply with its Safeguards Agreement, but that good progress has been made since that time in Iran's correction of those breaches and in the Agency's ability to confirm certain aspects of Iran's current declarations,

"(d) Also noting specifically the Director General's assessment that all the declared nuclear material in Iran has been accounted for, and that such material is not diverted to prohibited activities, but that the Agency is not yet in a position to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran,

"(e) Recalling the Board's previous requests to Iran to suspend all enrichment related and reprocessing activities as a voluntary confidence building measure, [...]

"(h) Recognizing that this suspension is a voluntary confidence building measure, not a legal obligation,

"(i) Recognizing the right of states to the development and practical application of atomic energy for peaceful purposes, including the production of electric power, consistent with their Treaty obligations, with due consideration for the needs of the developing countries,
"(j) Stressing the need for effective safeguards to prevent nuclear material being used for prohibited purposes, in contravention of agreements, and underlining the vital importance of effective safeguards for facilitating cooperation in the field of nuclear energy, [...]

"1. Welcomes the fact that Iran has decided to continue and extend its suspension of all enrichment related and reprocessing activities, and underlines that the full and sustained implementation of this suspension, which is a voluntary, non-legally-binding, confidence building measure, to be verified by the Agency, is essential to addressing outstanding issues;

"2. Welcomes the Director General's statements of 25 and 29 November 2004 that the above decision has been put into effect, and requests the Director General to continue verifying that the suspension remains in place and to inform Board members should the suspension not be fully sustained, or should the Agency be prevented from verifying all elements of the suspension, for as long as the suspension is in force;

"3. Welcomes Iran's continuing voluntary commitment to act in accordance with the provisions of the Additional Protocol, as a confidence building measure that facilitates the resolution of the questions that have arisen, and calls on Iran once again to ratify its Protocol soon. ..."

Bush to the contrary, there is no mention anywhere in the Resolution of a "nuclear weapons program," either in Iran or elsewhere. And there is no suggestion that Iran is not now in full compliance with its existing Safeguards Agreement.

On the contrary, the resolution acknowledges that Iran has voluntarily suspended – as a confidence-building measure – activities that it has an inalienable right to pursue under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.


-------- MILITARY 


-------- arms 

Schroeder rapped for call to lift China arms ban

BERLIN (AFP)
Dec 04, 2004

http://www.spacewar.com/2004/041204134132.63e9jut7.html

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder came under fire Saturday for favouring the lifting of the European arms embargo on China against the wishes of the German and European parliaments.

Christa Nickels, head of the Bundestag's human rights commission, said Schroeder, who begins a visit to China Sunday, should not defy parliamentary opinion, in an interview with the Berliner Zeitung daily.

"If our chancellor announces something while he is abroad which goes against the vote of his own parliament he discredits the concept of separation of powers," she said, adding: "This would not really be the promotion of democracy."

Nickels conceded that China had made progress since the embargo was slapped on in the wake of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, but the ruling coalition of Schroeder's Social Democrats and the Greens had made respect for human rights an obligation for arms exports.

The Bundestag voted at the end of October in favour of the embargo being maintained and was followed by the European parliament in mid-November.

Other EU countries, notably France, want the ban lifted, and government sources said Schroeder would also press for it in discussions with his European counterparts.

Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman Zhang Qiyue said Thursday: "This is a very solemn, serious political issue. We think it's for the EU to make an early and appropriate decision. ... It's not for the Chinese side to make any concessions."

Schroeder will meet in China with President Hu Jintao and Prime Minister Wen Jiabao, who will also travel to the Netherlands on December 8 for an annual China-EU meeting.

China, unable to purchase advanced weapons from the United States, wants to buy them from Europe and countries such as France and Germany are believed to want to cash in on such trade. The Chinese government spends heavily on military hardware.

Zhang argued Thursday that China and the EU have had "fruitful and effective" dialogue on human rights.

It was "natural" for the two sides to have differences on human rights but those differences could be resolved through dialogue instead, she said.

The ban was "incompatible with the reality of our strategic partnership" and resolving the issue will benefit the development of China-EU relations, she said.

-----

Musharraf discusses F-16 fighter jet deal with Bush

WASHINGTON (AFP)

Dec 04, 2004

http://www.spacewar.com/2004/041204220117.cndj98l8.html

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf said Saturday he discussed with US President George W. Bush a potential purchase of US F-16 fighter jets to upgrade the defense capability of his country.

"We discussed the F-16 issue," Musharraf told reporters outside the White House after his meeting with the US leader.

"That is all I would like to say, thank you," he added in a terse comment when asked about the prospective US sale of the fighter jets.

Musharraf, a key ally in Bush's "war on terror," did not say whether any decision was made at the meeting.

Bush, speaking in the Oval Office along Musharraf, said the United States wanted to work closely with Pakistan in the defense arena as part of an overall relationship covering joint efforts to battle terrorism, improve trade and resolve the Middle East conflict.

The US leader spoke of "a defense relationship which is one in which there is close collaboration and complementary efforts based upon the true threats of the 21st century."

Musharraf also met with outgoing Secretary of State Colin Powell who said "there's always the issue about F-16s but no decisions were made at the meetings today."

Powell said he spoke with Musharraf about India, adding: "they are talking to each other, and that's good compared to where they were two years ago."

Musharraf has won Bush's firm alliance since he sided with Washington to oust Afghanistan's Taliban rulers, originally backed by Pakistan, after the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Pakistan is now in the frontline of the global crackdown on terrorism, and its security forces have captured some 600 Al-Qaeda suspects in the past three years.

Pakistan reportedly wants to buy up to 25 of the F-16s, which cost around 25 million dollars each, by mid-2005 to add another squadron of such planes to the nuclear-armed nation's existing fleet.

Pakistani officials said earlier that Musharraf would raise defense needs when he met with Bush, but the White House had downplayed any imminent F-16 deal at the talks.

Any defense sales to Pakistan will be watched closely by its nuclear-armed archrival India, which has reportedly expressed interest in buying the US Patriot missile system that can defend against ballistic and cruise missiles and aircraft.

Some critics in the South Asian nations have raised concerns that the potential arms sales could further fuel a regional arms race and political instability while the two rivals hold delicate peace talks to resolve the thorny Kashmir dispute.

Pakistan has a long-standing military rivalry with India, with which it has fought three wars since independence from Britain in 1947.

The US Senate late Saturday approved a 388-billion-dollar budget which includes military aid to Pakistan and its war-torn neighbor Afghanistan.

The allocation of 300 million dollars for Pakistan is designed to bolster the capabilities of its armed forces in hunting down suspected Al-Qaeda members along the Afghan-Pakistani border.

The military aid approval follows notification by US defense officials of a possible 1.3-billion-dollar arms package for Pakistan.

The package includes eight P-3C Orion planes to beef up surveillance of its coasts and borders to stop the movement of terrorists and drug smugglers, US defense officials had said.

It would be the largest US foreign military sale to Pakistan since sanctions against Islamabad were lifted in late 2001 as a reward for supporting US forces fighting Taliban and Al-Qaeda forces in Afghanistan.



-------- balkans

Ex-Rebel Named Premier In Kosovo

Associated Press
By Fisnik Abrashi
December 4, 2004

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A33551-2004Dec3?language=printer

PRISTINA, Serbia-Montenegro, Dec. 3 -- Kosovo lawmakers named a former rebel commander as prime minister of their new government Friday, ignoring concerns that a U.N. war crimes tribunal might indict him.

Ramush Haradinaj, an ethnic Albanian, dismissed the possibility of war crimes charges and pledged to prepare the U.N.-administered Serbian province for what he called the "great challenge" of its future.

The 120-seat parliament voted 72 to 3 to make Haradinaj prime minister. Many members abstained, most of them from the second-biggest party, the rival Democratic Party of Kosovo.

Kosovo Serbs, who boycotted the vote, say Haradinaj is responsible for wartime atrocities committed against Serb civilians in western Kosovo.

Some governments have also voiced concern about the post going to Haradinaj, fearing that an indictment could destabilize the province and hinder normalization.

Kosovo has been administered by the United Nations since June 1999, following a U.S.-led NATO air war that halted a crackdown by Serb forces on ethnic Albanians seeking independence. Ethnic Albanians make up 90 percent of Kosovo's 2 million people.

U.N. investigators recently questioned Haradinaj about his role during the 1998-99 war, when he was the commander of the Kosovo Liberation Army militia in the western part of the province. Serbs in Kosovo and politicians in Serbia consider him the most notorious of the former rebel commanders in the province and have repeatedly insisted he be brought to justice.

Haradinaj, 36, said the possibility of indictment amounted to mere speculation.

"I consider that there is no case against me," he said before his election.

Also Friday, the parliament certified the victory of President Ibrahim Rugova's party in last month's general elections by reelecting him as president.

Formation of the new government follows a coalition deal struck between Rugova's Democratic League of Kosovo, which won 45 percent of the vote, and Haradinaj's Alliance for the Future of Kosovo, which came in third with 8 percent.

The new Kosovo government is likely to represent the province in talks aimed at resolving its final status. Negotiations are expected to begin in mid-2005 if there is progress by then in improving governance, the economy and human rights.



-------- chemical weapons

Pentagon Says Insurgents Had Chemicals Lab

Associated Press
December 4, 2004

http://asia.news.yahoo.com/041204/ap/d86ogjb80.html

A chemical weapons laboratory that U.S. forces found last week in Fallujah as they chased out insurgents had chemicals and other paraphernalia to make deadly hydrogen cyanide, Pentagon officials said Friday.

The Americans also found what Army Brig. Gen. David Rodriquez called "a mujahedeen chemical and biological book" outlining instructions and formulas for anthrax, chemical blood agents and explosive materials.

Iraq's national security adviser, Qassem Dawoud, reported the find Nov. 25. He said in Baghdad, Iraq's capital, that the laboratory was discovered in the southwestern sector of Fallujah, where pockets of insurgents were holding out against Marines who entered the rebellious city on Nov. 8.

Rodriquez told reporters Friday that the lab's chemicals, including sodium cyanide and hydrochloric acid, which if combined could be used to make hydrogen cyanide. That is a potentially lethal chemical agent.

Other officials said later the significance of the discoveries was not yet clear.

Rodriquez said other materials and documents found in Fallujah over the past few weeks, including insurgents' lists of telephone numbers, will aid U.S. and Iraqi forces in their pursuit of the insurgents elsewhere in Iraq.

"All that information that we gained out there we believe will help us in the future," he said. He said information might show "what is happening with the insurgency and how they operate." 



-------- iraq

Letter from a GI in Falluja: "This wasn't a war, it was a massacre"
	 
Socialist Worker online  	  	 
by hEkLe
December 04, 2004 	 

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=6791

[THE FOLLOWING letter from a U.S. soldier stationed in Iraq, known as hEkLe, powerfully conveys the terror of the U.S. assault on Falluja. It was published in GI Special, a daily Internet newsletter that gathers news and information helpful to soldiers and military families. You can find an archive of the GI Special updated with each new issue at www.militaryproject.org. hEkLe and several fellow soldiers have a Web log that they regularly update with essays at www.ftssoldier.blogspot.com.]

THESE ARE ugly times for the U.S. military in Iraq. It seems everywhere you turn, more and more troops are being killed and maimed in vicious encounters with determined rebel fighters.

The insurgency is mounting incredibly in such places as Baghdad, Mosul and Baquba, using more advanced techniques and weaponry associated with a well-organized guerilla campaign. Even in the massively destroyed city of Falluja, rebel forces are starting to reappear with a callous determination to win or die trying. Many critics and political pundits are starting to realize that this war is, in many aspects, un-winnable.

And why should anyone think that a complete victory is possible? Conventionally, our U.S. forces win territory here or there, killing a plethora of civilians as well as insurgents with each new boundary conquered. However, such as the recent case in Falluja, the rebel fighters have returned like a swarm of angry hornets, attacking with a vicious frenzy.

I was in Falluja during the last two days of the final assault.

My mission was much different from that of the brave and weary infantry and Marines involved in the major fighting.

I was on an escort mission, accompanied by a squad whose task it was to protect a high brass figure in the combat zone.

This particularly arrogant officer went to the last battle in the same spirit of an impartial spectator checking out the fourth quarter of a high school football game.

Once we got to the Marine-occupied Camp Falluja and saw artillery being fired into town, the man suddenly became desperate to play an active role in the battle that would render Falluja to ashes. It was already rumored that all he really wanted was his trigger time, perhaps to prove that he is the toughest cowboy west of the Euphrates.

Guys like him are a dime a dozen in the army: a career soldier who spent the first 20 years of his service patrolling the Berlin Wall or guarding the DMZ between North and South Korea. This sort of brass may have been lucky to serve in the first Gulf War, but in all actuality spent very little time shooting rag heads.

For these trigger-happy tough guys, the last two decades of Cold War hostilities built into a war frenzy of stark emptiness, fizzling out almost completely with the Clinton administration.

But this is the New War, a never-ending, action-packed "Red Scare" in which the communist threat of yesteryear was simply replaced with the white knuckled tension of today's "war on terrorism."

The younger soldiers who grew up in relatively peaceful times interpret the mentality of the careerists as one of making up for lost opportunities. To the elder generation of trigger pullers, this is the real deal; the chance to use all the cool toys and high speed training that has been stored away since the '70s for something tangibly useful...and it's about goddamn time.

HOWEVER, UPON reaching the front lines, a safety standard was in effect stating that the urban combat was extremely intense. The lightest armored vehicles allowed in sector were Bradley tanks.

Taking a glance at our armored humvees, this commander insisted that our section would be fine. Even though the armored humvees are very stout and nearly impenetrable against small-arms fire, they usually don't hold up well against rocket attacks and roadside bombs, like a heavily armored tank will. The reports from within the war zone indicated heavy rocket attacks, with an armed insurgent waiting on every corner for a soft target such as trucks.

In the end, the overzealous officer was urged not to infiltrate into sector with only three trucks, for it would be a death wish during those dangerous twilight hours. It was suggested that in the morning, after the air strikes were complete, he could move in and "inspect the damage."

Even as the sun was setting over the hazy orange horizon, artillery was pounding away at the remaining 12 percent of the already devastated Falluja.

Many units were pulled out for the evening in preparation of a full-scale air strike that was scheduled to last for up to 12 hours.

Our squad was sitting on top of our parked humvees, manning the crew-served machine guns and scanning the urban landscape for enemy activity. This was supposed to be a secured forward operating area, right on the edge of the combat zone. However, with no barbed wire perimeter set up and only a few scattered tanks serving as protection, one was under the assumption that if someone missed a minor detail while on guard, some serious shit could go down.

One soldier informed me that only two nights prior, an insurgent was caught sneaking around the bullet-ridden houses to our immediate west. He was armed with a rocket-propelled grenade and was laying low on his advance towards the perimeter. One of the tanks spotted him through its night vision and hastily shot him into three pieces. Indeed, though it was safe enough to smoke a cigarette and relax, one had to remain diligently aware of his surroundings if he planned on making it through the night.

As the evening wore on and the artillery continued, a new gruesome roar filled the sky.

The fighter jets were right on time and made their grand appearance with a series of massive air strikes. Between the pernicious bombs and fierce artillery, the sky seemed as though it were on fire for several minutes at a time. First, you would see a blaze of light in the horizon, like lightning hitting a dynamite warehouse, and then hear the massive explosion that would turn your stomach, rattle your eyeballs and compress itself deep within your lungs. Although these massive bombs were being dropped no further than five kilometers away, it felt like it was happening right in front of your face.

At first, it was impossible not to flinch with each unexpected boom, but after scores of intense explosions, your senses became aware and complacent towards them.

At times, the jets would scream menacingly low over the city and open fire with smaller missiles meant for extreme accuracy. This is what Top Gun, in all its glory and silver screen acclaim, seemed to be lacking in the movie's high budget sound effects.

These air-deployed missiles make a banshee-like squeal, sort of like a bottle rocket fueled with plutonium, and then suddenly would become inaudible. Seconds later, the colossal explosion would rip the sky open and hammer devastatingly into the ground, sending flames and debris pummeling into the air.

And as always, the artillery--some rounds were high explosive, some were illumination rounds, some were reported as being white phosphorus (the modern-day napalm).

Occasionally, on the outskirts of the isolated impact area, you could hear tanks firing machine guns and blazing their cannons. It was amazing that anything could survive this deadly onslaught. Suddenly, a transmission came over the radio approving the request for "bunker-busters." Apparently, there were a handful of insurgent compounds that were impenetrable by artillery. At the time, I was unaware when these bunker-busters were deployed, but I was told later that the incredibly massive explosions were a direct result of these "final solution"-type missiles.

I continued to watch the final assault on Falluja throughout the night from atop my humvee.

It was interesting to scan the vast skies above with night-vision goggles. Circling continuously overhead throughout the battle was an array of attack helicopters. The most devastating were the Cobras and Apaches with their chain-gun missile launchers.

Through the night vision, I could see them hovering around the carnage, scanning the ground with an infrared spotlight that seemed to reach for miles. Once a target was identified, a rapid series of hollow blasts would echo through the skies, and from the ground came a "rat-a-tatting" of explosions, like a daisy chain of supercharged black cats during a Fourth of July barbeque.

More artillery, more tanks, more machine gun fire, ominous death-dealing fighter planes terminating whole city blocks at a time...this wasn't a war, it was a massacre!

AS I look back on the air strikes that lasted well into the next morning, I cannot help but be both amazed by our modern technology and disgusted by its means.

It occurred to me many times during the siege that while the Falluja resistance was boldly fighting us with archaic weapons from the Cold War, we were soaring far above their heads, dropping Thor's fury with a destructive power and precision that may as well been nuclear. It was like the Iraqis were bringing a knife to a tank fight.

And yet, the resistance toiled on, many fighting until their deaths. What determination!

Some soldiers call them stupid for even thinking they have a chance in hell to defeat the strongest military in the world, but I call them brave. It's not about fighting to win an immediate victory. And what is a conventional victory in a non-conventional war?

It seems overwhelmingly obvious that this is no longer within the United States hands.

We reduced Falluja to rubble. We claimed victory and told the world we held Falluja under total and complete control. Our military claimed very few civilian casualties and listed thousands of insurgents dead. CNN and Fox News harped and cheered on the television that the battle of Falluja would go down in history as a complete success, and a testament to the United States' supremacy on the modern battlefield.

However, after the dust settled, and generals sat in cozy offices smoking their victory cigars, the front lines in Falluja exploded again with indomitable mortar, rocket, and small-arm attacks on U.S. and coalition forces.

Recent reports indicate that many insurgents have resurfaced in the devastated city of Falluja. We had already claimed the situation under control and were starting to turn our attention to the other problem city of Mosul. Suddenly, we were backtracking our attention to Falluja. Did the Department of Defense and the national press lie to the public and claim another preemptive victory?

Not necessarily so. Conventionally, we won the battle--how could anyone argue that? We destroyed an entire city and killed thousands of its occupants. But the main issue that both the military and public forget to analyze is that this war, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is completely guerrilla.

Sometimes I wonder if the West Point-graduated officers have ever studied the intricate simplicity and effectiveness of guerrilla warfare.

During the course of this war, I have occasionally asked a random lieutenant or a captain if he at any time has even browsed through Che Guevara's Guerrilla Warfare. Almost half of them admit that they have not. This I find to be amazing! Here we have many years of guerrilla warfare ahead of us, and our military's leadership seems dangerously unaware of what it all means!

Anyone can tell you that a guerrilla fighter is one who uses hit-and-run techniques to attempt a breakdown of a stronger conventional force.

However, what is more important to a guerrilla campaign are the political forces that drive it. Throughout history, many guerrilla armies have been successful; our own country and its fight for independence cannot be excluded.

We should have learned a lesson in guerrilla fighting with the Vietnam War only 30 years ago, but history has a funny way of repeating itself. The Vietnam War was a perfect example of how quick, deadly assaults on conventional troops over a long period of time can lead to an unpopular public view of the war, thus ending it.

Che Guevara stressed in his book Guerrilla Warfare that the most important factor in a guerrilla campaign is popular support. With that, victory is almost completely assured.

The Iraqis already have many of the main ingredients of a successful insurrection. Not only do they have a seemingly endless supply of munitions and weapons, they have the advantage to blend into their environment, whether that environment is a crowded marketplace or a thickly vegetated palm grove.

The Iraqi insurgent has utilized these advantages to the fullest, but his most important and relevant advantage is the popular support from his own countrymen.

What our military and government needs to realize is that every mistake we make is an advantage to the Iraqi insurrection. Every time an innocent man, woman or child is murdered in a military act, deliberate or not, the insurgent grows stronger.

Even if an innocent civilian is slain at the hands of his or her own freedom fighter, that fighter is still viewed as a warrior of the people, while the occupying force will ultimately be blamed as the responsible perpetrator.

Everything about this war is political...every ambush, every bombing, every death. When a coalition worker or soldier is abducted and executed, this only adds encouragement and justice to the dissident fervor of the Iraq public, while angering and demoralizing the occupier.

Our own media will prove to be our downfall as well. Every time an atrocity is revealed through our news outlets, our grasp on this once secular nation slips away. As America grows increasingly disturbed by the images of carnage and violent death of her own sons in arms, its government loses the justification to continue the bloody debacle.

Since all these traits are the conventional power's unavoidable mistakes, the guerrilla campaign will surely succeed.

In Iraq's case, complete destruction of the United States military is impossible, but through perseverance, the insurgency will drive us out. This will prove to be the inevitable outcome of the war.

WE LOST many soldiers in the final battle for Falluja, and many more were seriously wounded. It seems unfair that even after the devastation we wreaked on this city just to contain it, many more troops will die in vain to keep it that way.

I saw the look in the eyes of a reconnaissance scout while I talked to him after the battle. His stories of gore and violent death were unnerving. The sacrifices that he and his whole platoon had made were infinite. They fought every day with little or no sleep, very few breaks and no hot meals.

For obvious reasons, they never could manage to find time to e-mail their mothers to let them know that everything turned out okay.

Some of the members of his platoon will never get the chance to reassure their mothers, because now, those soldiers are dead.

The look in his eyes as he told some of the stories were deep and weary, even perturbed. He described in accurate detail how some enemy combatants were blown to pieces by army-issued bazookas, some had their heads shot off by a 50 caliber bullet, others were run over by tanks as they stood defiantly in the narrow streets, firing an AK-47.

The soldier told me how one of his favorite sergeants died right in front of him. He was taking cover behind an alley wall, and as he emerged to fire his M4 rifle, he was shot through the abdomen with a rocket-propelled grenade.

The grenade itself exploded and sent shrapnel into the narrator's leg. He showed me where a chunk of burned flesh was torn from his left thigh.

He ended his conversation saying that he was just a dumb kid from California who never thought joining the army would send him straight to hell. He told me he was tired as fuck and wanted a shower. Then he slowly walked away, cradling a rifle under his arm.

[This article was reprinted from the Socialist Worker online, Dec. 3, 2004.]



-------- russia / chechnya

Putin Accuses U.S. Of Double Standard

Saturday, December 4, 2004; Page A20

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A33998-2004Dec3?language=printer

NEW DELHI -- Russian President Vladimir Putin sharply criticized the United States on Friday, accusing it of a double standard in fighting terrorism and questioning whether any election in Iraq can be democratic when fighting is raging in the country.

Putin, who has been angered by U.S. and European denunciations of the Ukrainian election as tainted by fraud, began a three-day visit to India with continued criticism of Washington, saying it sought a "dictatorship of international affairs."

"Even if dictatorship is wrapped up in a beautiful package of pseudo-democratic phraseology, it will not be in a position to solve systemic problems," Russia's Itar-Tass news agency quoted him as saying in a speech Friday night in New Delhi.

Putin, who has been critical of the United States for going to war without international approval, warned that the fighting in Iraq was threatening an election slated for Jan. 30. "All this will definitely call in question the possibility of holding honest and democratic elections in Iraq early next year," he said.

Putin and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh signed a joint declaration that called for ending "political expediency" in the global fight against terrorism. The declaration made no reference to any country.

But in an interview with a Hindu newspaper, Putin said the United States and European nations practiced double standards by allowing into their countries some Chechen rebels whom Moscow considers to be terrorists.


-------- POLITICS

Rumsfeld agrees to stay on as defense chief

THE WASHINGTON TIMES
By Bill Sammon
December 04, 2004

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041203-104803-8209r.htm

President Bush has persuaded Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to stay on amid criticism of the postwar situation in Iraq, a steady presence in a Cabinet undergoing a wholesale makeover.

    Word of Mr. Rumsfeld's agreement yesterday to continue to run the Pentagon came just hours after Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson became the eighth of 15 Cabinet members to announce his resignation, senior administration officials said.

    "These are challenging times — we are a nation at war and it's critical we win this war," one official said. "Secretary Rumsfeld, the president believes, is the right person for the job.

    "He has proven himself to be a strong leader during these times of challenge," added the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "And the president's pleased that he agreed to stay."

    Mr. Rumsfeld, 72, became a lightning rod for the president's critics on the left, especially with the rocky transition toward a free government in Iraq since a U.S.-led military coalition toppled dictator Saddam Hussein.

    The defense secretary earlier garnered widespread admiration on both sides of the aisle for his passion for modernizing the military and, after the September 11 attacks, the relatively smooth allied victory over the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

    However, Mr. Rumsfeld's handling of the war in Iraq has been criticized repeatedly, including Democratic assertions that he failed to plan properly for the postwar transition. He also has been blamed for abuses at U.S. prisons in Iraq, Afghanistan and U.S. Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

    Mr. Rumsfeld, who had no public appearances scheduled yesterday, didn't comment about staying.

    Having already lost such key Cabinet members as Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and Attorney General John Ashcroft, the president asked Mr. Rumsfeld during their weekly meeting Monday to remain in the job for his second term, which begins Jan. 20.

    Mr. Bush yesterday moved swiftly to fill another vacancy by nominating Bernard B. Kerik as director of the Homeland Security Department. If approved by the Senate, the former New York City police commissioner would replace outgoing Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge.

    Mr. Thompson said yesterday he would be "very happy" if Mr. Bush replaced him with Dr. Mark McClellan, the government's Medicare chief and brother of White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan.

    The presidential spokesman declined comment, citing potential conflict of interest. He also denied a reporter's suggestion that the Cabinet resignations, occurring about every three days since Nov. 9, are turning into a "stampede" that will disrupt the transition to the president's second term.

    "Absolutely not," Mr. McClellan said. "Everybody is committed to working together to make this process a smooth transition to a second term."

    He downplayed the significance of the exodus.

    "There are a number of members of the Cabinet who have been serving for quite some time, longer than most secretaries have served in previous administrations," Mr. McClellan said. "We're in a lot better position coming into this time than we were in 2000 to move into the next term."

    Turnover in Cabinets for second-term presidents has come to be expected. Mr. Bush's 10 pre- and post-election Cabinet changes so far are five fewer than President Clinton's 15 changes and six fewer than President Reagan's 16.

    Mr. Thompson listed half a dozen prospects to succeed him, including former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, although he singled out Mark McClellan for special praise.

    "The president's not asked for my opinion, and rightly so," Mr. Thompson told reporters at a press conference. "If it's Mark, I think we will be very happy with that decision."

    He added: "I think Mark McClellan is an outstanding young man — he would be a great secretary. I know that he's being mentioned."

    Hours earlier, Mr. Bush ushered Mr. Kerik into the Roosevelt Room of the White House, which is adorned by a painting of Theodore Roosevelt on horseback in his Rough Rider uniform. The president noted that Mr. Kerik, like Mr. Roosevelt, was once commissioner of the New York City Police Department.

    "As police commissioner on September the 11th, 2001, Bernie Kerik arrived at the World Trade Center minutes after the first plane hit," he said. "The resolve he felt that morning will guide him every day on his job."

    As his wife and young children watched, Mr. Kerik took the podium and recounted the terrorist attacks.

    "I witnessed firsthand the very worst of humanity, and its very best," he said. "I saw hatred claim the lives of 2,400 innocent people, and I saw the bravest men and women I will ever know rescue more than 20,000 others."

    He added: "I promise you, Mr. President, that both the memory of those courageous souls and the horrors I saw inflicted upon our proud nation will serve as permanent reminders of the awesome responsibility you place in my charge."

    Mr. Kerik, who also served as Iraq's interim interior minister, was summoned Wednesday to the White House and offered the job, Mr. McClellan said.

    "The president really got to know him during the last two years," the White House spokesman said, adding that Mr. Kerik "helped stand up the police training and police stations in Iraq. He did a great job training and getting that going."

    As for Mr. Kerik's lack of experience with bureaucrats in Washington, Mr. McClellan said: "In this town, that can be a positive."

    Former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, Mr. Kerik's boss in city government and later at a private consulting firm, told the Associated Press the former undercover detective would surprise many within the sprawling bureaucracy of homeland security.

    "When you see him, he's a big strong guy and a black belt," Mr. Giuliani said. "What you get to know when you work with him is how smart he is ... how effective and sophisticated a manager he is."

    Mr. Kerik would become the second leader of the sprawling bureaucracy creating in 2003 by combining 22 disparate federal agencies with more than 180,000 employees and a combined budget of $36 billion.

    Mr. Bush also praised Mr. Ridge, whom he has known for 20 years.

    "He is one of the great public servants of our generation," the president said. "As the department's first leader, Tom oversaw the largest reorganization of the government in nearly a half-century.

    "He met urgent challenges with patience and purpose, and because of his service our country is safer," he added.

    Mr. Bush was equally effusive about Mr. Thompson.

    "He worked to modernize and add prescription drug coverage to Medicare for the first time in the program's history," Mr. Bush said. "He led the effort to broaden the network of community health centers across our country and to advance the development and use of health information technology."

    Mr. Thompson said he was proud of his accomplishments, although he warned there could be a global outbreak of the flu and terror attacks that could affect the health of Americans.

    "For the life of me, I cannot understand why the terrorists have not attacked our food supply because it is so easy to do," he said.

    Mr. Thompson revealed that he sought to leave the Cabinet a year ago, but was asked by the White House to stay on through the president's re-election. 

-------

Ukraine Opposition Suffers Setback

Associated Press
By ANNA MELNICHUK
Dec 4, 2004

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/UKRAINE_ELECTION?SITE=DCTMS&SECTION=HOME

KIEV, Ukraine (AP) -- Supporters of opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko lost a round to their foes in parliament Saturday, when pro-government lawmakers helped block legal changes intended to prevent fraud in the Dec. 26 repeat of the country's presidential runoff vote.

Buoyed by a momentous Supreme Court ruling a day earlier that ordered the new vote, Yushchenko's supporters vowed to force parliament to adopt the legislation by continuing their marathon protest in Kiev's central square.

Outgoing President Leonid Kuchma tried to bring European pressure on the opposition, which he accused of reneging on its promises. Kuchma called for a new round of European-mediated talks with the opposition on Monday.

The jockeying for position came as the opposition celebrated its court victory, confident Yushchenko can beat Prime Minster Viktor Yanukovych if a fair runoff is held. Yanukovych, Kuchma's ally, confirmed he would compete in the new vote, and the Central Election Commission formally set a Dec. 26 date for the balloting, as ordered by the court.

Yushchenko had been hoping for quick approval of a raft of bills that would amend election laws and reshuffle the election commission, which the opposition accused of covering up fraud in the initial runoff, held Nov. 21. The opposition says the changes are needed to ensure the new vote is fair.

But the package was blocked when a compromise agreement fell apart, and the parliament adjourned for 10 days without passing the legislation.

Communists, socialists and pro-government factions in parliament had promised to back the legislation in exchange for the opposition's support of a constitutional reform bill that would transfer some of the president's powers to parliament.

Late Saturday, Yushchenko told thousands of supporters gathered in Kiev's main Independence Square that his government foes were trying to trim presidential powers, fearing his victory. He urged the global community to help monitor the new vote.

"They realized that they aren't going to win, so they decided to make constitutional changes to revise presidential powers," Yushchenko said.

"Despite Christmas, the international community must ensure strong observers' presence," he said at the rally. "That will be the day that will determine Ukraine's fate for decades and centuries ahead."

The chairman of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, Solomon Passy, pledged that the group would again deploy a full-fledged mission for the rerun.

The opposition, meanwhile, warned that thousands of protesters could force the parliament to change course.

Yushchenko's supporters objected to the proposed changes, insisting instead that the parliament vote on electoral amendments now and consider the constitutional reforms after the presidential rerun.

"Combining electoral changes and constitutional reform is legally illiterate," said lawmaker Yulia Tymoshenko, a fiery Yushchenko ally. "We must first create legal conditions for holding elections. No one in the world passes constitutional changes in a rush."

Socialist leader Oleksandr Moroz accused Yushchenko of reneging on his promise. "No one is going to win from reneging on the agreement," Moroz said.

Kuchma, who has strongly pushed for the constitutional reform, also accused the opposition of breaking its promises.

"The opposition isn't fulfilling practically any of the agreements reached at a round table that involved European politicians," Kuchma said in a phone conversation with Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende, whose country holds the rotating presidency of the European Union. "That exacerbates the situation in the country."

Wednesday's compromise agreement, which was sponsored by EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski and other mediators, called for parliament to vote for the electoral and constitutional changes all at once.

Kuchma also spoke Saturday with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who promised to send Russia's parliament speaker to attend Monday's European-sponsored talks. Putin has staunchly backed Yanukovych and scoffed at the repeat of the runoff.

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell hailed the court-ordered rerun as a "a victory for the Ukrainian people."

"We hope that the upcoming election will be free, fair, open, well-supervised," Powell said in Washington.

A spokeswoman for Yanukovych said that the prime minister had decided to participate in the rematch. Some observers had speculated Yanukovych, dispirited by the court ruling, might bow out.

"There's no other way but to participate and win," Yanukovych spokeswoman Anna Herman told journalists.

Yushchenko's supporters maintained a blockade of government buildings and thousands massed outside the parliament building Saturday, breaking into regular chants of "Yushchenko!"

Dmytro Klishevych, 27, waved a Ferrari flag with an orange ribbon attached to it. "I want the victory to be as fast as a Ferrari," he said.

Activists vowed to keep up the giant tent camp on Kiev's main avenue and continue besieging official buildings until Kuchma fires Yanukovych and electoral changes become law.

On Kiev's Independence Square, thousands milled about, waving flags and posing for photographs in front of the sprawling tent camp and the throngs of people awash in orange.

Anna Ponova, who has lived in the tent camp for 10 days, said supporters would await word from Yushchenko about how long to remain encamped.

"If he wants us to stay until victory, we'll stay," she said. gi

-----

Putin Accuses U.S. of Double Standard

Associated Press
By RAJESH MAHAPATRA
Dec 4, 2004

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/INDIA_RUSSIA?SITE=DCTMS&SECTION=HOME

NEW DELHI (AP) -- Russian President Vladimir Putin sharply criticized the United States on Friday, accusing it of a double-standard in fighting terrorism and questioning whether any election in Iraq can be democratic when fighting is raging in the country.

Putin, who has been angered by U.S. and European denunciations of the Ukraine election as rigged unacceptable, began a three-day visit to India with continued criticism of Washington, saying it seeks a "dictatorship of international affairs."

"Even if dictatorship is wrapped up in a beautiful package of pseuo-democratic phraseology, it will not be in a position to solve systemic problems," Russia's Itar-Tass news agency quoted him as saying in a speech Friday night in New Delhi.

Putin, who has been critical of the United States for going to war without international approval, warned that the fighting in Iraq was threatening the possibility of a democratic vote slated for Jan. 30.

"All this will definitely call in question the possibility of holding honest and democratic elections in Iraq early next year," he said.

Putin and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh signed a joint declaration that called for ending "political expediency" in the global fight against terrorism. The declaration made no reference to any country.

But in an interview in a Hindu newspaper, Putin said the United States and European nations practiced double standards by allowing into their countries some Chechen rebels whom Moscow considers to be terrorists.

"We cannot have double standards while fighting terrorism and it cannot be used as an instrument of a geopolitical game," Putin said at a public lecture.

Russia and India signed agreements on exploring peaceful uses of outer space, easing visa rules and India's inclusion in a Russian-promoted global navigational satellite system.

The two countries also signed eight other agreements that focused on cooperation in energy and banking, academic research, and cultural and economic exchanges between India's financial hub, Bombay, and Putin's home town, St. Petersburg.

"These decisions will make a significant contribution to the future of Russia-India relations," Putin said.

The countries, which have close relations dating back to the Cold War, also discussed new investment to commercially produce the Brahmos, an anti-ship missile developed jointly by India and Russia. The missile has a target range of 180 miles and can carry a 660-pound conventional warhead. It can be launched from ships, submarines, planes and land.

Putin will fly to Bangalore, India's software capital, on Saturday.



-------- OTHER


-------- environment

Officials Lay Groundwork for Cleanup of Great Lakes

The New York Times
By MICHAEL JANOFSKY
December 4, 2004

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/04/politics/04lakes.html?position=&adxnnl=1&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1102208828-5tDJPm+QANxzpTdPScwFFg

WASHINGTON, Dec. 3 - Dozens of officials from the United States and Canada signed a declaration on Friday that outlines a comprehensive plan to clean up the Great Lakes and the major waterways that feed them.

As one of President Bush's major environmental initiatives, the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration combines federal, state, local and tribal resources to broaden the continuing restoration efforts that have lacked such coordination.

"This is the largest formal collaboration of its kind focused on the environmental and economic health of the Great Lakes Basin," said Michael O. Leavitt, the Environmental Protection Agency administrator, who presided over the signing ceremony in Chicago. "Today, we are committing our collective organizations to protecting and improving this national treasure."

With cabinet officials, governors, mayors and lawmakers from Great Lakes States in attendance, the signing ceremony represented at least a symbolic success for the administration, which is generally viewed by environmental groups as having been a poor steward of the nation's natural resources.

The new collaboration has won early praise from environmental groups, large and small, however, for seeking input from an array of sources beyond a tight circle of policy makers in Washington.

In response to President Bush's executive order in May calling for a "regional collaboration of national significance" to clean up the Great Lakes, E.P.A. officials leading the effort have included tribal leaders, small-town mayors and local environmental groups in addition to elected officials from the eight states that border the five Great Lakes.

"This is a good idea. It's the right process at the right time," said Andy Buchsbaum, director of the Great Lakes office of the National Wildlife Federation.

"Dozens of other processes have been started by subsets of the participants here," Mr. Buchsbaum said, "but we've never wound up with everybody pulling in the same direction. This is designed in the right way to do that."

Will Cwikiel, policy director of the Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council, a small environmental group in northern Michigan, said: "I'm cautiously optimistic. The last thing anyone wants to see happen is a collapse, just grips and grins, pomp and circumstance, without anything really happening on the ground."

The collaboration sets forth a framework for establishing committees, lines of communication and overarching goals leading to cleaner water - the Great Lakes contain about 20 percent of the world's fresh water supply and serve as a source of drinking water for more than 30 million people in the United States and Canada.

Specific targets include pollution controls for agricultural and industrial runoff into the lakes; new efforts to restore and protect wetlands, forests and indigenous species; and the elimination of invasive species, like the Illinois carp, which Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich of Illinois called "a terrorist of the Great Lakes ecosystem."

The framework also proposes deadlines, with a preliminary plan due in six months and a final strategy to put the plan fully in motion due six months after that. Mr. Leavitt describe the program as "not a redoing, but a redoubling" of existing efforts.

What the framework does not provide, however, is a financing scheme, asserting that those who signed the declaration acknowledge that participation "is subject to funding availability."

That raised concerns for some participants.

Representative Rahm Emanuel, a Chicago Democrat who has introduced legislation that would provide $4 billion over five years for essentially the same goals as those in the framework, said the new effort would fail without adequate money. The bill, a bipartisan effort sponsored by more than 100 House members, and a companion Senate bill are languishing in committee.

In an interview, Mr. Emanuel criticized Mr. Bush as promising more money for Great Lakes cleanup projects, only to back off in his budget requests. Mr. Emanuel also said that the framework's goals and partners were virtually the same as those in an effort proposed in 2002 by Mr. Leavitt's predecessor, Christie Whitman.

"If there are resources, then great," Mr. Emanuel said of the latest effort. "But if this is in lieu of resources, it's a cruel hoax and leaves us years behind."

Neither Mr. Leavitt nor any of the 46 officials who spoke at the signing ceremony discussed financing. That was deliberate, Mr. Leavitt told reporters after the event. He said, "No one knows how much money is currently being spent" on Great Lakes cleanup efforts.

Rather, he said, the intent of the framework is to expand on programs of the last 30 years, build coalitions and rank goals so that whatever money becomes available is spent appropriately.

"The type of collaboration we are launching is messy, messy and hard," Mr. Leavitt said. "But it's absolutely necessary."