NucNews - December 28, 2004 -------- NUCLEAR -------- depleted uranium Iraq: A Silenced Majority A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION by Stephan Smith, December 28, 2004 http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/04/12/con04562.html From Interviews With My Family Since my return from this fall's busy touring schedule, I have been able to reach my family in Iraq regularly for the first time since the beginning of the war. One of the most important things we can do for them, and for the people of Iraq, is to counteract the unjust dehumanization of their entire nation of people, by giving voice to the silenced majority there who want peace. This silenced majority rarely makes it in the mainstream press because they are not killing people, and because they neither support the US occupation and its puppet interim government, nor the minority of reactionary extremists in their own country, who are on our front pages every day. And so, I've decided to begin a series of reports on what "ordinary" life is like in Iraq through interviews with my family and their friends. I come from a large Sunni family originally from Nineveh, but now spread between Mosul and Baghdad, and I am grateful to report that all of my nephews, nieces, aunts and uncles are alive. If you listen to Democracy Now!, you may have heard my Uncle Ghazi's voice the last time I did. My uncle Ghazi was Chief Electrical Engineer for the entire country until he retired in the nineties. The last time I heard his voice, it was crackling through a small bedside radio on the day the invasion began, when Amy Goodman interviewed him from his home. I shall never forget laying there, hearing Ghazi's unshakeable, dignified voice, when Amy asked him what he and his family planned to do, "Will you leave town, or...?", and he responded, "What can we do? We are expecting our first grandchild in the next two months -- we will gather the family and take them into the basement until the bombing stops." Arundhati Roy, also on line from India, burst out in tears thoroughly disturbed that Americans could hear such a testimony and not do everything possible to stop the war that would begin a mere three hours later. Still composed, Ghazi went on to say that he did not blame all Americans for the acts of their administration ... he understood how a people, any people, and in this case the Americans, can be systematically disinformed. When I reached my cousin Omar at home in Baghdad last week, he said his father had been stranded in Mosul since the siege on Fallujah. Ghazi had gone to our family home there to be with my aunts Zeineb and Butheina for Ramadan feast. He told my father that when the siege on Fallujah began and the "freedom fighting" (or "insurgency" as it is called in the American media) spread to Mosul, the whole town shut down, everyone too afraid to go out, no businesses open, as though the place were deserted. Speaking with my father from their family home, Ghazi reported that now conditions are so bad, that the vast majority wishes Saddam Hussein were back in power...it was better then, even for the majority who either endured or tolerated, as my family, but did not support the Baathist regime. Four of my aunts and uncles are doctors in the main Hospitals in both Baghdad and Mosul. From contact with them, I can only imagine what it does to a doctor's heart to try to heal, knowingly in vain, a people who now may have become the first victims of irreparable, long-term geno-contamination in human history: Already at the Conference on Nuclear Arms in Hamburg, Oct. 2003, Dr. Katsuma Yagasaki, Prof. of Science at the University of Ryukyus, Okinawa, reported the US had dropped the equivalent of 250,000 times the radioactive nuclear waste dropped on Nagasaki in Iraq. Different from Nagasaki, however, the contamination in Iraq is widespread, dispersed over entire regions of the country, bullets, strewn casings, armor, fragments, shrapnel... all containing radioactive waste. From scant reports and video that leak past the mainstream embargo on images from Iraq, we can only assume that Fallujah has been leveled like Dresden was in the 2nd World War. At an event coordinated by Veterans for Peace at New York City's Community Church this past Sunday at which I sang, the Nation's correspondent Christian Parenti described why the siege on Fallujah was such a critically huge mistake: it was a city with more Mosque's than any other city in Iraq, beloved across the religious spectrum. Now many of those Mosques are no more than rubble, and the total $82 million magnanimously pledged by the US to rebuild the city would scarcely be enough to rebuild more than a couple of these churches alone. But the truth is, Fallujah's damage is far worse than meets the eye. The entire city could very well be a permanently uninhabitable radioactive zone, yet we hear about the noble efforts of the US to move the 250-300,000 inhabitants back in to live in the now poisoned homes, water, earth, and air. I reflected on this with my friend Dennis Kyne at the School of the Americas Protests a couple weeks ago. Dennis, a Gulf War II vet and former Fort Benning medic, was trained by our government to detect radiation sickness from Depleted Uranium in American soldiers using the weapons the government itself had given them to use. Why are the top administration and military officers in the US knowingly allowing irreparable, widespread, and lethal contamination of Iraq to occur? Is it intentional? Men in my family have been military officers since the days of the Ottomans. My great uncle, Selahuddin Sabagh, was a leader of the Four Colonels Revolt against the British in 1941, perhaps the single most pivotal incident in the anti-colonial movement that spread thereafter throughout the middle east and North Africa as a call to independence. Sabagh and his four colleagues were publicly hung by the British-installed regime as a message against the Iraqi will for freedom. It is an understatement to say that the Iraqi and Mesopotamian struggle to be free of forced rule has a long history. The giant-sized presidential campaign posters of interim prime minister and US-backed former Saddam Hussein strongman Ayad Allawi, shown going up around Baghdad on today's cover of the New York Times, don't fool the citizens of a politically evolved society. The average Iraqi citizen is much more aware of the workings of power in politics and media than their Fox-News addicted American counterparts. Iraq is a land where Democracy has its oldest roots, where Hammurabi's code of law pre-existed Moses, and came 1,700 years before Christ, where Christianity, and subsequently Mohammedism, became popular as revolutions against economic imperialism 2,000 years ago, where the Ottoman Empire led the world in religious tolerance in the days when Europe and its foundling United States were in the throws of Inquisitions and Puritanism. This is a land where war, after war, after war, has been waged for the cause of economic imperialism since the beginning of time, while the majority of families huddled with their children in their basements, waiting for God to bring an end to greed, once and for all. My father and uncle have told me over and over again how in their childhood, their friends were Shia, Kurdish, Jewish, that they lived in the same neighborhoods together without incident, in deed even with joy. They insist, knowingly, that their cultural landscape has become increasingly violently divided by domestic and foreign imperialist power which needs to divide to conquer, and keep the nation under control for the interests of power. The ordinary Iraqi, the silenced majority, is not fighting in the Mahdi Army, or for the insurgents, or joining the American-installed governing authority and its 'police.' The silenced majority, like my nephews and nieces hiding in their basements, hoping they can just go outside, or get to school again, or get food, water, electricity regularly again, know in their hearts that it is economic imperialism itself that suppresses them, and that the US Government and military are pawns for corporate interests. They understand the cause of global justice all too well. They know their enemy is a globally endured system in which the ability for some to have more power and wealth than others creates and sustains a legacy of dominance, divisiveness, oppression, violence, and hatred to maintain power. From this perspective, the American military, the Baathists, Ariel Sharon and Likkud Israel, Bin Laden, al Sadr, or Saddam Hussein, are all cousins in an endless parade of foot soldiers for the same problem: the system of economic dominance we all live under that requires oppression. When I asked my family what they thought was the only way to peace in Iraq, they answered, " the only way for peace in Iraq, or on earth now, is through a total revolution in society. One no short of the dream which Christ, Mohammed, and all the prophets spoke of, in which real equality brings an end to this entire unjust way in which we all live together." Yours in the belief that another world is in the making, Stephan Said, aka Stephan Smith A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION Stephan Smith is an Iraqi-American artist and activist whose new album "Slash and Burn" is out on Artemis Records. His song "The Bell," or "Daquat al Nakous," with Pete Seeger, Dean Ween, and DJ Spooky has become an anthem for the global antiwar movement. http://www.stephansmith.com, you can email him at stephan@stephansmth.com -------- It's Time To Support the Troops by Sheila Samples, December 28, 2004 LewRockwell.com http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/samples1.html George W. Bush, their commander-in-chief, calls them "the troops." He says they're on a "noble 'n vital" mission in Iraq. When asked about them, Bush says his "thoughts 'n prayers" go out to them. When shrapnel shreds their limbs or they are blown to bits by bombs, he says he "grieves 'n mourns" for them. Because of the troops, Bush says "America and the world are a safer place (sic)." Their boss, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, says although "the troops" might not have been the ones he wished for when he went to war, they were all he had. Recently, when asked about a draft, he even said he'd continue to work with what he had. "God bless 'em – because they volunteered," he said. "They want to be doing what it is they're doing." Rumsfeld has felt a bit of heat since holding one of his usually scripted town-hall meetings in Kuwait in early December wherein Specialist Thomas Wilson, a scout with a Tennessee National Guard unit headed for Iraq, asked why, after nearly three years of fighting in Iraq, soldiers were going to combat in unarmored vehicles. "We're digging pieces of rusted scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass that's already been shot up, dropped, busted, picking the best out of this scrap to put on our vehicles to take into combat," Wilson pointed out. After a stunned and confused moment, Rumsfeld first blamed the quality of "troops," then blamed the manufacturers for not having "production capacity," before finally pooh-poohing in true Rumsfeldian fashion the need for having armor at all – "If you think about it, you can have all the armor in the world on a tank and a tank can be blown up," he blustered. "And you can have an up-armored humvee and it can be blown up." At least three humvee manufacturers were quick to call Rumsfeld on his blatant lie. Executives at Armor Holdings, Jacksonville, Fla., said the company was ready to go, and has been waiting for purchase orders from the Pentagon. Those from AM General in Indiana and Ohio's O'Gara-Hess & Eisenhardt echoed Armor's remarks. All three manufacturers were adamant that no orders had been placed. Defense officials said it will take time to get the $4 billion in armor the troops need for protection, and the Pentagon's Brig. Gen. Jeffrey Sorenson said in a hurriedly put-together news conference, "This is not Wal-Mart...it takes time to study, develop, test, and produce equipment needed against what commanders say is a sophisticated and ever-adapting enemy." But then, things returned to normal, with right-wing pundits maintaining that yes, indeedy, orders had been placed and the blame is not with the Pentagon after all, but with the manufacturers. Bush looked deeply into Rumsfeld's heart, liked what he saw, and suggested pointedly that Rummy was doing such a fine job we should just all move on. The media breathed a collective sigh of relief as they put the uncontested political football back in play. Now we can all get back to supporting "the troops" by keeping them out of public view and safely back where they belong – like Bush says – in our thoughts 'n prayers. Criticizing the boss for sending them unarmed and unprepared into a never-ending, no-way-out bloody fiasco only demoralizes the troops. Worse, it could encourage other troops like Specialist Wilson to question whether the noble 'n vital mission their commander-in-chief is forcing them to accept in Iraq is really nothing more than a deadly, suicidal Texas Redneck Snipe Hunt. It's easy to conclude that Bush and Rumsfeld are either sadistic liars or they are totally out of touch with reality. Or both. There is also something intensely obscene about a deaf, dumb and mute Congress, whose members stand by, knowing they are being lied to but refusing to accept their Constitutional responsibility. I have a considerable stash of words, but none sufficiently harsh to describe the contempt I feel for these Democrat and Republican legislators who silently lowered their heads – who turned their backs – and allowed Bush and Rumsfeld to send their young constituents to their deaths, untrained and improperly equipped. Because they knew. They all knew that Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice and the rest of the neocon warmongers were frantically lying in order to catapult us into catastrophe. It was all lies. Congress had to know Saddam Hussein posed no threat whatever to America; that he had no connection to 9-11, and that Iraq was broken by 12 years of sanctions, by the disease and death resulting from our relentless bombing of Iraqi infrastructure and the withholding of medicines and food. They knew if they condoned Bush's insane vision of labeling as terrorists all those who stood between him and the world's resources what would happen to American "troops." They knew the cost in both lives and property if they sent US troops off on a bloody crusade to torture and kill men, women and children in the name of freedom. It is even more grisly when you consider they knew their silence would not only disrupt, but destroy thousands of families at home and abroad, and that even those troops lucky enough to return would never be the same again. Americans are not natural predators. Is it supporting the troops to maliciously turn them into monsters so they will be "up" for the eyeball-to-eyeball killing they must do for "God and Country?" Did the alcoholics, drug addicts, homeless – the walking dead – of returning Vietnam troops teach us nothing? How deep in kimche do we have to get before we remember? How long before we erupt in a national primal scream? The price we are paying for national greed and lust for power is too high. American service members are not a ghostly, faceless mass of "troops." They are flesh-and-blood individuals; our sons, daughters, husbands, wives, brothers, sisters, nieces, and nephews. They are America's children – her present, her future. Those troops I have known – artillerymen, engineers, infantrymen – are dedicated to their mission. They will do as they are told. They are proud of their country, will go to great lengths to protect it and, if necessary, are willing to die for its freedom. Unfortunately, more of them every day are called upon to do so. Although the media steadfastly refuses to acknowledge it, 1,331 US troops have been slaughtered in Iraq. Tonight, 16 families will bow their heads and pray for the safety of their children, not knowing they are already dead. Perhaps Rumsfeld has been shamed into showing more compassion, and will personally sign the letters of condolence – formerly referred to as "death letters." More than 10,000 Americans have been wounded in action, and almost 4,500 have been evacuated because of the severity of non-hostile injuries. "Wounded" is a code word for loss of limbs, of eyes, of brain damage caused by shrapnel from roadside bombs and mortars. Such wounds are creating an entire generation of amputees and wheelchair-bound Americans who are discovering as their lives and their livelihoods crumble around them that the wheels of desperately needed care and support grind slowly. Also, more than 7,700 have been shipped home consumed with disease. These are the hidden casualties. To acknowledge them would be tantamount to admitting that the depleted uranium scattered indiscriminately throughout Iraq by both Bush 41 and 43 has devastating effects on human beings, and could evoke embarrassing questions about violations of the Geneva Conventions. Can't have that. Wouldn't be prudent. However, these men and women could use a little support as they fight a losing battle with the system for prompt medical care and continued benefits. It is both strange and wonderful that the most support for the troops has come from families of US soldiers and marines killed in the hellish assault on Fallujah – and this support is for the innocent Iraqi victims. According to Agence France Presse, the families, with the help of peace groups, physicians' organizations and relatives of 9-11 victims, raised $100,000 on the Internet. Humanitarian groups such as Middle East Children's Alliance and Operation USA contributed $500,000 worth of medical supplies. According to the article, Rosa Suarez of Escondido, Calif., said, "The Iraq war took away my son's life, and it has taken away the lives of so many innocent Iraqis. It is time to stop the killing and to help the children of Iraq." Sadly, the US media failed to report this outpouring of love and support. It would have made a great Christmas story since AFP also reported that the families were to fly to Amman (Jordan) on December 26 and hand over the supplies to humanitarian and medical workers there. USA Today founder Al Neuharth is getting bitch-slapped by right-wing neoconservative troop supporters for suggesting last week that, although Support Our Troops is a wonderful patriotic slogan, "...the best way to support troops thrust by unwise commanders in chief into ill-advised adventures like Vietnam and Iraq is to bring them home. Sooner rather than later," Neuharth wrote in a Dec. 22 editorial. "That should be our New Year's resolution." I don't know about you, but I'm with Rosa and Al. It's time to stop the killing – time to stop the grievin' 'n mournin'. It's time to truly support American troops. Bring them home. Sheila Samples [send her mail - rsamples@sirinet.net ] is an Oklahoma freelance writer and a former civilian US Army Public Information Officer. ---- Pentagon Is Pressing to Bypass Environmental Laws for War Games and Arms Testing By FELICITY BARRINGER December 28, 2004 NY TIMES http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/28/politics/28exempt.html?oref=login&pagewanted=print&position= WASHINGTON, Dec. 27 - The Defense Department, which controls 28 million acres of land across the nation that it uses for combat exercises and weapons testing, has been moving on a variety of fronts to reduce requirements that it safeguard the environment on that land. In Congress, the Pentagon has won exemptions in the last two years from parts of the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. It has sought in recent years to exempt military activities, for three years, from compliance with parts of the Clean Air Act. Also, the Pentagon, which controls about 140 of the 1,240 toxic Superfund sites around the country, is seeking partial exemptions from two laws governing toxic waste. And two months ago, it drafted revisions to a 1996 directive built on a pledge "to display environmental security leadership within Department of Defense activities worldwide." The draft revisions eliminate the reference to environmental security, and emphasize instead that it is the Pentagon's role to sustain the national defense mission. Potential risks to the environment and worker safety, it says, should be addressed as part of a larger effort to manage risks, save money and preserve readiness. The Pentagon's enthusiasm for the environmental ethos has waxed and waned over the past 15 years, as it has grappled with its roles as one of the country's longest-standing industrial polluters and conservator of some of the nation's most ecologically sensitive land. It has spent more than $25 billion since 1985 on a program to clean up active and closed military bases, but at the same time has continued to generate pollution. Toxic residues like perchlorate, a component of rocket fuel, have been found in the Colorado River and in ground water in some states. In addition, the Congressional appropriations for cleanups under the department's environmental restoration program, which usually hew to the department's budget requests, have been largely unchanged in recent years but slightly lower overall than in the Clinton administration, even as estimates for cleanups at closed military bases have far exceeded current spending. The 1996 directive was produced under the Clinton administration, at a time of heightened concern over environmental issues. It was unclear when the revised draft directive might go into effect. But the copy made available on the Web site of an environmental group made it clear that it represented a fundamentally different philosophy. Kyla Bennett, leader of the New England chapter of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, which released the directive, said the draft policy "says, 'We'll do whatever we have to do under the cloak of readiness and national security.' " Ms. Bennett added, "It's discouraging to me that the Department of Defense uses the terrorist attacks as a cloak to excuse themselves from environmental laws." In a telephone interview last week, Pentagon officials would not comment on the draft directive nor predict whether the department would renew its push for legislation exempting the agency from some Clean Air Act and toxic waste disposal requirements. But these officials said that without changes in the laws, they feared that if they tried to redeploy fighter jets, they might find themselves required to adopt burdensome environmental controls. This could happen if the areas where the jet squadrons were being sent were already in violation of Clean Air Act standards, and locating the squadrons there would add to the pollution. The officials, including two of the department's senior environmental officials, said that they feared a wave of lawsuits to block munitions testing that could rely on the Superfund law or a second law on toxic materials, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, to argue that live-fire training was a waste management activity subject to environmental controls. Benedict S. Cohen, a deputy general counsel at the Pentagon, said in an interview on Thursday, "The department felt it was appropriate, rather than to wait for a range to be shut down by a court injunction, to warn Congress that this problem is looming" and seek exemptions from the laws. Two lawsuits, one seeking to prevent live-fire exercises at a Navy bombing range at Vieques Island, off Puerto Rico, and the other seeking protections from artillery for a marsh - home to migratory birds - bordering on Fort Richardson, Alaska, have relied on the two toxic waste laws. The Army settled the lawsuit involving Fort Richardson in October, promising to restrict firing during twice-yearly bird migrations and while cleanup activities were under way in the marsh. It also agreed to monitoring to determine if toxic constituents of explosives were seeping into water beyond the base. The Vieques lawsuit was rendered moot when the Navy closed the bombing range. "Our concern was that there is no distinction in principle between activities taking place at Vieques and Richardson and efforts taking place all over the country at our installations," Mr. Cohen said. "There's nothing unique about military tests and training." If, he said, a precedent had been set that these activities were subject to control under the two toxic waste laws, "it would have been extraordinarily difficult to defeat such litigation anywhere in the United States." But the opposition of Democrats in Congress, along with some moderate Republicans, has thus far bottled up the legislation providing the Pentagon exemptions from the toxic waste laws and extending by three years the requirement to comply with some Clean Air Act provisions. If the legislative effort is renewed, two House Democratic staff members said, the opposition will remain intense. "These exemptions are part of a much broader pattern going on from D.O.D., a huge retrograde pattern," said a Democratic staff member who requested anonymity because the ranking Democratic member, Representative John D. Dingell of Michigan, had instructed the staff to do so. Among other things, he said, the Pentagon has, in the past four years, added almost no sites to the Superfund list of toxic waste areas that must be cleaned up, reversing the trend established during three previous administrations. "The whole thrust of these exemptions," the staff member added, "is to remove any kind of independent authority from the states, Environmental Protection Agency, water authority or from a citizen suit that would get them to sample, identify and clean up the contamination." A former Pentagon official who served in a Democratic administration and requested anonymity because of current job concerns said that the department's actions had sent a signal "that the Defense Department is less interested in environmental leadership and isn't working as hard as I think it could" to engage states, local communities and others with a stake in environmental compliance and cleanup. The laws from which the department seeks exemption, the former official said, already contain waivers for national emergencies. In response, Glenn Flood, a department spokesman, said in an e-mail message, "Asking the president to grant an exemption every time the military needs to train is not practical." -------- india / pakistan India suggests Kashmir family reunions in peace move with Pakistan ISLAMABAD (AFP) Dec 28, 2004 http://www.spacewar.com/2004/041228145526.6opa9coi.html India surprised nuclear rival Pakistan at peace talks on Tuesday by proposing to hold reunions for families divided between the two countries' zones of disputed Kashmir. India's top foreign ministry official said after two days of meetings with his Pakistani counterpart that they must tackle the "human side" of the row over the Himalayan region, which the two sides hold in part but claim in full. Pakistan said it would consider the plan, the latest in a series of confidence-building measures between the South Asian neighbours arising from a slow-moving peace process begun in January. "We put forward a specific proposal for a possible family reunion or meetings among relatives" at the Line of Control, the de facto border in Kashmir, Indian Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran told reporters in Islamabad. "We have, after checking with our authorities, designated five places where the family reunions would take place on designated days under joint security arrangements by both sides," he said. Contact between the two zones of Kashmir is currently non-existent. A bus service between Srinagar, the Indian-held summer capital, and Muzaffarabad in the Pakistani sector remains stalled because of a row over visas. The dispute over scenic Kashmir has sparked two of the three wars between Pakistan and India since independence from Britain in 1947. It continues to dominate relations and sent them to the brink of nuclear war in 2002. The current peace process has brought the two countries to their closest for years but they remain deadlocked over Kashmir, with Pakistan in particular accusing India of intransigence. Pakistani foreign secretary Riaz Khokhar told a press conference Tuesday that Islamabad would consider India's proposals, saying he was aware of a similar arrangement between North and South Korea. "We are going to examine them and we will see whether these are consistent with the dignity and honour of the Kashmiri people." The first day of the talks between Saran and Khokhar focused on overall security issues and confidence-building steps while the second concentrated on Kashmir. "There has been a recognition that this is obviously very complex issue. We will need some time to deal with it but in the meantime we try and address the human aspect of the issue," Saran said. "I go back with a renewed sense of optimism. I believe there are many areas where we can work together and the future is bright." The reunion plan was the only major breakthrough arising from the talks, although a joint statement issued by both sides said they had made progress. It was the third time they had discussed Kashmir in the current peace dialogue, following rounds of talks held in June 2003 then in September, foreign office spokesman Masood Khan told AFP. The joint statement said the foreign secretaries had "narrowed their differences" on a plan to give advance warning of ballistic missile tests, which India and Pakistan failed to agree on at a meeting earlier in December. Officials also focused on key topics including drug trafficking, maritime issues, the Kashmir bus link and a second rail connection between the two countries. Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf last week said he would show flexibility over Kashmir if India did the same but Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said peace talks would not include any redrawing of boundaries. In their bid to promote confidence, Pakistan and India recently restored road, rail and air links, while politicians, lawyers, actors and peace activists from each side have made visits across the border. ---- India, Pakistan End Talks Without Breakthrough Tue Dec 28, 2004 09:04 AM ET (Reuters) By Zeeshan Haider http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=AZNW4YEAUFIBCCRBAEZSFFA?type=topNews&storyID=7192171 ISLAMABAD - Nuclear-armed Pakistan and India said on Tuesday they had narrowed some differences and agreed a rough schedule for their slow-moving peace process but reported no significant breakthrough after two days of talks. A joint statement after meetings between Pakistan's Foreign Secretary Riaz Khokhar and Indian counterpart Shyam Saran in Islamabad reported no progress toward a solution on Kashmir, the divided Himalayan state at the heart of their rivalry. The two sides also failed to complete an agreement to notify each other formally before testing ballistic missiles, although the statement said they had narrowed their differences and agreed to work toward early finalisation. It said the officials agreed that meetings on six issues, including border disputes, counter-terrorism and drug trafficking, and economic cooperation should be held at dates to be agreed between April and June. They also agreed that talks on trade and border security and more dialogue to build confidence on their nuclear and conventional arsenals would be held between January and June. The officials confirmed that their foreign and prime minsters would meet at the South Asian summit next month and that Indian Foreign Minister Natwar Singh would visit Islamabad in February. Khokhar told a news conference that Pakistan had also proposed that Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh come to Islamabad in March. The foreign secretaries, meanwhile, plan to meet again between July and August to review overall progress in the peace process, which was relaunched last January. KASHMIR TALKS BRIEF Tuesday's talks on Kashmir lasted just a hour. As expected, they produced no breakthrough given that the sides remain far apart on an issue that has caused two of their three wars since independence in 1947 and nearly triggered a fourth in 2002. "This is obviously a very complex issue. We will need some time to deal with this," Saran told a news conference after the talks, adding that Pakistan needed to do more to prevent Islamic militants crossing into Indian-ruled Kashmir. Khokhar responded at a later briefing by saying that Pakistan had done all it could to curb such movements. He said high-level exchanges were conducive to resolving Pakistan's disputes with India, but the two sides had yet to scratch the surface on Kashmir. "We are still on the periphery. We haven't yet grappled with the real issue," he said. The delegations did agree to promote more contacts between the local military commanders along their border and Saran said India had proposed setting up five points along the military line dividing Kashmir to allow the reunion of divided families. However he said more talks were needed to iron out differences on travel documents to allow the proposed opening of a bus service between their two sides of the territory. The statement said the officials had agreed that discussions on Kashmir should continue in the light of a joint statement by Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and Manmohan Singh in New York in September. The two leaders said then they should explore options for a peaceful negotiated settlement, but progress has proven elusive. Islamabad, which wants progress on Kashmir in tandem with other issues, has suggested demilitarising the territory while a compromise is sought over its status. It says this could include joint control, some form of U.N. control, or independence. But India rejects any redrawing of its borders or further division of the territory. The South Asian neighbors have nevertheless come a long way in patching up ties since going to the brink of another war after an attack on the Indian parliament in late 2001. India blamed that on Pakistani-backed Islamic militants. Diplomatic ties have been normalized, with some rail, road and air links restored and sporting ties resumed. A truce along the military line dividing Kashmir has held for over a year. ----- Indian nuclear power plant safe despite battering by tsunami: government NEW DELHI (AFP) Dec 28, 2004 http://www.spacewar.com/2004/041228074716.0jbf2lvk.html A nuclear power plant in the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu which was battered by huge waves after an earthquake in Indonesia over the weekend is safe, a senior government official said Tuesday. "Both the units of the Kalpakkam nuclear power plant are safe. There is no danger of any radiation," India's national security advisor J.N. Dixit told reporters in the capital, New Delhi, after a meeting of top atomic energy officials. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had convened the meeting in the wake of fears that the tsunami hitting the nuclear power plant Sunday could have damaged the plant. Authorities said on Sunday they shut down the Indira Gandhi Atomic Energy Centre in Kalpakkam, 80 kilometres (50 miles) south of Tamil Nadu capital, Madras, as a precaution. Water seeped into the facility located on the coast after the tsunami hit following the earthquake, officials said. A senior scientist said Sunday one unit of the nuclear power plant had been "shut down safely and cooled down." The private NDTV news channel said 1,500 families in the Kalpakkam township of Tamil Nadu was evacuated by government relief agencies. There are 2,290 scientists and engineers working at the nuclear power facility in Kalpakkam. --- How to Help The Victims Of Tsunami Tuesday, December 28, 2004 Washington Post; Page A14 http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A30020-2004Dec27?language=printer Here are some of the local and national organizations accepting donations to help victims of the South Asian tsunami. Most groups recommend that people donate cash rather than supplies. • American Red Cross Contributions should be sent to International Response Fund, P.O. Box 37243, Washington, D.C. 20013. For more information about donating, call 800-435-7669. For information about friends or relatives who may have been affected, call 866-438-4636. • Asia Relief The Maryland-based nonprofit organization is accepting donations of cash, nonperishable food, clothing and toys for victims in Sri Lanka. Donations should be dropped off or mailed to Asia Relief, 19409 Olive Tree Way, Gaithersburg, Md. 20879. Contact Rizwan Mowlana at 301-672-9355 for more information. • Association for India's Development Inc. The Maryland-based nonprofit organization is accepting cash donations to help relief work in India. Contributions can be made on the Web at www.aidindia.org or mailed to AID Zone 3, P.O. Box 4801, Mountain View, Calif., 94040-0801, with checks made payable to AID. Contact Priya Ranjan at 301-422-4441 for more information. • Tsunami Relief Inc. The Virginia-based nonprofit group has been set up to help victims in Sri Lanka. Donors can call 703-934-6922 or mail checks payable to Tsunami Relief Inc. to 9302 Lee Hwy., Fifth Floor, Fairfax, Va. 22031. • B'nai B'rith International Donations can be made online at www.bnaibrith.org or mailed to B'nai B'rith Disaster Relief Fund, 2020 K St. NW, Seventh Floor, Washington, D.C. 20006. More information about donations to humanitarian organizations can be found on the U.S. Agency for International Development's Web site, www.usaid.gov. Donors can also call the Center for International Disaster Information at 703-276-1914. -------- Pakistan, India Hold Landmark Dialogue By SADAQAT JAN Associated Press Writer Dec 28, 1:07 PM EST http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PAKISTAN_INDIA_TALKS?SITE=DCTMS&SECTION=HOME ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) -- Top Foreign Ministry officials from Pakistan and India held a landmark dialogue on their dispute over the Himalayan region of Kashmir during peace talks Tuesday aimed at resolving five decades of enmity. The foreign secretaries of the two South Asian nuclear-armed rivals concluded two days of meetings in Islamabad and agreed to carry forward a wide-ranging peace process with more talks on Kashmir and other issues in the months ahead. Both sides sounded upbeat, even though they remain poles apart on Kashmir - over which they have fought two of their three wars since independence from Britain in 1947 - and have made little substantive progress in the past year. "I go back with a sense of optimism that there's sincerity and commitment on both sides to take this process forward," Indian Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran told reporters afterward. His Pakistani counterpart Riaz Khokhar conceded the two countries have "diametrically opposite" positions over Kashmir but that a solution was not beyond reach. "I don't think we should give up. It's just the beginning," he told a separate press conference. "It's still too early (to say) that the gaps cannot be narrowed." The two countries agreed to launch a third round of negotiations during April and June on issues ranging from border disputes, economic cooperation and fighting drugs and terrorism. Starting in January, officials would also discuss steps to prevent a nuclear war, maritime issues and setting up a new cross-border bus service, a joint statement said. Foreign ministers of the two countries planned to meet in Islamabad in February, and the two foreign secretaries - the top bureaucrats in their respective ministries - would again consult on progress in the peace process in July-August 2005, it said. The rhetoric of cooperation demonstrated how relations have improved since a dangerous military confrontation between them in Kashmir in 2002. Over the past year, Pakistan and India have restored diplomatic ties and travel links. They have also maintained a cease-fire at the disputed border of Kashmir, known as the Line of Control, where they used to shell each other on an almost-daily basis. India accuses Pakistan of supporting "cross-border terrorism" by Islamic militants fighting in Indian-held Kashmir, which Pakistan denies. Those tensions resurfaced during this week's dialogue. Khokhar denounced as "unacceptable" India's assertion that Kashmir was an "integral part" of its territory. He urged India to "ease its repression and respect the human rights" of Kashmiris, and include them in the peace process. On Monday, Saran maintained that "cross border terrorism" persisted. In positive developments, Saran said the two countries had agreed to increase contacts between their armed forces at the Line of Control and elsewhere along their international border. Also India proposed allowing temporary reunions of divided families at five locations in Kashmir. Saran said the two countries had agreed to increase contacts between their armed forces at the Line of Control and elsewhere along their international border. Both countries also agreed to provide consular access to each other's prisoners within three months of arrest and expedite the release of those aged under 16 without sentencing them. Hundreds of Indian and Pakistani fishermen are languishing in jail in the other's country after crossing their disputed maritime border. Associated Press writer Sadaqat Jan contributed to this report. ----- India, Pakistan End Talks Without Breakthrough By REUTERS Published: December 28, 2004 Filed at 9:04 a.m. ET http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-southasia.html ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Nuclear-armed Pakistan and India said on Tuesday they had narrowed some differences and agreed a rough schedule for their slow-moving peace process but reported no significant breakthrough after two days of talks. A joint statement after meetings between Pakistan's Foreign Secretary Riaz Khokhar and Indian counterpart Shyam Saran in Islamabad reported no progress toward a solution on Kashmir, the divided Himalayan state at the heart of their rivalry. The two sides also failed to complete an agreement to notify each other formally before testing ballistic missiles, although the statement said they had narrowed their differences and agreed to work toward early finalisation. It said the officials agreed that meetings on six issues, including border disputes, counter-terrorism and drug trafficking, and economic cooperation should be held at dates to be agreed between April and June. They also agreed that talks on trade and border security and more dialogue to build confidence on their nuclear and conventional arsenals would be held between January and June. The officials confirmed that their foreign and prime minsters would meet at the South Asian summit next month and that Indian Foreign Minister Natwar Singh would visit Islamabad in February. Khokhar told a news conference that Pakistan had also proposed that Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh come to Islamabad in March. The foreign secretaries, meanwhile, plan to meet again between July and August to review overall progress in the peace process, which was relaunched last January. KASHMIR TALKS BRIEF Tuesday's talks on Kashmir lasted just a hour. As expected, they produced no breakthrough given that the sides remain far apart on an issue that has caused two of their three wars since independence in 1947 and nearly triggered a fourth in 2002. ``This is obviously a very complex issue. We will need some time to deal with this,'' Saran told a news conference after the talks, adding that Pakistan needed to do more to prevent Islamic militants crossing into Indian-ruled Kashmir. Khokhar responded at a later briefing by saying that Pakistan had done all it could to curb such movements. He said high-level exchanges were conducive to resolving Pakistan's disputes with India, but the two sides had yet to scratch the surface on Kashmir. ``We are still on the periphery. We haven't yet grappled with the real issue,'' he said. The delegations did agree to promote more contacts between the local military commanders along their border and Saran said India had proposed setting up five points along the military line dividing Kashmir to allow the reunion of divided families. However he said more talks were needed to iron out differences on travel documents to allow the proposed opening of a bus service between their two sides of the territory. The statement said the officials had agreed that discussions on Kashmir should continue in the light of a joint statement by Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and Manmohan Singh in New York in September. The two leaders said then they should explore options for a peaceful negotiated settlement, but progress has proven elusive. Islamabad, which wants progress on Kashmir in tandem with other issues, has suggested demilitarising the territory while a compromise is sought over its status. It says this could include joint control, some form of U.N. control, or independence. But India rejects any redrawing of its borders or further division of the territory. The South Asian neighbors have nevertheless come a long way in patching up ties since going to the brink of another war after an attack on the Indian parliament in late 2001. India blamed that on Pakistani-backed Islamic militants. Diplomatic ties have been normalized, with some rail, road and air links restored and sporting ties resumed. A truce along the military line dividing Kashmir has held for over a year. -------- u.s. nuc facilities -------- north carolina Duke gets initial OK to test fuel Environmental group had fought use of surplus plutonium BRUCE HENDERSON Charlotte Observer Staff Writer Tue, Dec. 28, 2004 http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/local/10511444.htm?1c A federal licensing board has tentatively dismissed a claim that Duke Power's tests of a controversial new fuel at its nuclear plant on Lake Wylie, expected to begin next year, would be unsafe. The Dec. 22 ruling by the board, which is appointed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, finds "reasonable assurance" that tests of the mixed-oxide or MOX fuel won't endanger the public near the Catawba nuclear plant. MOX fuel contains surplus weapons plutonium, an ingredient that alarms anti-nuclear forces. Duke is the only U.S. utility to agree to use the fuel in its power plants, although full use can't happen for several more years. The Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, which filed the claim, has 15 days to appeal the board's ruling to the NRC. "We're considering our options at this point," the group's Lou Zeller said Monday. The three-member licensing board will hold a hearing the week of Jan. 10 on the league's last remaining claim, which challenges the security measures to safeguard the fuel. Zeller regards that as the more significant issue because it involves the potential for post-9/11 terrorism. Duke needs federal approval to insert four MOX fuel assemblies among 189 conventional assemblies. The new fuel would be tested for at least two fuel cycles, typically about 18 months each. In full use, expected to begin in 2009, MOX would make up about 40 percent of the fuel at Catawba and Duke's McGuire nuclear plant on Lake Norman. The fuel would be produced at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina. Its use is expected to save Duke money on fuel costs. The NRC could approve limited tests before Blue Ridge's safety and security claims are resolved. Commission staff endorsed the tests in July, saying MOX wouldn't hurt the safety of Catawba or worsen the consequences of an accident. Last week's licensing board ruling was on Blue Ridge's contention that MOX could make it harder for Duke to keep its reactor fuel under control if crucial cooling water was lost during an accident. In such a scenario, Blue Ridge said, the protective metal cladding of fuel rods could weaken and burst. The fuel pellets inside the rods could fragment, the group said, falling to weakened sections of cladding. Duke's analyses found the results of such an accident still to be within safe limits, the licensing board order said. The small amount of MOX fuel used in the tests would have little overall effect in an accident, Duke said, but could reduce the heat building up after an accident. The MOX program is the key step in a U.S.-Russia agreement to reduce the world's supply of material that could be used to make nuclear bombs. Each nation has promised to dispose of 34 metric tons of surplus weapons plutonium. Bruce Henderson: (704) 358-5051; bhenderson@charlotteobserver.com. -------- pennsylvania A day of truth is coming for a troubled nuclear power plant Associated Press Tue, Dec. 28, 2004 http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/breaking_news/10515185.htm?1c MOUNT LAUREL, N.J. - The company that owns the Hope Creek nuclear power plant in Salem County is hoping to obtain at a Jan. 5 meeting the approval of federal regulators to restart the plant, which has been shut down since an Oct. 10 steam leak. While Public Service Energy Group has been working for more than two months to fix the problems that caused the leak, activists are hoping a second problem will keep the plant from being restarted immediately. Newark-based PSEG does not need formal permission from the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission to restart the Hope Creek plant, but agreed after the October mishap not to restart it until after a meeting with the commission. A meeting is now scheduled for Jan. 5 in Bridgeport. There, NRC officials are expected to present their findings from a special investigation of the circumstances surrounding the leak, which caused no injuries. NRC officials are also working on a separate report regarding the other issue, a bowed rod in a reactor circulation pump. When the pump is operating at certain speeds, it creates a clanging that employees have compared to the sound of a freight train. PSEG officials have said that the pump is safe enough, though, that it will not need to be changed until the next regular plant shutdown for refueling and maintenance, which is scheduled for mid-2006. Kymn Harvin, a PSEG whistle blower who once worked at the plants, has urged the NRC to force PSEG to replace the part before restarting. "We are facing a showdown - profits first or safety first," Harvin wrote in an e-mail Tuesday to The Associated Press. The NRC, Harvin said, must decide which of the values wins. PSEG is in the midst of a merger with Chicago-based energy company Exelon. Officials with that firm have said they back the decision to wait to replace the pump. NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said Tuesday that if the report on the pump is completed in time, it will be discussed at next week's meeting. Otherwise, it would be the subject of another public meeting. PSEG is poised to restart the plant after next week's meeting, said company spokesman Skip Sindoni. -------- us nuc waste Yucca stalemate spikes nuclear costs Government looking at longer licenses for waste storage By Stephanie I. Cohen, CBS MarketWatch Last Update: 7:12 PM ET Dec. 28, 2004 http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/print_story.asp?print=1&guid={2D6B0ECC-446A-4A6F-880A-0FF2A7AF4A2D}&siteid=mktw WASHINGTON (CBS.MW) -- Nuclear plant operators are facing seriously expensive storage costs for growing stocks of high-level radioactive waste that the federal government promised it would move to a central repository at Yucca Mountain, Nev., seven years ago. But the government's plan is ensnared in a legislative impasse, while storing the waste -- expected to reach 60,000 metric tons by 2010 -- is costing utilities millions of dollars, an operating expense that increases every year. Forced to find interim storage solutions, utilities now must decide whether to build temporary facilities, extend licenses for storage in containers at existing sites or consider moving waste to private storage facilities, according to regulators, lobbyists and utilities. For utilities like American Electric Power, Dominion Resources, Exelon, Pacific Gas & Electric and Southern, storing spent nuclear fuel is an ongoing problem. The 104 licensed nuclear plants in the United States are a vital component of the nation's energy portfolio, producing 20 percent of electricity generation. But most reactors designed to run for several decades never planned for storing the total amount of spent fuel a reactor generates during its life. This leftover fuel is emptied out of the reactors every 18 to 24 months, and then placed into pools where it must cool for five years. As these on-site pools have filled, 29 sites in the United States operated by utilities have turned to dry casks as the next solution. Exelon, which operates the largest nuclear fleet in the United States with 17 reactors, anticipates spending roughly $300 million to store waste in dry-cask concrete and steel containers at its sites by 2010. "We don't want to store spent fuel on site," said Adam Levin, manager of spent nuclear fuel and decommissioning for Exelon, but the utility has little choice. A reactor site with two units will generate roughly 55 tons, or 110,000 pounds, of spent fuel each year, Levin added. The federal government is aware of the storage quandary faced by utilities. "In the next five years ... increasing quantities of radioactive waste may be transported and held in interim storage or permanent disposal sites," according to a recent report by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the agency charged with overseeing the U.S. nuclear power capacity. While customers of nuclear utilities pay a fee into a federal fund to cover the long-term costs of managing radioactive waste at Yucca Mountain, the roughly $15 billion in this fund cannot be spent on interim storage. "We're open to any solution" for temporary storage, said John Kane, senior vice president of governmental affairs at the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry lobbying group in Washington. He added, however, that short-term solutions should not overshadow the need to develop a permanent storage site: "Our goal is clearly to get Yucca operational." It will still be years before Yucca is ready to accept waste. The next step is for the Energy Department to file a license application with Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The commission will then have three to four years to review the application. Containing waste Exelon has built four storage structures, known as pads, each capable of holding 28 steel containers of dry, spent fuel. The Chicago-based utility says it costs between $20 million and $30 million to construct each pad and the utility has proposed a fifth. Since 2000, Exelon has filled 59 casks at three sites in New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Illinois. Loading each new container, which will weigh more than 100 tons once placed in a concrete pack, onto the pad costs another $1 million to $1.5 million. At sites where Exelon has no room left in outdoor pools, the utility will typically add between four and five containers a year, Levin said. The federal government reimbursed the utility $80 million after Exelon settled a lawsuit to recover costs, but other utilities have not been so lucky. Dominion has spent $180 million building three dry-cask storage pads and has filled 79 containers at its Surry and North Anna sites. The utility has received approval to build another at its Millstone site in Connecticut. Customers of the Richmond, Va.-based utility have picked up some of the tab for this storage, said Richard Zuercher, a spokesman for Dominion. Nevertheless, since electricity rates in Virginia are capped, the utility has had to eat some of the costs, he added. Pacific Gas & Electric plans to begin moving waste from its Diablo Canyon power plant into dry storage containers in 2007. The tab to build the initial dry-cask storage structure and add two years' worth of waste is $65 million, said Jeff Lewis, a spokesman with PG&E. Alternative storage Many of the earliest dry-cask facilities built to store these containers were originally given a 20-year license by regulators. In the next decade, a handful of these licenses will expire. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which has oversight over waste, granted an exception to Dominion in December to store spent fuel at its Surry nuclear power plant in Virginia for an additional 40 years, twice as long as the original license. Surry's two reactors are expected to run until 2032 and 2033. "This gets us through the end of the life for Surry," the company's Zuercher said. Progress Energy (PGN: news, chart, profile) has similarly applied to extend its license for dry-cask storage at its H.B. Robinson reactor site in South Carolina for an additional 40 years. Although the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has asked its staff to look into changing the period for dry-cask storage licenses from 20 to 40 years, regulators insist that it does not see cask storage as a permanent solution for storing nuclear waste. "The agency is certainly not changing its belief that dry-cask storage is an interim storage solution," said David McIntyre, a spokesman for the commission. "It's a belief ... that there will be a need for this even beyond 20 years." The commission is also considering another short-term alternative: private off-site storage. In the past year, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has reviewed a private fuel-storage license application from a handful of utilities to construct and operate an independent, temporary storage site in Utah. Utility stocks saw slight gains in afternoon trading on Tuesday. Dominion shares rose 33 cents to $67.63, while Exelon stock climbed 13 cents to $44.33. American Electric Power traded up 6 cents to $34.66. Pacific Gas & Electric was up four cents to $33.22 and Southern edged up three cents to $33.45. Stephanie I. Cohen is a reporter for CBS MarketWatch in Washington. -------- MILITARY -------- business United Defense racks up contracts December 28, 2004 By Marguerite Higgins THE WASHINGTON TIMES http://www.washtimes.com/business/20041227-094931-1471r.htm United Defense Industries Inc. won a $48.2 million contract last week to upgrade armored vehicles for the U.S. Marine Corps Systems Command office. The Arlington contractor, which repairs ships and makes naval guns and Bradley armored vehicles, will modify and apply armor to Bradleys that are bound for Taiwan, according to the contract terms. Also this month, United Defense won a $104 million contract to produce Mod 2 Tomahawk canisters for the U.S. Navy and netted a $38.2 million contract to modify tanks for the U.S. Army. United Defense's stock on the New York Stock Exchange closed yesterday at $47.79, down 29 cents from Thursday's closing price of $48.08. The markets were closed on Friday for Christmas Eve. "It's a nice size contract," analyst Alex Hamilton said of the Marine Corps deal. Mr. Hamilton, with Hartford, Conn., investment bank Advest Inc., advised investors to buy United Defense stock. But Mr. Hamilton, along with several other analysts, have lowered their 2005 financial outlook for the company. Earnings estimates were lowered in the recent financial quarter primarily because the company's contracts in its joint business venture, FNSS Defense Systems Inc., are set to expire next year with no extensions. United Defense spokesman Doug Coffey said the joint venture was only a small part of the company's sales, though he would not say how much. The company still is invested in FNSS and is looking for business with foreign contractors, Mr. Coffey said. Mr. Hamilton projected that United Defense would make $3.10 in diluted earnings per share this year and $2.89 in 2005. Mr. Hamilton does not own any United Defense stock, but Advest is seeking business with the company. United Defense in its third quarter ended Sept. 30 reported a 13 percent sales jump to $573.4 million from $507.9 million last year. Profits rose 40 percent to $52.2 million (99 cents per diluted share) from $37.4 million (71 cents) a year earlier. Diluted earnings include the value of convertible warrants and stock options. But more fixed-price contract wins ultimately could lead to higher earnings in 2005, said Peter Arment, an analyst at Newport, R.I., equity research firm JSA Research Inc. "Despite some significant hurdles in 2005, the growing sales opportunities coupled with stock buybacks and selective acquisitions could lead to higher [earnings] than the current 2005 consensus estimate" of $2.89 per share, Mr. Arment said. Earlier this month, the company said it would buy EPD Container Solutions, a Berthoud, Colo., maker of specialized containers for military munitions, for an undisclosed price. The transaction, pending regulatory approvals, is expected to close sometime during next year's first quarter. Mr. Coffey said the company is looking at more acquisitions next year but would not comment further. Mr. Arment, who rated the stock as a "buy," does not own any shares and JSA Research has no business with the company. -------- china China carries out test flight of new military helicopter gunship BEIJING (AFP) Dec 28, 2004 http://www.spacewar.com/2004/041228031644.ahip3b53.html China has carried out its first test flight of a new helicopter gunship that is to help propel the People's Liberation Army into the 21st century, state media said Tuesday. The Zhi-11, an armed version of a civilian series of the same name, was tested at Lumeng airport in eastern China's Jiangxi province Monday, the Xinhua news agency reported. The test flight took place on the same day that the Chinese government issued a defense white paper stressing the need to modernize the armed forces. The Zhi-11 helicopter passed official appraisal four years ago and research on an armed military version began in early 2004, according to Xinhua. ---- China to raise military officers' salary by 50 percent from 2005: report HONG KONG (AFP) Dec 28, 2004 http://www.spacewar.com/2004/041228052335.52nsfci6.html China will increase the salary of officers in the army, navy and air force by as much as 50 percent from the beginning of 2005, a Hong Kong press report said Tuesday. With effect from January 1, army second lieutenants will receive a monthly paycheck of 3,000 yuan (360 dollars), up from the current 2,000 yuan, the Ming Pao Daily said, citing unnamed sources. The newspaper did not give a reason for the steep increase in salaries but it is widely reported that China's military has had problems recruiting or retaining talent because of attractive salaries in the civilian sector. Field grade officers in the People's Liberation Army (PLA) land forces will receive a salary of up to 6,000 yuan. Officers from the PLA navy, air force and Second Artillery Corps -- the special missile arm -- will earn about twice as much as their colleagues in the land forces. Allowances for soldiers will be increased to 300 yuan from 200 yuan, it said, while members of the paramilitary People's Armed Police, in charge of duties such as riot control, will not get any rise. ---- In China, Turning the Law Into the People's Protector By Philip P. Pan Washington Post Foreign Service Tuesday, December 28, 2004; Page A01 http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A30146-2004Dec27?language=printer FUYANG, China -- Attorney Pu Zhiqiang sat with the two authors on trial, listening intently and taking notes, his broad shoulders hunched over a small table. Facing him on the other side of the courtroom, Zhang Xide, a short, slightly pudgy Communist Party boss, leaned back and smiled as the first witness took the stand. Zhang had sued the authors for defamation, accusing them of libeling him in a best-selling book on rural China that portrayed him as a local tyrant. In a country where the courts are controlled by the party, he held the upper hand. But then Pu, 39, a tall, brawny man with a crew cut, began grilling the witness, an official who had worked for Zhang, and accused him of extracting illegal taxes from peasants, embezzling public funds and killing a man while driving drunk. "How did you get away with it?" he asked, prompting laughter from the gallery. The witness protested angrily, then refused to answer questions. But Pu pressed on: "You obey the leadership of Secretary Zhang, so aren't your problems Secretary Zhang's problems? Shouldn't he be responsible for you?" By the time he finished his cross-examination, the mood in the courtroom had begun to change. When the trial ended three days later, the authors remained at the defendants' table, but it seemed as if Zhang -- and the Communist Party itself -- were the ones on trial. What happened in the Fuyang case highlights a momentous struggle underway in China between a ruling party that sees the law as an instrument of control and a society that increasingly believes it should be used for something else: a check on the power of government officials and a guardian of individual rights. How this conflict unfolds could transform the country's authoritarian political system. More than a quarter-century after launching economic reforms while continuing to restrict political freedom, the Chinese Communist Party remains in firm control of the courts. Most judges are party members, appointed by party leaders and required to carry out party orders. But the government's claims of support for legal reform and human rights, and an influx of information about Western legal concepts, have fueled public demands for a more independent judiciary. China's citizens are asserting their rights and going to court in record numbers. About 4.4 million civil cases were filed in the last year, more than double the total a decade ago. Behind this surge in legal activity is a belief that everyone, even party officials, can be held accountable under the law, a belief promoted by a new generation of lawyers, judges and legal scholars trained after the death of Communist Party Chairman Mao Zedong. The party appears torn by this rising legal consciousness. It recognizes the value of an impartial judicial system to resolve disputes in a country with growing social tensions and an emerging capitalist economy, and it sees the potential of citizen lawsuits to curb corruption and improve governance. But it is also afraid that rule of law and independent courts might threaten its monopoly on power. A rare chance to sit in a Chinese courtroom unnoticed by the authorities and observe a four-day civil trial in August offered a glimpse into a society's struggle to establish rule of law, and the stark dilemma that presents to the party. Pu's aggressive defense tactics left the court with a difficult choice. It could ignore the evidence he presented in open court about Zhang's transgressions and rule against the authors, risking a backlash that could further erode the party's legitimacy. Or it could reject Zhang's lawsuit and send a powerful message to the public about the law as a weapon against the party. Four months after the close of the trial, the court has yet to issue a verdict. A Free Speech Lawyer Growing up in rural eastern China, and studying history and classical Chinese literature in university, Pu Zhiqiang had always planned to be a teacher. But he joined the 1989 pro-democracy demonstrations in Tiananmen Square while in graduate school, and in the crackdown that followed, the party barred him from academia. He drifted for years, working as a secretary, a salesman, even at an agricultural market. But in 1993, a friend suggested he try a career in law. He studied on his own and passed the bar in 1995. Mao all but dismantled China's legal system during the Cultural Revolution, but after his death in 1976, the party reopened its courts and adopted new laws to promote economic reforms. Demand for legal services grew rapidly, and hundreds of law schools and the first private law firms opened. By the mid-1990s, lawyers were shedding their traditional role in China as civil servants loyal to the state and beginning to see themselves as independent advocates devoted to their clients. Pu, a gregarious man who speaks in both street profanities and classical Chinese, prospered by helping companies declare bankruptcy and settle business disputes. He also learned how corrupt China's legal system could be. "It was much worse than I imagined," he said. And yet Pu believed that a good lawyer who took the right cases could change China. In 2003, he agreed to defend a literary critic who had been sued for defamation by one of China's most famous authors. He built his case on one of the principles he had fought for in Tiananmen: free speech. While preparing for trial, Pu read about New York Times v. Sullivan, the landmark Supreme Court decision on freedom of the press, and used it in his closing argument. The judge handed him a victory. Over the next year, Pu took on four more defamation cases, defending two magazines, a newspaper and a scholar against lawsuits filed by companies and business tycoons. In a nation where censorship is standard and criticizing the party can lead to prison, he had become China's version of a First Amendment lawyer. In February, Pu heard about a defamation suit in Fuyang, an urban backwater in the eastern province of Anhui, about 575 miles south of Beijing. A local party official had sued the husband-and-wife authors of "An Investigation of China's Peasantry," a literary exploration of poverty and the abuse of power in rural China. "I read the book carefully, and it made me furious," Pu recalled. The stories reminded him of his own experiences in the countryside; only a decade earlier, officials enforcing the government's one-child policy had forced his sister-in-law to abort a pregnancy in the ninth month. The authors already had an attorney, but Pu contacted them and offered his services for free. He proposed turning the case into China's version of New York Times v. Sullivan and argued that society would be better served if the courts protected the public's right to criticize party officials. Pu said he didn't expect to win. Local party officials control local courts. In Fuyang, Zhang held a top post, and his son was a judge. But if the case attracted enough attention, a sympathetic official elsewhere might stand up for the authors on appeal, or the leadership might decide that letting Zhang win would hurt the party's image too much. The authors, Chen Guidi and Wu Chuntao, added Pu to their defense team soon after the party banned their book. "We knew we needed a cannon," Wu said. 'The Weapon of the Law' The trial opened Aug. 24 in a wood-paneled room on the first floor of the Fuyang courthouse. The authors and a team of four lawyers sat on the right, Zhang and his attorneys on the left. Three judges in black robes presided from a bench under the red-and-gold emblem of the People's Republic of China. About 100 people sat in the gallery, and more than a dozen police officers stood guard. A handful of Chinese reporters were present, though they knew their stories would be censored. Hundreds of peasants from Linquan County, where Zhang had served as party chief, were waiting outside. There were plenty of empty seats inside, but the court let only 25 peasants in. Zhang's lead attorney spoke first, accusing the authors of fabricating material in the book's third chapter, which described events in Linquan between 1992 and 1995. The attorney's objections included the book's description of Zhang as an official who spoke like "an uncouth lout" and was "short of stature," and its claim that he ignored Beijing's orders to reduce taxes and violently punished villagers who protested. "As a senior party member and a qualified cadre who has made no mistakes . . . Zhang Xide is using the weapon of the law to demand justice," the attorney said. He said Zhang wanted an apology and damages of 200,000 yuan, or about $24,000. The defense responded forcefully. "If a party secretary can't take criticism without considering it defamation, I suggest he quit and go home," declared Lei Yanping, the authors' local attorney. Pu, in a gray shirt and silver tie, spoke next, arguing that his clients' portrayal of Zhang was based on interviews as well as party reports they had obtained. He also noted that their book was a work of "reportage literature," a popular Chinese genre in which writers sometimes embellish facts for literary effect. But when Pu urged the court to consider whether criticism of an official's performance in office should be considered defamation, the judges refused. "We're not going to include it as a disputed issue in this case," said Qian Weiguang, the chief judge. Pu slapped his forehead in frustration. A Hush Over the Courtroom He stepped up his attack the next day, when Zhang's attorneys called their first witness. Pu accused the man, a party official who had worked for Zhang, of embezzlement, collecting excess taxes and killing a man while driving drunk. "The witness is not a criminal!" one of Zhang's attorneys objected. "Yes, yes," Pu replied, raising his voice. "But I just want to know, how could someone who had clearly committed a crime not only escape any punishment but then receive a promotion? If Secretary Zhang can interfere with the law -- " The judge cut him off. Zhang's attorneys called 13 other witnesses, almost all of them party officials, men with power who were clearly unaccustomed to being challenged. Often, they bristled and refused to answer when pressed by the defense. Sometimes, the chief judge would order them to answer, and they ignored him, too. The highest-ranking official, a gray-haired county leader named Li Pinzheng, demanded the defense attorneys' names. He also answered his cell phone while on the stand. Later, when an attorney told him to pay attention, he blew up: "You're telling me to pay attention! You're the one who needs to watch out!" As the defense pressed the witnesses, some revealed damaging details. The book had said officials punished peasants for violating the one-child policy by demolishing their homes and seizing their livestock. But one official who took the stand admitted that the county also had forced couples to be sterilized, requiring it of women even if their husbands had already undergone surgery. When Zhang's last witness, a peasant named Dai Junming, took the stand, Pu asked him how many children he had. Three, the man replied. Then Pu asked: "Have you been sterilized?" The courtroom hushed. The witness stared blankly at the lawyer. Pu repeated the question. Again, the man said nothing. Zhang's attorneys objected, but the judge surprised them, siding with Pu and addressing the witness himself: "Please answer the question. Have you been sterilized?" There was another awkward silence. Finally, Pu moved on, and asked the witness a different question: "Do you think Zhang Xide was a good party secretary in Linquan County?" He didn't answer that one either. The Weapon Changes Hands On the third day of the trial, Pu began calling witnesses, all of them peasants from Linquan. His cross-examinations had put Zhang on the defensive, but now he seemed like a prosecutor building a case against him. The libel charges were all but forgotten. One after another, the peasants recalled the events described in the book in damning detail: their suffering at the hands of party officials who demanded illegal taxes; the tough one-child policy campaigns with slogans declaring that it would be better to end seven pregnancies than to allow an extra child to be born; and the appeals for help that took them all the way to Beijing, where 74 of them knelt in protest in Tiananmen Square in 1995. The most vivid testimony concerned a raid on their village by military police on April 3, 1994. Residents said Zhang ordered the police to punish them for protesting his policies. The officers beat anyone they found and dragged away a dozen people, including some who had nothing to do with the protests, the witnesses said. "It was worse than when the Japanese ghouls invaded," testified Wang Yongliang, an elderly, white-haired peasant, who said many villagers were so terrified they fled to a neighboring province. Others, including Wang Xiangdong, 42, a rugged-faced peasant leader, said they were arrested and tortured. "Every officer hit me, and they kept asking, 'Are you tired of living yet?' " he testified. The last witness was a frail, 69-year-old woman in a flower-print blouse, Zhang Xiuying. Sobbing, she recalled how her husband shouted when police seized him, then suddenly collapsed. The officers left him on the ground, and the villagers were too afraid of the police to help him. He died the next day. After she finished testifying, the woman suddenly knelt in the well of the courtroom and cried out, "May the honorable judges render justice to my family!" The chief judge shouted for order. But the gallery erupted, and another woman knelt and pleaded for justice, too. Pu jumped to his feet, wiping away tears, as security officers led the women from the room. P laintiff on the Defensive Zhang Xide sat quietly at the plaintiff's table through much of the trial, sipping tea from a steel thermos. He let his attorneys do most of the talking. But as the trial began spinning out of his control, he smiled less and spoke up more. "That's a lie!" he blurted out occasionally, drawing rebukes from the chief judge and laughter from the gallery. But for the most part, Zhang stayed cool and casually dismissed the peasants' complaints. He said party leaders had long ago concluded that the police raid was justified and handled correctly. "Just a few trifles," he said of the corruption allegations. Defending his enforcement of the one-child policy, he said, "Only 20 or so families had their houses torn down." He also defended his use of county funds to buy a Mercedes-Benz. "I didn't buy it for myself, but for anyone who needed the car for work," he said. Pressed by the lawyers, he added: "This has nothing to do with this case. I have my human rights." From beginning to end, Zhang maintained that the book was trouble for the party. "This book doesn't encourage people to obey the law or work hard, but glorifies crime and violations of discipline," he said. "It incites the peasants to protest in large groups, launch surprise attacks on police, steal guns, insult county party secretaries and so on. . . . If 900,000 peasants are guided like this, what kind of result will there be for China?" He sneered when the defense noted that the book had been critically acclaimed, and he reminded the judges that it had been banned. "Why haven't domestic newspapers and media said anything about it since March?" The book, he said, "was strangled" by the party. When it came time for Pu to question Zhang, he asked only one question. "I've been willing to believe you originally didn't know the facts," he said slowly. "But today, facing the suffering of these people, including suffering at the hands of your subordinates, do you have any regrets or remorse or a feeling you let these peasants down?" Zhang replied: "No." Waiting for a Verdict In his closing statement, Pu argued that the authors had a right to criticize Zhang's performance in public office. The law should protect people's rights, he said, not serve as a tool of revenge for officials. But then he broadened his rhetoric, suggesting the trial had shown that not only Zhang but others in the party could be held accountable under the law, no matter how old their crimes. "This case has given us a chance to reexamine what happened during the reign of party secretary Zhang 10 years ago," he said. "We hope this case will make it clear to hundreds of thousands of officials that they should not abuse their power and oppress the people. . . . All of it will be redressed with time." Pu ended with a subtle plea to the judges to defy their party superiors. "Obviously, there is room for you to be creative," he said. "If you are appropriately creative, your efforts and morals will lead society toward the further development of civilization and democracy. Your names will go down in history. . . . Your judgment will show whether the judiciary in China can shoulder its responsibility to promote the development of society." But the lawyers said the judges have told them they cannot decide the case, which suggests that higher-level party officials are involved. The party's deliberations have been complicated because accounts of the trial have been published on the Internet and in Hong Kong. In a sign of the party's indecision, several officials have contacted the authors and their attorneys and urged them to settle the case. So far, the authors have refused. "Settling isn't an option," Chen said recently. "We've come this far. We want a verdict." Researcher Jin Ling contributed to this report. -------- israel / palestine Israel shells Palestinian refugee camp Khan Yunus houses more than 200,000 Palestinian refugees AFP Tuesday 28 December 2004, 23:44 Makka Time, 20:44 GMT http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/C797A584-FC28-44B8-A827-C847341BC565.htm Israeli occupation forces have fired tank shells into the heavily populated Khan Yunus refugee camp in southern Gaza, wounding at least 13 Palestinians. A 13-year-old boy and a girl aged about 10 were among those injured by the shelling on Tuesday, which the Israeli military said was aimed at a source of mortar fire on the illegal Gush Khatif settlement. The shelling was carried out by troops manning a post near the illegal Neve Dekalim colony and came several hours after a failed Israeli air strike on a car carrying two Palestinian resistance fighters in the same area. The car was targeted by a drone that fired a single rocket in the Khan Yunus region of the southern Gaza Strip, witnesses said. Palestinian security sources said both men who fled the strike on foot were members of the Islamic Jihad movement that seeks to push Israeli occupation forces out of Gaza and the West Bank by force of arms. Israeli security sources confirmed the strike, saying their target had been resistance members behind the firing of mortars which have become increasingly frequent in recent days. -------- prisoners of war 'US sends captives to torture nations' The plane is said to have visited Guantanamo Bay Tuesday 28 December 2004, 3:44 Makka Time, 0:44 GMT http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/03022C1D-AA16-4F6C-83FD-762C095A1219.htm A US jet registered to a ghost company whisks terror suspects to countries that use torture, according to a report in The Washington Post. The newspaper said on Monday that the Gulfstream V turbojet has been seen at US military bases around the world, often loading up hooded and shackled suspects and delivering them to countries known to use torture. The daily investigated the ownership of the jet, tail number N379P, which has been spotted in Afghanistan, Indonesia, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Morocco, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan, according to the newspaper. The officers of the plane's corporate owner, Premier Executive Transport Services, are all listed with dates of birth in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, but with social security numbers issued since 1998. However, the newspaper was unable to locate any further business or credit information on them or on the company. The CIA refused to comment, but such "proprietary" or front corporations are standard procedure for the agency, former operatives told The Washington Post. Worrying The "rendering" of suspects to countries that employ interrogation techniques banned in the US is worrying and could violate the UN Convention on Torture, World Organisation for Human Rights USA executive director Morton Sklar said. Rights groups say Guantanamo Bay is a concentration camp The article confirmed much of a 14 November article published in the British weekly newspaper The Sunday Times which obtained flight plans for the plane, which, it said, always departed from Washington and had visited the US navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where about 550 suspects are held. Swedish television programme Cold Facts reported that in December 2001, the jet took hooded prisoners to Egypt, according to The Washington Post, which confirmed the Swedish report independently. The paper said the plane, with hooded crew members speaking with US accents, loaded two Egyptian nationals and took off at 4.30am for Cairo. It said airport officials and amateur plane spotters, some using binoculars, had logged multiple sightings of N379P at several US military airports and fuelling stations. AFP -------- un Tsunami Death Toll Tops 40,000; UN Launches Biggest Relief Effort Ever Tuesday, December 28th, 2004 Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/28/1511216 We go to Indonesia, India and the Maldive Islands for on-the-ground reports on the world's deadliest tsunami in 120 years. Sri Lanka's Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Ambassador Bernard Goonetilleke, also joins us in the studio. [includes rush transcript] The death toll from Sunday's devastating tsunamis in the Indian Ocean has now topped 40,000 and expected to grow higher. As many as a third of the dead are believed to be children. Sri Lanka has put its official death toll at over 18,000 people. In Indonesia, the country's vice president is estimating that up to 25,000 people may have died in the province of Aceh alone. Thousands more have died across India, Thailand, Somalia, Malysia and the Maldive Islands Millions of people are homeless and doctors fear epidemics could quickly spread among the displaced populations. All told 11 nations are still recovering from the tsunamis caused by a massive underwater earthquake near Indonesia. Registering a magnitude of 9.0 it was the largest earthquake in 40 years. The resulting tsunamis were the deadliest the world has seen in 120 years. One United Nations official said, "This may be the worst natural disaster in recent history." Agence France Press reports the relief effort is the largest the world has even seen. It will also likely be the costliest. Billions of dollars will be needed to feed and house survivors as well as rebuild cities. The Bush administration agreed to give an initial donation of $15 million but the small amount was quickly criticized. U.N. Undersecretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs Jan Egeland criticized the U.S. for being quote "stingy." Secretary of State Colin Powell said the $15 million is just the first installment of aid. We go now to hear reports from Indonesia, Sri Lanka, the Maldive Islands and India. * John Budd, UNICEF representative in Indonesia. * Ambassador Bernard Goonetilleke, Permanent Representative for Sri Lanka to the United Nations. * J. Sri Raman, journalist and peace activist who lives in the Indian fishing village of Chennai, an area that was devastated by the tsunami. He is a frequent contributor to the Pakistani newspaper, The Daily Times, and to the website truthout.org. He is also the author of the book "Flashpoint How the US, India and Pakistan Brought Us to the Brink of Nuclear War" published by Common Courage Press. * Tom Bergmann-Harris, head of the UNICEF office in the Maldives. He spoke to us from the capital city of Male. RUSH TRANSCRIPT AMY GOODMAN: In just a few minutes, we're joined by the Sri Lankan Ambassador to the United Nations. But first we go to Indonesia, to John Budd of UNICEF. JOHN BUDD: We are now beginning to get reports in as yet unconfirmed about the deaths that have been occurring in areas of Northern Sumatra, in the province of Aceh in which it seems to be a lot of villages and small towns there are reporting up to eighty percent of the people have been killed. These are very isolated areas along the Sumatran coast which faces the Indian Ocean. So, access to these areas is extremely difficult because it's very mountainous. The mountains go right down to the sea. And we are getting these reports from the government of Indonesia, people who are on the ground and are getting out and about to see what the situation is in these areas now that they know the extent of the damage and the destruction and the deaths in the major areas. That information is coming via our colleagues and counterparts in the government. The government of Indonesia has opened up the province to the international relief agencies to send supplies and indeed send staff in there to assess the extent of the problems and the extent of what is required; because, previous to that, it was extremely difficult to get into the province because there had been a conflict that had been waged there. So, we will be sending in tomorrow -- UNICEF will be going in tomorrow to make its preliminary assessment of exactly what will be required in terms of relief. In the meantime, we are sending on Friday, maybe even as early as Thursday, but certainly Friday, arriving in Indonesia will be health supplies, emergency health kits for 200,000 people to last for two weeks. Now, we assess at the moment, excluding the information I just provided to you before, that half a million people have been affected by the tsunami. So we believe that because of that, and because the water supply has been knocked out, electricity is cut as is most telecommunication nets all down, we are assessing that there will be severe health problems there caused by disease and diarrhea problems very shortly. Therefore, we are sort of focusing our initial efforts on emergency health kits and hygiene kits to get to the people there, and we can get to 200,000 of the half a million people who are affected by this disaster. The hardest part for us will be actually distributing them on the ground, because the area is essentially not in contact with the rest of the world, if you like. We are very reliant on – on making our estimates of what will be required. So we -- we have -- we are basically working a little bit in the dark, but we believe that this will be absolutely vital requirements for Aceh. To tell you the -- the extent of the damage, the UNICEF office has been knocked out there. It only took us until today to find out whether our staff member who ran there was okay. He's okay, but we still haven't found the UNICEF driver up there. So, the difficulties are enormous. We cannot underestimate exactly how difficult it is going to be to provide relief into that area. And that is why we're proceeding quite cautiously, knowing that, you know, Banda Aceh, the provincial capital and the capital where all the government bureaucracy and all the officials lie is – is wrecked. So, therefore, it is virtually rebuilding and starting again. AMY GOODMAN: John Budd with UNICEF, speaking to us from Jakarta, Indonesia. This is Democracy Now!, as we turn now to the Sri Lankan Ambassador to the United Nations who joins us in our studio, Bernard Goonetilleke. Welcome you to Democracy Now! Can you talk about what’s happening with Sri Lanka. Along with Aceh, it looks like the hardest hit of this global calamity, one of the worst – well, the worst tsunami in more than a century. BERNARD GOONETILLEKE: Well, despite the distance from Aceh, it appears to us that Sri Lanka has taken a direct hit, the eastern coast of Sri Lanka, southern coast of Sri Lanka, and even the western coast. We have large numbers of dead and destruction to property and infrastructure. And we have not experienced this kind of natural calamity before ever in our lifetime. AMY GOODMAN: Can you place Sri Lanka geographically for, I would say, Americans, a very insulated audience? BERNARD GOONETILLEKE: Yes, it is easy. If you know where India is, it is directly south of India. It’s a small island, size is something like 25,000 square miles. Population, we have approximately 19 million people. And now we are speaking of 18,000 casualties. That is by counting the numbers of dead, but we have also to remember the fact that massive numbers would have also – would have drowned, and with the receding waves would have gone into the sea. So the exact number of casualties, it will take some time for us to understand the magnitude of the disaster. AMY GOODMAN: Exactly when did the tsunami hit? BERNARD GOONETILLEKE: This happened in the morning of Sunday, 26th, around 10 o’clock in the morning Sri Lanka time. AMY GOODMAN: Did you have any warning? BERNARD GOONETILLEKE: There was no warning whatsoever. In fact, even the people who – by the beachside –that being a holiday would have not known what was going to happen because there are no early warning systems. And unlike in the case of cyclones or what we call here tornadoes or floods, which we are accustomed to. There is early warning. But this type of tidal waves, there is no -- absolutely no early warning system. AMY GOODMAN: And describe the areas hardest hit. BERNARD GOONETILLEKE: Well, Sri Lanka is populated -- mainly populated in the southern side, the western side. But the impact of the tidal wave was mostly felt on the eastern coast of Sri Lanka. But despite the fact that the southern coast was also affected, we have --according to the information we have, the entire eastern coast, southern coast, as well as the part of the southwestern area -- these areas have been affected -- and western coast is the most populous areas of this island. AMY GOODMAN: And who in particular is affected? BERNARD GOONETILLEKE: Well, we have large populations living in the coastal areas. First, we have the families who live by fishing, and those people would have got affected, together with their fishing equipment, boats and whatever they have use for their occupation. Then we have large numbers of tourist resorts stretched all the way along the beach from the western coast to southern coast. And mind you, this is the season, height of the season, immediately after the Christmas, and there would have been large numbers of tourists, as well as local people holidaying in those areas. So we have people living in the coastal areas, as well as the tourists, both local and foreign, would have got affected. AMY GOODMAN: What about the situation with the Tamils? There has been a struggle for a long time in Sri Lanka .The Wall Street journal is noting that Sri Lanka is one of the most heavily land mined countries in the world. U.N. officials fearing that the massive flooding moved many of the mines and washed away the markers. BERNARD GOONETILLEKE: I don’t entirely agree with the statement that it’s the most heavily land mined areas in the world. But we have large numbers of land mine, remnants of the armed conflict which we had for about two decades. Fortunately, the armed conflict came to an end. There is a cease-fire for the last three years. And both sides, both the government as well as the LTTE have been cooperating with international bodies for the removal of land mines. And there has been or there is a campaign that is going on to remove land mines. Not [inaudible] that you have a problem of land mines, these land mines would have got dislodged from their original places and would have floated, and certainly that would be a problem for us to deal with in the weeks and months to come. AMY GOODMAN: We are speaking with the Ambassador from Sri Lanka at the United Nations about the devastation of the last two days. In a piece from the Associated Press, talking about the Tamil conflict and how about it is playing out right now, talking about thousands of bodies being recovered, hundred of thousands of Sri Lankans fleeing their homes. But government troops and Tamil Tiger rebels refuse to work together to locate survivors and help victims. The article goes on to say the Tigers control a vast part of Tamil majority northeastern Sri Lanka as a virtual independent state with its own administration, police, and judiciary. The government controls remaining areas. A Tamil member of Parliament said government leaders discussing relief efforts simply were not bothered about the plight of our people. Your response. BERNARD GOONETILLEKE: Well, I am not qualified to respond to that statement made by a Member of the Parliament representing the Tamil population, but the fact remains the Sri Lankan government administration for the last two decades have had hand in the administration, running schools and health facilities in the areas which are controlled or which are being – which is out of the government control. And it is not correct to say that the government has not looked into the plight of the Tamili people. We have an arrangement with the United Nations agencies, with UNICEF, UNDP and [inaudible] with whom we cooperate, and to providing assistance to these areas. AMY GOODMAN: They are asking for donors to give separately. What is your response to that? To the Tamil areas? BERNARD GOONETILLEKE: This has been the line which has been propagated by the LTTE for a long period of time. The fact remains as of now as in the past, government provide funding to the Tamil – the areas controlled by the Tamil Tigers. It is happening even today. The most important factor is where we do not go. We have permitted the U. N. agencies to go, and we have cooperated with them [inaudible] to providing relief to the people who are in those areas. AMY GOODMAN: We have to break for a minute, Ambassador, but then when we come back, I would like to ask what does Sri Lanka need right now from the world community. Also standing online, we have a journalist and peace activist from India to talk about what is happening there. We’ll also speak with the permanent representative to the United Nations of the small island nations. This is Democracy Now!, as we deal with this global calamity. [break] AMY GOODMAN: Our guest is the Sri Lankan ambassador to the United Nations, Bernard Goonetilleke. We welcome you to Democracy Now! As you are talking about what you need from the world right now, Sri Lanka, one of the hardest hit countries. BERNARD GOONETILLEKE: Well, when you take into account the magnitude of the disaster, people will require immediately food, shelter, and medicine. Within days, people will have to have access to clean water for which our government has requested for water purification tablets from the international community, because without such facility, people will be drinking contaminated water, and they will fall sick, and we will have another disaster in our hands. So, we will require medicine. We will require clothing. We will require shelter -- material for shelter-like tents and plastic sheeting. Things like that. But taking into consideration the distance between, for example, the United States and Sri Lanka, the most desirable thing to do at this point of time is to provide cash so that whatever material required by the authorities concerned could be purchased either locally or from the neighboring countries and can be rushed to the victims as early as possible. AMY GOODMAN: Your response to the Bush administration saying it would give $15 million. The U.N. Undersecretary General for Humanitarian Affairs criticizing the U.S. for being stingy. BERNARD GOONETILLEKE: I do not want to comment on the statement -- that statement, but the fact remains any government will have to first have to have information with regard to the magnitude of the problem. They will have to receive information from their own embassies, and having received that kind of information, they will have to decide what kind of assistance to be provided. Mind you, this incident took place only about 72 hours ago, and I'm sure the U.S. administration would need a little bit of time to understand the situation, and to respond promptly. AMY GOODMAN: Do you think $15 million is enough? BERNARD GOONETILLEKE: I'm not commenting on the $15 million. I'm commenting on the need to assess the size or the magnitude of the problem, and then to respond accordingly. AMY GOODMAN: What about this issue of the early warning, of not having the proper notification, a system set up for the Indian Ocean? BERNARD GOONETILLEKE: Unfortunately, we don't have a system of that nature, and I hope what happened three days ago would be an eye-opener for the countries in the region to come up with that kind of a system which would provide the barest amount of time for people to either create and reach areas of safety. AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank you very much for joining us here on Democracy Now! We have been joined by Ambassador Bernard Goonetilleke, the Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the United Nations. Thank you. BERNARD GOONETILLEKE: Thank you very much, Amy. AMY GOODMAN: As we turn to India, to J. Sri Raman, a journalist and peace activist who lives in the Indian fishing village of Chennai, an area that’s been devastated by the tsunami. J. Sri Raman is a frequent contributor to the Pakistani newspaper, The Daily Times, to the website, truthout.org, and wrote the book, Flashpoint: How the U.S., India and Pakistan Brought Us to the Brink of Nuclear War. Now dealing with another catastrophe, J. Sri Raman, can you describe where you are and how your country is affected? J. SRI RAMAN: I am speaking from Chennai, one of the areas hit by the tsunami. As you will notice out of India, the state of Tamil Nadu, of which Chennai is the capital, is one of the worst hit areas. In this one state there have been well over 7,000 deaths so far, and as you said, the number -- the total is rising all the time. And on the whole of India, the figures shall have already cost 8,000. So it's a very, very terrible, terrible tragedy. And more than that, it totally -- unprepared for the tragedy. Nobody was prepared for it. As I was returning the totals this morning, I think this is a tragedy we should have been prepared for. I don't agree with the official [inaudible] that this is something that nobody would ever have anticipated. The [inaudible] had been warning of such a disaster. AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to J. Sri Raman. Can you geographically place Chennai for us, where you are speaking from? J. SRI RAMAN: Geographically it’s the capital of Tamil Nadu in the south of India. I live in a place 700-800 meters from the sea. So, it's an area about very much a coastal area, so I was – I happened to be an eyewitness to all that was happening, even though the city, my area, was not affected directly. It was the sea stopped just south of my area. But I was eyewitness to the panic here, and it was just lucky, I guess, that this area was spared. This is a area, as I said, you know, it’s on the coast of the Bay of Bengal, which is known as a very gentle sea. Chennai, formerly known as Madras, has a very famous beach called Marina Beach, which is known for its very gentle kind of beauty and it was a kind of this other place or planet that they go to this morning. It's very, very gentle place, and people have never known anything like this before. Just three years ago, [inaudible] that was the very first time, I think, in living memory that they ever knew from experience an earthquake, but that should have been a warning. But the warning was not taken very seriously. AMY GOODMAN: What do you think needs to be done right now? J. SRI RAMAN: What could be done right now, immediately, of course, what is called for is the relief operations on a massive scale because the people affected are the poorest of the poor, mostly fishermen and fishermen who put out to sea on very ancient, primitive kind of rafts and who undoubtedly drown in this kind of a situation. They don't have even proper fishing boats. People living in makeshift hamlets on the coastal areas, and they have all been dispossessed, and are entirely homeless. What we need -- immediately need is, of course, assistance and relief operations, but I think also almost immediately India and the rest of this demolished region starts to talk -- start thinking about not only an early warning system but also about protecting the coastal environment. The whole region has almost lost its coast. The coastal protection, [inaudible] lost, because absolutely indiscriminate building and this so-called tourist industry where five-star hotels fall along the route. This has been done in areas that this has been prohibited. [inaudible] we say they should not have been built in the area. But they have been violated in [inaudible] the rich and [inaudible] real estate people. And even the state, which is the interest in making, you know, easy tourist money. AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to a guest right now in India, speaking about the tsunami that has taken place. J. Sri Raman is speaking to us from the village of Chennai, an area that was devastated by the tsunami. We're going to turn right now to the Maldives, to Tom Bergmann-Harris, who is head of the UNICEF office in the Maldives, speaking to us from the capital. TOM BERGMANN-HARRIS: The situation is worse than expected only yesterday. We have about two-thirds of the entire population affected. Probably up to 100,000 homeless, 50% of them are children. Many people are being evacuated from their islands that have been either partially or totally destroyed. We have as the biggest problems lack of drinking water, food, and oral rehydration salts because we already have diarrhea and disease outbreaks. The UNICEF is working together with the sister agencies represented in the Maldives. We have had several meetings with the government. We are launching procurement of supplies for UNICEF, for example, that is, food items, hygiene, sanitation, and other items, tents, clothes for children, because many of the people who are being evacuated or have been evacuated have literally lost everything. They have nothing left from their belongings. They often have only the clothes they are actually wearing. The biggest challenge is to bring in the relief supplies as quickly as possible, because water, drinking water is very scarce. One out of five islands has no longer potable water, and the resources are destroyed. We have to be very fast in bringing in water and food supplies. These are the most important elements at this stage, and the speed is -- speed with which supplies are brought in is highly important, apart, of course, from financial resources to pay for supplies. AMY GOODMAN: Tom Bergmann-Harris, head of the UNICEF office in the Maldives. -------- POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS / JUSTICE -------- homeland security / national intelligence Homeland Security Oversight Tuesday, December 28, 2004 Washington Post; Page A18 http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A30342-2004Dec27?language=printer WHOMEVER President Bush chooses as his next nominee to head the Department of Homeland Security would be well-advised to take a look at a spine-tingling new chart before accepting the job. The chart -- too large to reprint here but available for viewing at www.hsc.house.gov -- depicts the intricate web of congressional committees and subcommittees with oversight authority for the gargantuan department. There are 79 such panels; every single senator and at least 412 of the 435 House members have some degree of responsibility for homeland security operations. By contrast, the Defense Department, with a budget 10 times that of DHS, reports to "just" 36 committees and subcommittees. From the perspective of national security, this fragmented, dysfunctional structure is sheer lunacy. Department officials spend too much time responding to their many congressional masters; last year alone, according to the departing secretary, Tom Ridge, he and other top department officials testified 145 times before various committees and subcommittees. Moreover, such balkanized oversight is less effective rather than more so, because members of Congress suffer from parochial viewpoints influenced by their individual committee assignments and fail to develop a broad overview of homeland security priorities. The point of creating the department out of the existing bureaucracy was to improve the government's ability to coordinate its responses to terrorism. Yet turf is power, and lawmakers, reluctant to cede either, have been unwilling to make parallel changes in their own organization -- despite the recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission and nearly every task force to study the question. Congress "has protected prerogative and privilege at the expense of a rational, streamlined committee structure," former House speaker Tom Foley (D-Wash.) and former senator Warren Rudman (R-N.H.) said in a report issued this month by the Center for Strategic and International Studies and Business Executives for National Security. "The result is a Department of Homeland Security that is hamstrung by a system of Congressional oversight that drains departmental energy and invites managerial circumvention." The House of Representatives has a chance to fix this mess -- at least its end of it -- but it's facing opposition to meaningful change from committee chairmen who don't want to yield any slice of their jurisdiction. The Senate has already done a fig-leaf version of reform, renaming the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee to put "Homeland Security" at the top of its title, but leaving responsibility for critical homeland security issues such as border control and aviation security in other committees. In the House, members will vote next week on a plan to make permanent the House Select Committee on Homeland Security, as Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) has advocated. What's still being furiously negotiated is whether to give the panel the power it has lacked over issues including maritime security, transportation security and immigration enforcement -- in other words, to make it a fully functioning homeland security committee rather than one that can't get its work done without the consent of competing congressional barons. "It would be worse than an empty shell to have a homeland security committee with jurisdiction that's shared with everyone else," says the committee's chairman, Rep. Christopher Cox (R-Calif.). The question before his colleagues, he says, is simple: "Is this a political exercise to make chairmen happy, or is this a historic opportunity to fundamentally reshape the committee structure to address homeland security?" How this question is resolved will be one of the first big tests of the 109th Congress -- and one that will affect America's ability to deal with the threat of terrorism for many Congresses to come. -------- POLITICS -------- propaganda wars To tailor the truth By Wayne S. Smith Baltimore Sun December 28, 2004 http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.intel28dec28,1,2558446.story?coll=bal-oped-headlines WASHINGTON -- The function of intelligence should be to provide as accurate an assessment as possible of a given situation to guide the formulation of policy. But the Bush administration doesn't see it that way; rather, it sees intelligence as something it can cite to justify a policy or an initiative it has already decided upon, as happened with Iraq. And if the facts must be twisted, misstated or even invented to justify that decision, fine. There is no commitment to truth. Selig S. Harrison, the chairman of the Task Force on U.S. Korea Policy at the Center for International Policy, notes in the forthcoming January edition of Foreign Affairs magazine that the administration deliberately distorted its intelligence on North Korea. In October 2002, the administration suddenly accused Pyongyang of secretly developing a program to enrich uranium to weapons grade in violation of its 1994 agreement with Washington. It then suspended the oil shipments the United States had been making to North Korea under that accord. North Korea responded by expelling international inspectors and resuming the processing of plutonium, suspended under the 1994 agreement. We were back to a crisis situation. But according to Mr. Harrison, a review of the available evidence suggests that the Bush administration exaggerated the intelligence and blurred the important distinction between weapons-grade uranium enrichment and lower levels of enrichment. The first would clearly have violated the 1994 agreement. The second, while technically prohibited by the agreement, was permitted under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and would not have resulted in uranium suitable for nuclear weapons. It was something the United States probably should have questioned but not something over which we should have brought U.S.-North Korean relations back to a crisis. But that is exactly what the Bush administration did. The results could be dangerous. It is as if the administration preferred a military confrontation with North Korea to continued negotiations and inspections. And we see the same pattern with Cuba. The administration charges that Cuba endorses terrorism as a policy and represents a threat to U.S. security. But on the contrary, Cuba has condemned terrorism in all of its manifestations, signed all 12 U.N. anti-terrorist resolutions and offered to sign agreements with the United States to cooperate in combating terrorism, an offer the administration ignores. Nor is Cuba "harboring" Basque and Colombian terrorists, as the administration alleges. Members of the Basque ETA and the Colombian groups Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia (FARC) and the National Liberation Army (ELN) are in Cuba, but with the full knowledge of their governments. Both Spain and Colombia stress that they have no evidence that Cuba is involved in terrorist activities against them. There are a number of American fugitives from justice in Cuba, yes, but even under our own legislation that provides no grounds for declaring Cuba to be a terrorist state; it certainly poses no threat to the United States. Further, if Cuba does not regularly extradite U.S. fugitives, the United States has not in more than 45 years extradited a single Cuban, including known terrorists guilty of multiple murders. But the most flagrant misrepresentations are those of Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton, who charged last spring that Cuba "is known to be developing a limited biological weapons [BW] effort ..." and "... remains a terrorist and BW threat to the U.S." Mr. Bolton cannot produce evidence of that, of course. But various U.S. delegations led by the Center for Defense Information have gone to Cuba and seen no evidence to suggest that this is the case. As retired Marine Gen. Charles Wilhelm put it after one visit: "While Cuba certainly has the capability to develop and produce chemical and biological weapons, nothing that we saw or heard led us to the conclusion that they are proceeding on this path ..." In short, the administration has not presented evidence that Cuba supports terrorism or has mounted a BW weapons effort. It simply alleges this to be true. But just as it did in Iraq, on the basis of alleged evidence, it is moving toward confrontation with Cuba. It has virtually cut off all dialogue, has drastically reduced travel, tightened sanctions and called for the ouster of Fidel Castro's government. Under its policy of pre-emptive warfare, the Bush administration reserves the right to take military action against any state deemed to be a threat to the United States. It has now said that Cuba poses such a threat. It probably has no intention of taking military action against Cuba, not with troops already in Iraq and Afghanistan. Still, Cuba should be prepared for the worst. Nor is this pattern of intelligence-tailoring likely to be corrected by the intelligence reform law. Not with President Bush's newly appointed CIA director, J. Porter Goss, now cleaning out those at the CIA who dared to voice opinions contrary to those of the administration. Mr. Goss has insisted that all hands must unwaveringly "support the administration and its policies." Wayne S. Smith, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, served with the State Department in Havana and Moscow. -------- us politics Neo-cons can't escape responsibility for their Iraq miscalculations By Joseph L. Galloway Knight Ridder Newspapers Tue, Dec. 28, 2004 http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/10521410.htm WASHINGTON - The most curious turn of the worm this season is the attack by the neo-conservatives on Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld for the failures in Iraq. It should be noted that until now Rumsfeld was the darling of that same bunch. He hired a batch of them as his most trusted aides and assistants in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Paul Wolfowitz as his undersecretary. Douglas Feith as his chief of planning. He installed the dean of the pack, Richard Perle, as chairman of the Defense Policy Board for a time. The doyenne and room mother of the whole bunch, Midge Decter, wrote a fawning biography of Rumsfeld titled "Rumsfeld: A Personal Portrait." Now, suddenly, the voice of the neo-conservative movement, William Kristol, editor of The Standard, suggests that Rumsfeld has fouled up everything in Iraq and ought to be fired for his failures. Ditto, writes Tom Donnelly of the right-thinking American Enterprise Institute. Rumsfeld himself was never a neo-conservative. He just found them useful as he took over the Pentagon for the second time. Clearly the neo-cons found Rumsfeld useful as well as they pushed their ideas on transforming the Middle East. So what happened? Why is Rumsfeld being stabbed in the back by those he trusted the most to back his play? By the very people who have argued for years in favor of taking out Saddam Hussein, installing democracy and creating a bully pulpit, and the military bases, from which the Middle East would be weaned from dictatorship and an implacable hatred of Israel and the United States. Simple. They want someone else to be blamed besides them for fouling up their marvelous plans and schemes - someone who is a handy lightning rod and who is NOT a card-carrying neo-conservative. So who better than Rumsfeld? Now those folks who cheered Rumsfeld, and the Bush administration, the loudest of all nearly two years ago are marching behind such grumpy Republicans as Sen. John McCain of Arizona and Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska in laying much of the blame at the feet of Rumsfeld. The sharpening attacks on the defense secretary as the old year fades and the new year approaches prompted the one man who has a vote on Rumsfeld's survival, President Bush, to step forward and praise him. That, in turn, prompted a semi-spirited defense of the secretary by Republican congressional leaders. Rumsfeld himself, who has basically no people skills at all, found it politic to spend the holidays with the soldiers and Marines in Iraq. He was even pictured wearing an apron and serving up turkey and dressing in an Army mess hall in the desert. How could anyone think, he asked, that he was not totally committed to providing those troops everything they need for survival in a bad place? We do not for a minute suggest that Rumsfeld be let off the hook, be absolved of responsibility for gross miscalculations and gross lack of planning in the Iraq war and, especially, the post-war period. But neither do we absolve the neo-conservatives for shooting the horse they've been riding the last four years. They were the loudest proponents of an attack on Iraq from the beginning. It was the neo-conservatives who wanted to unleash the dogs of war. It was they who championed Ahmad Chalabi and his Iraq National Congress and saw that their bogus defector tales of Saddam's nuclear weapons program and his stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons gained attention and traction. They believed Chalabi and the INC's predictions that American troops would be welcomed with showers of rose petals and there would be no need for an American occupation. Ergo, no need for anyone to actually plan to secure the country in the wake of victory or lay the groundwork for rebuilding a nation whose water, power and sewer services were falling apart before we bombed and shelled them. When Rumsfeld goes, so too should every neo-conservative who squirmed his way into a Pentagon sinecure. They must also bear responsibility for a war that so far has cost nearly $200 billion and the lives of more than 1,300 American troops and has damaged America's standing in the world. They cannot be allowed to load all the blame on Rumsfeld and scoot away to lick their wounds and dream again their large dreams of conquest and empire and pre-emptive strikes. ABOUT THE WRITER Joseph L. Galloway is the senior military correspondent for Knight Ridder Newspapers and co-author of the national best-seller "We Were Soldiers Once ... and Young." Readers may write to him at: Knight Ridder Washington Bureau, 700 12th St. N.W., Suite 1000, Washington, D.C. 20005-3994.