NucNews - February 10, 2005 -------- NUCLEAR U.S. applies different standards on nukes By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS February 10, 2005 Filed at 7:04 p.m. ET http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Nuclear-Games.html?pagewanted=print&position= http://www.qctimes.com/internal.php?story_id=1045299&t=Nation+%2F+World&c=26,1045299 WASHINGTON (AP) -- A nuclear threat is a nuclear threat. Except when it's not, according to the White House. Why does North Korea seem to get a pass and not Iraq, which was invaded because of weapons of mass destruction that could not be found? And what about Iran, which got two days of saber-rattling this week about its suspected nuclear ambitions? One reason for the different standards: North Korea is in a real position to carry out its threats and trigger a new Korean War. Also, the United States already is stretched thin in Iraq and Afghanistan. ``North Korea is quite capable of responding to any kind of military action that we take with a devastating attack, an artillery and missile barrage on the South that would inflict millions of deaths and casualties,'' said Michele A. Flournoy, who was a Pentagon strategist in the Clinton administration. ``Unlike Iran, North Korea poses not just a potential threat but an actual threat today,'' said Flournoy, now a defense analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Pyongyang's statement on Thursday that it possesses nuclear weapons -- and needs them to defend against a hostile United States -- complicates President Bush's hopes of defusing the situation with diplomacy. North Korea also said it was pulling out of six-nation talks on its nuclear program, talks on which the administration had placed high hopes. But underscoring its recent low-key approach to North Korea, administration officials offered only muted response to the development. A day after she scolded Iran for its nuclear program, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the North Korean statement was ``unfortunate'' but that it had been assumed since the mid-1990s that North Korea could make such weapons. White House spokesman Scott McClellan said, ``We've heard this kind of rhetoric from North Korea before.'' Both said they still hoped diplomacy would prevail. Few experts dispute the menace that North Korea poses. Even without a nuclear capability, North Korea is a formidable threat to its neighbors and the 34,000 U.S. soldiers in the South. Its 1.1 million-strong army is the world's fifth largest. Most of its troops are grouped just north of the Demilitarized Zone, within striking distance of the South Korean capital of Seoul, a city of 10 million people. Focused on the Iraq war and reconstruction, Bush has looked to China and allies in Asia to do most of the heavy lifting on trying to persuade North Korea to abandon its nuclear program. But the six-nation talks -- among China, North Korea, South Korea, Japan, Russia and the United States -- have been unproductive, suspended since last June. Bush critics have always contended that North Korea was the most imminent threat, rather than Iraq or Iran, the other two members of what he branded an ``Axis of Evil'' in 2002. ``The recent saber-rattling with respect to Iran, saying we're not going to take the military option off the table, is hamhanded diplomacy,'' said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association. ``It is now clear that the North Korean nuclear program is the most advanced and urgent problem the international community faces. It ought to light a fire under the White House to put this on top of their to-do list. This doesn't mean the diplomatic process has been exhausted. This is by no means an occasion to throw up our hands,'' Kimball said. U.S. officials are treading carefully, suggesting that world opinion is generally on the U.S. side, particularly given the unpredictability of North Korea's leader, Kim Jong Il. But that support could dissipate if the administration comes out with Iraq-like ultimatums on North Korea threatening military force. Daniel Goure, a former Defense Department official in the first Bush administration, said there's another reason for the different treatment of Iran and North Korea: Iran might be more persuadable by strong words than North Korea. ``North Korea is a basket-case state. It's a total rogue regime. I don't think that when you look at the nature of the regime, any of the proposals for how to work a deal are credible,'' said Goure. ``But I think there is a view in the administration that Iran can change. The mullahs are not forever. Iran may be radical and difficult, but it is not crazy.'' Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa., who recently returned from a trip to North Korea with a congressional delegation, said that nation had no choice but to negotiate and he believed its leaders would do so. ``They're posturing, perhaps right before they agree to come in,'' he said. ``We're going to keep the heat on.'' EDITOR'S NOTE -- Tom Raum has covered national and international affairs for The Associated Press since 1973. ---- A Glance at World's Nuclear Weapons States By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS February 10, 2005 Filed at 1:17 p.m. ET http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Nuclear-Who-Has-What.html?pagewanted=print&position= North Korea announced for the first time Thursday that it had nuclear weapons, a claim that, if true, makes it the ninth nation known or generally believed to possess such arms. A glance at the world's nuclear weapons states and their stockpiles: UNITED STATES: More than 5,000 strategic warheads, more than 1,000 operational tactical weapons -- meant for the battlefield and less powerful than the strategic arms -- and approximately 3,000 reserve and tactical warheads. RUSSIA: Nearly 5,000 strategic warheads, approximately 3,500 operational tactical warheads, and more than 11,000 strategic and tactical warheads in storage. FRANCE: Approximately 350 strategic warheads. CHINA: About 300 strategic warheads and 120 tactical warheads. BRITAIN: About 200 strategic warheads. INDIA: Between 45 and 95 nuclear warheads. PAKISTAN: Between 30 and 50 nuclear warheads. ISRAEL: Refuses to confirm it is a nuclear weapons state but is generally assumed to have as many as 200 nuclear warheads. Sources: Arms Control Association; Nuclear Threat Initiative. On the Net: http://www.armscontrol.org http://www.nti.org ---- Newsview: Nuclear Weapons Standards Vary By TOM RAUM, Associated Press Writer Thursday, February 10, 2005 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2005/02/10/national/w125746S78.DTL (02-10) 13:23 PST WASHINGTON, (AP) -- A nuclear threat is a nuclear threat. Except when it's not, according to the White House. Why does North Korea seem to get a pass and not Iraq, which was invaded because of weapons of mass destruction that could not be found? And what about Iran, which got two days of saber-rattling this week about its suspected nuclear ambitions? One reason for the different standards: North Korea is in a real position to carry out its threats and trigger a new Korean War. Also, the United States already is stretched thin in Iraq and Afghanistan. "North Korea is quite capable of responding to any kind of military action that we take with a devastating attack, an artillery and missile barrage on the South that would inflict millions of deaths and casualties," said Michele A. Flournoy, who was a Pentagon strategist in the Clinton administration. "Unlike Iran, North Korea poses not just a potential threat but an actual threat today," said Flournoy, now a defense analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Pyongyang's statement on Thursday that it possesses nuclear weapons _ and needs them to defend against a hostile United States _ complicates President Bush's hopes of defusing the situation with diplomacy. North Korea also said it was pulling out of six-nation talks on its nuclear program, talks on which the administration had placed high hopes. But underscoring its recent low-key approach to North Korea, administration officials offered only muted response to the development. A day after she scolded Iran for its nuclear program, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the North Korean statement was "unfortunate" but that it had been assumed since the mid-1990s that North Korea could make such weapons. White House spokesman Scott McClellan said, "We've heard this kind of rhetoric from North Korea before." Both said they still hoped diplomacy would prevail. Few experts dispute the menace that North Korea poses. Even without a nuclear capability, North Korea is a formidable threat to its neighbors and the 34,000 U.S. soldiers in the South. Its 1.1 million-strong army is the world's fifth largest. Most of its troops are grouped just north of the Demilitarized Zone, within striking distance of the South Korean capital of Seoul, a city of 10 million people. Focused on the Iraq war and reconstruction, Bush has looked to China and allies in Asia to do most of the heavy lifting on trying to persuade North Korea to abandon its nuclear program. But the six-nation talks _ among China, North Korea, South Korea, Japan, Russia and the United States _ have been unproductive, suspended since last June. Bush critics have always contended that North Korea was the most imminent threat, rather than Iraq or Iran, the other two members of what he branded an "Axis of Evil" in 2002. "The recent saber-rattling with respect to Iran, saying we're not going to take the military option off the table, is hamhanded diplomacy," said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association. "It is now clear that the North Korean nuclear program is the most advanced and urgent problem the international community faces. It ought to light a fire under the White House to put this on top of their to-do list. This doesn't mean the diplomatic process has been exhausted. This is by no means an occasion to throw up our hands," Kimball said. U.S. officials are treading carefully, suggesting that world opinion is generally on the U.S. side, particularly given the unpredictability of North Korea's leader, Kim Jong Il. But that support could dissipate if the administration comes out with Iraq-like ultimatums on North Korea threatening military force. Daniel Goure, a former Defense Department official in the first Bush administration, said there's another reason for the different treatment of Iran and North Korea: Iran might be more persuadable by strong words than North Korea. "North Korea is a basket-case state. It's a total rogue regime. I don't think that when you look at the nature of the regime, any of the proposals for how to work a deal are credible," said Goure. "But I think there is a view in the administration that Iran can change. The mullahs are not forever. Iran may be radical and difficult, but it is not crazy." Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa., who recently returned from a trip to North Korea with a congressional delegation, said that nation had no choice but to negotiate and he believed its leaders would do so. "They're posturing, perhaps right before they agree to come in," he said. "We're going to keep the heat on." EDITOR'S NOTE _ Tom Raum has covered national and international affairs for The Associated Press since 1973. -------- accidents and safety Radioactive Material Lost By Halliburton Found In Boston Thursday February 10, 2005 Dow Jones Newswires (AP) http://money.iwon.com/jsp/nw/nwdt_rt_top.jsp?cat=TOPBIZ&src=704&feed=dji§ion=news&news_id=dji-00133920050210&date=20050210&alias=/alias/money/cm/nw WASHINGTON -- Halliburton Co. (HAL), an oil services company and major military contractor in Iraq and elsewhere, lost track of a shipment of radioactive material in October but didn't alert the government until this week. Federal authorities mounted an intensive search and found the material Wednesday in Massachusetts. According to a report Halliburton filed Tuesday with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the material was lost in October as it was being shipped to Texas, where Halliburton is headquartered. It apparently had been misdirected in New Jersey and ended up at the Forward Freight facilities in Boston. Commission spokesman Neil Sheehan said Thursday that Halliburton's four-month delay in reporting the loss didn't comply with notification requirements and the incident is under investigation. The material was two sources of the element americium, which is used in oil well exploration. "The focus through today was on trying to find the material," said Sheehan. " We're going to be pressing them as to why the notification was not more timely." There was no immediate comment from Halliburton. Vice President Dick Cheney was Halliburton's chief executive in the 1990s and still draws payments from the company as deferred compensation for his service. Homeland Security Department officials as well as the FBI launched a search for the materials after learning they were missing. Rep. Edward Markey, who represents Massachusetts in Congress and is a frequent critic of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said the incident highlights inadequate security rules involving nuclear materials. According to the report, the americium was imported from Russia by Halliburton Energy Services. The shipment went through Amsterdam to John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York on Oct. 9. It disappeared until Wednesday when it turned up in Boston. The NRC report indicates the material was trucked to Massachusetts after a Boston label inadvertently was placed on the package at Forward Freight's Newark, N.J., facility. The materials are classified as having the potential to cause permanent injury if handled improperly, Markey said. ---- Radiation antidote to be readily available February 10, 2005 By Jennifer Harper THE WASHINGTON TIMES http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050210-123420-4417r.htm A simple vitamin pill soon may be part of the American military arsenal. The Defense Department has joined forces with Humanetics, a Minneapolis-based nutritional-supplement manufacturer, to refine an over-the-counter, anti-radiation pill that may be ready by year's end, one source said Tuesday. Described as a "radioprotective drug," the mystery pill is meant to be a practical, cheap antidote for millions in the event of nuclear attack. "The chances of military or civilian personnel being exposed to dirty bombs or improvised nuclear devices have risen dramatically," said Mark H. Whitnall, director of the Radiation Casualty Management Team at the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute in Bethesda. In the past, radiation victims have been treated with substances that bind to radioactive materials so they can pass safely out of the body — "potassium iodide, Prussian blue, calcium DTPA and zinc DTPA," Mr. Whitnall said. "Humanetics has a portfolio of four nutritional supplements which have shown beneficial effects on the immune system, and in some cases, have shown promise as anti-radiation drugs in preclinical research," he said. "These drugs can also be developed as injectable prescription drugs. Because of their proven low toxicity, low cost and stability at environmental temperatures, these agents are attractive as candidates for stockpiling for military or civilian use," Mr. Whitnall said. "Two of these compounds are already available for sale as dietary supplements." He did not identify the compounds. Eager entrepreneurs already offer so-called anti-radiation preparations. Nuke Protect and Rad Block are marketed right alongside the bee pollen and super-vitamins familiar to fans of alternative medicine. Nuke Protect consists primarily of potassium iodide, recommended by the Department of Homeland Security, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other federal agencies as a "blocking agent" to protect the human thyroid gland, which rapidly absorbs ionized radiation. Nuke Protect also contains selenium yeast, spice extracts and "wild Pacific kelp," according to Smart Bomb, an online herbs and supplements seller. This is not a new phenomenon. Various researchers have touted dark-green vegetables, bone meal, pectin, sunflower seeds and vitamins C and B-6 as anti-radiation "protective foods and supplements" since the 1970s. "There are different types of radiation depending on whether it's a nuclear bomb, power-plant accident, a dirty bomb," said Troy Jones, president of North Carolina-based Nuke Pills, which distributes three FDA-approved potassium iodide supplements. "But I am not aware of any supplement which could counter all the effects. But more power to the new research. America needs to address these things," Mr. Jones said, adding that his sales remain brisk. "But if this is a dietary supplement rather than a drug and the FDA is not involved here, I am not comfortable. Is the preparation safe for the public? That's my main consideration," he said. -------- business Siemens' Russian deal hit by veto By Arkady Ostrovsky in Moscow Published: February 10 2005 Financial Times http://news.ft.com/cms/s/dbb4661e-7b0d-11d9-a3ea-00000e2511c8.html A prospective flagship investment by Siemens, the German industrial giant, in Russia's engineering sector has run into problems following a veto from the country's powerful security services. A senior government official yesterday said Russia's Ministry of Industry had recommended Mikhail Fradkov, prime minister, "postpone" the approval of Siemens' acquisition of Power Machines, Russia's leading power equipment conglomerate, until further investigations were carried out into national security issues. Power Machines is 71 per cent-owned by Interros, a financial and industrial group controlled by Vladimir Potanin, a billionaire tycoon. Last year Siemens, the world's second-largest turbine manufacturer, agreed to buy half of Interros's stake for an estimated $150m. Siemens also agreed to invest $200m in the business over the next three to five years. The deal was set to be approved by Russia's anti- monopoly commission by the end of last year, but ran into trouble after several officials raised concerns about the strategic importance of Power Machines. Stanislav Puginsky, deputy head of Russia's Federal Agency for Industry, said the ministry's recommendations were based on the fact that Power Machines was a strategic asset, involved with the defence sector. Power Machines mostly makes energy equipment, but some of its plants also produce parts for the Russian defence sector, including the nuclear fleet. However, it is understood Siemens is not interested in those assets. "Siemens insists on managing Power Machines, but this is impossible from the security point of view," said Mr Puginsky. He said several interested Russian parties submitted their opinion, including the Federal Security Service - the successor to the KGB - which opposes the sale of Power Machines to Siemens on national security grounds. At the same time, Basic Element, a holding company controlled by Oleg Deripaska, another business tycoon, expressed interest in buying Power Machines from Interros and applied for permission to the anti-monopoly commission. "Everything else being equal, at this stage a national company may have a preference," Mr Puginsky said. He said no decision was likely until Russia passed a new law regulating foreign participation in strategic sectors of the economy. Edward Roberts, engineering and metals analyst at Renaissance Capital, a Moscow-based investment bank, said: "The notion of strategic engineering assets is completely outdated, particularly at a time when engineering companies need to consolidate to survive." Additional reporting by Bettina Wassener in Frankfurt -------- europe US nukes up 480 US nuclear weapons in air bases in Europe AFP 10 feb 05 http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,12201168%255E663,00.html THE United States is keeping about 480 nuclear weapons in air bases in Europe, twice as many as analysts had estimated, to deter terrorists and rogue nations, reported yesterday. The short-range bombs were under US control and security, regulated by secret military agreements at bases in Belgium, Britain, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands and Turkey, said the paper, which obtained a report from the Natural Resources Defence Council. An unnamed senior US military official in Europe told the paper the number of nuclear weapons in Europe had been "significantly reduced" in recent years and currently stood at "around 200". But Hans Kristensen, a nuclear arms specialist and author of the NRDC's report, US Nuclear Weapons in Europe, said recent declassified documents and commercial satellite imagery indicated the higher number. -------- india / pakistan Pakistan leaves arms calling card By Kaushik Kapisthalam, Feb 10, 2005 Asia Times http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/GB10Df06.html Non-proliferation experts and anti-nuclear activists have long highlighted South Asia as a "hot" theater insofar as a potential nuclear war is concerned. With both India and Pakistan armed with nuclear weapons and missiles to deliver them, and the added threat of a simmering Kashmir dispute between the two countries, it is no surprise that world leaders such as former US president Bill Clinton have referred to the region as a "nuclear flashpoint". Think-tanks in the United States, both private and government-funded, have long been a place for Indian and Pakistani retired officials, as well as Western experts on South Asia, to raise issues and discuss potential solutions, or at least a modus vivendi for doing so. Some known discussion centers include the Stimson Center in Washington, Sandia Labs in New Mexico and the Center for Contemporary Conflict in Monterey, California. However, it is interesting to note that within the past few months, many Pakistani military officials and government-affiliated specialists have made a series of public and private presentations and studies highlighting the potential nuclear dangers in South Asia. The sequence and timing of these presentations may suggest a coordinated approach by Pakistani strategists to win over American opinion makers. In this context, a senior Pakistani military official made a presentation to a Washington-based think-tank on this very topic a few days ago. The audience included some influential US government officials and prominent academics. The study by the official, who wished to remain anonymous, in essence made a case that there is no scenario in South Asia where a conventional war would not turn nuclear. To understand the possible reasons behind the sudden and seemingly coordinated Pakistani effort to raise the nuclear bogey in the United States, one must consider past Pakistani nuclear postures and their evolution, and set them against recent developments in the subcontinent. Pakistan's thresholds While India has a stated policy of not using nuclear weapons first, Pakistan has deliberately maintained an opaque nuclear posture for a long time, which in essence seeks to keep India off balance and confused with regard to when and under what conditions Pakistan might choose to use nuclear weapons. In January 2002, General Khalid Kidwai, the head of the Pakistani army's Strategic Plans Division, which oversees nuclear-weapons development and deployment, gave an interview to Paolo Cotta-Ramusino and Maurizio Martellini of the Landau Network, an Italian arms-control organization. It has since then become apparent that the Pakistani establishment felt the need to clarify its position given the concern expressed in Western circles since September 11, 2001, about the safety of Pakistan's nuclear estate, and used the Landau interview for that purpose. Among other things, Kidwai gave the possible conditions under which Pakistan could use nuclear weapons against an adversary. Stating that Pakistan would use atomic weapons only "if the very existence of Pakistan as a state is at stake", Kidwai proceeded to give details. Pakistan's nuclear weapons are aimed solely at India. In case that deterrence fails, they will be used if: # India attacks Pakistan and conquers a large part of its territory (space threshold). # India destroys a large part either of its land or air forces (military threshold). # India proceeds to the economic strangling of Pakistan (economic strangling). # India pushes Pakistan into political destabilization or creates a large-scale internal subversion in Pakistan (domestic destabilization). The context in which Kidwai made these proclamations was the 2002 border crisis with India. After the December 13, 2001, attack on India's parliament by militant groups that the Pakistani government later accepted as originating from Pakistan, India started a military mobilization titled "Operation Parakram" (Operation Valor). Studies hence have stated that during Parakram, India was considering "hot pursuit" of militant groups into Pakistani territory, thereby raising the prospect of at least temporarily capturing territory. Indian officials also spoke of surgical air strikes on jihadi training camps in Pakistan-administered Kashmir and Pakistan. There was even talk of an Indian naval blockade of Karachi, Pakistan's only functioning port, thereby threatening an economic chokepoint. It is clear that all of the above options bore a significant risk of breaching the explicitly stated Pakistani nuclear "red lines". Cold start India ended Operation Parakram in 2003 soon after the assembly elections in Jammu and Kashmir. However, the Indian buildup and the Pakistani reaction showed the Indian brain trust that similar maneuvers in the future were only likely to yield diminishing results. In the 1990s, Pakistan's army created a strong centralized corps of reserves for its formations in the critical semi-desert and desert sectors in southern Punjab and Sindh provinces, and rapidly equipped them with assets needed for mechanized capability. These reserve formations are dual-capable, meaning they can be used for offensive as well as defensive purposes, and some analyses say that they even give Pakistan an edge at the theater level. When one adds the fact that Pakistan has smaller lines of communication and can mobilize its formations in less than 96 hours, as opposed to 10 days for India, it was clear that Indian strategists had to think of an alternative military doctrine that was both credible and did not cross the nuclear threshold. To this end, Indian military circles recently revealed a new doctrine, "Cold Start". According to knowledgeable Indian observers, Cold Start reorients the Indian focus away from attrition-based operations, and instead talks about "maneuver-based warfare". In other words, Cold Start in essence envisages the use of all service arms to launch punitive strikes, rather than looking to gain the opponent's territory or threatening their national survival, with the aim of avoiding nuclear escalation. The Pakistani study was especially scathing on Cold Start. The unnamed Pakistani official stated that for Pakistan, Cold Start "will be a full-scale war, and Pakistan will respond with full resources, and if we fail to contain the Indians, the nuclear factor will definitely come in". The conventional 'imbalance' It can be discerned that the various Pakistani studies mentioned above have a common theme of highlighting a dangerous conventional-weapons "imbalance" that Pakistan faces vis-a-vis India. Retired Pakistani army Brigadier Feroz Hassan Khan recently told the US publication Defense News that the Pentagon and others should "realize that Pakistan's main threat remains India", adding that "the immediate problem is the imbalance, particularly in the air force". Khan also wrote an essay in a widely circulated book by the Stimson Center highlighting the "structural imbalances" in South Asia and its effect on nuclear "escalation control". Retired Pakistani air force Commodore Tariq Mahmud Ashraf recently made a presentation titled "Air Power Imbalance and Strategic Instability in South Asia" to the US Naval Postgraduate School, highlighting the supposed Pakistani inferiority in terms of aviation assets. Ashraf followed up with a paper at the US Army's Combined Arms Center at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, on the need for Pakistan to respond to Cold Start by waking up from a "doctrinal slumber". Another well-circulated study is by retired Pakistani army Major-General Mahmud Ali Durrani, titled "Pakistan's Strategic Thinking and the Role of Nuclear Weapons". Durrani wrote this study for the US government-affiliated Sandia National Labs in New Mexico and presented it in Washington as well. While the primary aim of this study was to assuage US concerns about Pakistan's nuclear assets, Durrani left subtle hints about the need to lower Pakistan's nuclear threshold. The underlying thread in all these studies is to support the Pakistani government's position that the United States should supply major weapons to Pakistan, similar to the 1980s. Kargil echoes Some experts point out that instead of maintaining stability, major weapons sales could encourage Pakistan to try another military operation like the one in the Kargil area of Kashmir in 1999. A former State Department official dealing with South Asia, Ambassador Teresita Schaffer, told the US Senate that it would be inadvisable to sell major weapons such as F-16s to Pakistan for this very reason. As if to highlight the concern that Pakistan still does not rule out a military maneuver in Kashmir, the unnamed Pakistani study, while highlighting potential Indian attacks on Pakistan, actually brushed aside Pakistan's aggression in Kargil by stating that the war in 1999 was a continuation of the "skirmishes" in the Siachen Glacier region. It must be noted that while as many as 3,000 Pakistani soldiers were killed in Kargil, Pakistan still does not officially accept its role in the operation. While Cold Start has become the latest bogey for Pakistan to raise with the US, it is worth noting that even Pakistani experts have called into question the idea that Cold Start poses a major threat to Pakistan. For instance, to achieve success in a Cold Start-like operation, India would have to improve rapidly its military command and control, communications, computers and intelligence (C4I), merge all its operational assets into a "network-centric warfare" ambit and gain lethal precision-guided strike capabilities, both in the air and on the ground (see Asia Times Online, India makes a play for F-16 fighters , February 9). Retired Pakistani Brigadier Shaukat Qadir openly questioned whether the Indian army had the assets to achieve this and whether the Indian political leadership had the will to take the risk. Many Indian experts have also raised questions about the current Indian capability in the context of Cold Start. It is therefore reasonable to wonder whether Pakistan faces an imminent threat because of Cold Start. Arms bonanza It appears that the well-coordinated Pakistani studies are aimed at creating a sense of acceptance in US strategic circles that Pakistan needs to be given advanced weapons to maintain strategic stability in South Asia. A US Department of Defense official revealed to this correspondent, on the condition of anonymity, that official circles in Washington are coming around to accepting this line of thinking. The upshot may be a massive US rearming of Pakistan. The designation of Pakistan as a major non-NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) ally of the United States last year only makes this easier for the US government. Last November 16, the US Defense Security and Cooperation Agency sent notifications to Congress of a US$1.3 billion arms package for Pakistan. This includes eight P-3C Orion naval reconnaissance planes, possibly with anti-ship and anti-submarine missiles, 2,000 TOW-2A anti-tank guided missiles, and the PHALANX Close-In Weapon Systems for ships. Washington sources indicate that even as the F-16 request is being considered, another mega-deal for E-2C AWACS (airborne warning and control system) planes to Pakistan is close to fruition. It now appears that Pakistan's "nuclear war" scare tactic is yielding great results. Kaushik Kapisthalam is a freelance analyst on South Asia affairs. -------- iran Iran Says Chances of Nuke Deal with EU 'Not Small' By REUTERS February 10, 2005 Filed at 1:27 p.m. ET http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-nuclear-iran-talks.html?pagewanted=print&position= TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran stepped back from its tough rhetoric of recent days on Thursday, saying there was a ``not small'' chance Tehran would reach a deal with European Union negotiators on its nuclear program. Iranian officials have been signaling impatience with the pace of talks and the ``seriousness'' of EU negotiators who are trying to persuade Tehran to scrap activities such as uranium enrichment which can be used to make atomic bombs. ``The chance of striking an agreement is not small because Iran is quite flexible in this regard,'' Hossein Mousavian, a senior official at Iran's Supreme National Security Council, told state television. ``We welcome any kind of guarantees to prove that Iran will not divert to making bombs in future,'' said Mousavian, one of Iran's top nuclear negotiators. The Iran-EU talks, which are due to continue in Geneva on Friday, are taking place against a backdrop of sustained pressure from Washington which wants Iran reported to the U.N. Security Council where it could face sanctions. Unlike North Korea, which on Thursday announced it had built nuclear weapons, Iran denies any intention of ever using its nuclear facilities for anything other than generating electricity. It has agreed to suspend key work, like uranium enrichment, while the talks with the EU continue but insists the freeze is temporary. ``In the sessions this week we are witnessing a slight change of behavior from the Europeans,'' Mousavian said. ``If they strengthen this seriousness we will be in a position in mid-March to say whether we can reach an agreement,'' he added. RHETORIC AND RETREAT Mousavian said Iran would be prepared, if necessary, to accept tighter inspections of its nuclear plants to prove it was not using them to make weapons. ``For a country which is not pursuing the bomb it is not a problem to have more inspectors,'' he said. One European diplomat in Tehran said it was typical for Iran to turn up the heat of its rhetoric in the run-up to a round of talks with the EU and then soften its stance afterwards. ``It's typical posturing. At the end of the day they don't want to go to the Security Council so they need to continue the EU talks,'' the diplomat said. But while he struck a far more positive tone than that set by other Iranian officials in recent days, Mousavian reiterated that Iran would not give up its right to produce its own nuclear fuel for power plants. ``Our first choice is to have (uranium) enrichment with the world trusting us. But if the world doesn't want to interact with Iran within the framework of nuclear agreements, the second choice would be to continue our nuclear activities, which could have a heavy cost for Iran,'' he said. Diplomats in Geneva said technical level talks between officials from Britain, France and Germany, representing the European Union, and Iran would be extended to a fourth day on Friday. At the end of the negotiations, the officials would report back to capitals on whether a further round of talks should be held next month, possibly in Paris, they added. ---- Iran Vows 'Burning Hell' for Any Aggressor By REUTERS February 10, 2005 Filed at 1:42 p.m. ET http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-iran.html?pagewanted=print&position= TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran, facing mounting U.S. pressure over its nuclear program, promised Thursday a ``burning hell'' for any aggressor as tens of thousands marched to mark the 26th anniversary of its Islamic revolution. ``The Iranian nation does not seek war, does not seek violence and dispute. But the world must know that this nation will not tolerate any invasion,'' President Mohammad Khatami said in a fiery speech to the crowd in central Tehran. ``The whole Iranian nation is united against any threat or attack. If the invaders reach Iran, the country will turn into a burning hell for them,'' he added, as the crowd, braving heavy snow, chanted ``Death to America!'' and ``Death to Israel!.'' Senior officials had called for a big turnout at the revolution anniversary parades to send a message to Washington which has toughened its stance on Iran in recent weeks. President Bush said Wednesday a nuclear-armed Iran would be ``a very destabilizing force'' and urged the West to work together to stop this happening. ``The Iranians just need to know that the free world is working together to send a very clear message: Don't develop a nuclear weapon,'' Bush said. Unlike North Korea, which Thursday openly declared it has made nuclear arms, Iran denies U.S. accusations it is building bombs under cover of a civilian nuclear energy program. But Iran, too, has hardened its language in recent days, refusing to contemplate scrapping sensitive activities like uranium enrichment -- which can be used to make bomb-grade material -- and vowing to accelerate work on its program if the United States or Israel attacked its atomic plants. HEADING FOR SECURITY COUNCIL? Diplomats said while the chances of a U.S. or Israeli attack were slim, Iran appeared to be on a collision course with the U.N. Security Council, which could impose sanctions. ``It's hard to see how they can avoid going to the Council, unless they substantially change their position,'' said a Western diplomat in Tehran. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Wednesday Tehran must accept a deal being offered by the European Union -- to scrap potentially weapons-related work like enrichment in return for trade deals and other incentives -- or be referred to the Security Council. But Iran's top nuclear negotiator Hassan Rohani told Reuters in an interview this week there was nothing the West could offer Iran that would tempt it to give up its atomic fuel cycle. Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani accused the EU and United States of colluding in an effort to force Iran to compromise. ``One side is playing a good cop role, while the other side is playing the bad cop in order to put Iran in the throes of the good cop from fear of the bad cop,'' the official IRNA news agency quoted him as saying. There are also mixed voices coming from Iran. While most rhetoric this week has been hard line, a top nuclear negotiator Thursday signaled an opening for a deal at EU talks, which continue Friday, because of a perceived change in the European position. ``The chance of striking an agreement is not small because Iran is quite flexible in this regard,'' Hossein Mousavian, a senior official at Iran's Supreme National Security Council, told state television. NEED TALKS TO CONTINUE One European diplomat in Tehran said it was typical for Iran to turn up the heat of its rhetoric in the run-up to a round of talks with the EU and then soften its stance afterwards. ``It's typical posturing. At the end of the day they don't want to go to the Security Council so they need to continue the EU talks,'' the diplomat said. Those at Thursday's annual demonstration, which tends to draw the hardcore supporters of Iran's clerical establishment, said Iran would not back down in the face of U.S. threats. ``The U.S. is after an excuse. If we stop atomic technology, they will find another excuse,'' said Habibollah Hosseini, a 68-year-old cleric. ``They invaded Iraq although there were no weapons (of mass destruction). The best response to intimidation is unity and power. We are here to show this,'' he said. Several carried effigies of Bush, one of which, carrying a banner which read ``I love war'' was burned. ---- Washington warns Iran that its patience will not last forever By Stephen Castle in Brussels UK Independent 10 February 2005 http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=609499 America increased the pressure on Iran over its nuclear programme yesterday, telling European allies that Tehran could not delay indefinitely its compliance with international standards, and warning that Washington had not ruled out any option in its dealings with the Iranians. Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State, used a visit to Brussels to back EU diplomatic efforts to bring Iran into line, while giving a firm warning that the patience of the Bush administration was not unlimited. The UK, France and Germany have led diplomatic efforts to come to a negotiated solution over the Iranian nuclear programme, amid fears that Tehran is developing a military capability. "The US president never takes his options off the table," warned Ms Rice, though she added: "We believe this is the time for diplomacy." Ms Rice said there was "no deadline" and "no timeline" and said a "diplomatic solution is in our grasp". But she added: "It is obvious that, if Iran cannot be made to live up to its international obligations, the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] statutes suggest Iran would have to be referred to the UN Security Council." For the time being, the US and the EU have managed to paper over differences, giving the diplomatic process more time, despite suspicions in Washington that Tehran is using its dialogue with European countries as a stalling mechanism. But, in an interview with US TV, aimed at her domestic audience, Ms Rice took a blunter line, arguing: "We have believed all along that Iran ought to be referred to the Security Council and then a variety of steps are available to the international community." She added: "They need to hear the discussions that they are in with the Europeans are not going to be a kind of way station where they are allowed to continue their activities - that there's going to be an end to this and that they are going to end up in the Security Council." In Washington, President George Bush underlined the need for unity, arguing: "The Iranians just need to know that the free world is working together to send a very clear message to Iran: Don't develop a nuclear weapon." The Iranian President, Mohammad Khatami, reiterated yesterday that no government, present or future, would give up the country's drive to master peaceful nuclear technology, including uranium enrichment. ---- Russia to sign nuclear fuel deal with Iran: report MOSCOW (AFP) Feb 10, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050210121757.fkqfasil.html The Russian atomic energy agency said Thursday it would sign a key agreement with Iran on the return of nuclear fuel later this month that would complete Moscow's construction of the Islamic state's first nuclear power plant. The ITAR-TASS news agency quoted the agency's spokesman Nikolai Shingaryov as saying that the elusive agreement, which has been delayed for over a year, would be signed during atomic energy chief Alexander Rumyantsev visit's to Iran scheduled for February 25-27. "We plan to sign, in Tehran, an additional protocol on the return of spent nuclear fuel to Russia," the spokesman was quoted as saying. The fuel's return has remained the key impediment to the 800 million dollar Bushehr project. Russia and the West both fear that Iran could reprocess the spent fuel delivered from Russia by upgrading it through centrifuges to either make a weak "dirty bomb" or an actual nuclear weapon. Tehran has in the past used various arguments to avoid signing the agreement. It has said the material was too volatile and dangerous to transport back to Russia and also that Moscow was charging too much for the fuel itself. The United States and Israel had jointly launched an international campaign against Russia's Bushehr project but Moscow has countered that it would make sure the plant remained harmless to protect its own security interests. ---- Iran Vows Not to Abandon Nuclear Progress By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS February 10, 2005 Filed at 6:11 a.m. ET http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Iran-Nuclear.html?pagewanted=print&position= TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- President Mohammad Khatami vowed that no Iranian government would ever abandon the progress that the country has made in developing peaceful nuclear technology. The comment did not augur well for negotiations with the big three European powers who are currently trying to persuade Iran to cease permanently the enrichment of uranium. Khatami warned that if the talks with Britain, France and Germany fail, his government will not be bound by its undertaking to suspend enrichment. ``If other parties (to the negotiations) are not committed to their promises, we will not be committed to our promises at all,'' Khatami told a meeting of foreign diplomats in Tehran on Wednesday. The Europeans have promised Iran economic and technological aid in return for cooperation on the nuclear issue. Uranium enriched to low levels can be used for fuel for nuclear power stations. Enriched to high levels it is used for atomic bombs. Iran says it seeks enriched uranium only for power stations, but the United States believes it wants to build nuclear weapons. ``Neither my government, nor any other (Iranian) government can give a convincing reply to people (who seek our) giving up peaceful nuclear technology,'' said Khatami, whose second and final presidential term ends later this year. ``Iran has achieved nuclear technology without the help of others, and it will never give up its right (to use it) under illegitimate pressure from others,'' Khatami said. Khatami drew attention to opinion polls that show most Iranians want the country to continue with its nuclear development. The nuclear program is perhaps the only issue that all sides of the political spectrum agree on in Iran. The program is a point of national pride. Khatami reiterated that Iran would never make nuclear weapons. He said the country was a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and had reaffirmed its commitment to the peaceful use of nuclear power in November. The United States says it supports the European negotiations with Iran, but U.S. officials say privately they expect them to fail. The United States has long wanted the International Atomic Energy Agency to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council, which has the power to impose sanctions on the country. Earlier Wednesday, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told Fox News Paris that if the Iranians ``are unwilling to take the deal, really, that the Europeans are giving ... then the Security Council referral looms.'' President Bush has refused to rule out an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. -------- korea North Korea says it has nuclear weapons Pyongyang pulling out of 6-nation disarmament talks MSNBC News Services Updated: 9:08 a.m. ET Feb. 10, 2005 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6944560/ SEOUL, South Korea - North Korea on Thursday announced for the first time that it has nuclear arms and rejected moves to restart disarmament talks anytime soon, saying it needs the weapons as protection against an increasingly hostile United States. The communist state’s pronouncement dramatically raised the stakes in the two-year-old nuclear confrontation and posed a grave challenge to President Bush, who started his second term with a vow to end North Korea’s nuclear program through six-nation talks. “We ... have manufactured nukes for self-defense to cope with the Bush administration’s ever more undisguised policy to isolate and stifle the (North),” the North Korean Foreign Ministry said in a statement carried by the state-run Korean Central News Agency. The claim could not be independently verified. North Korea expelled the last U.N. nuclear monitors in late 2002 and has never tested a nuclear bomb, although international officials have long suspected it has one or two nuclear bombs and enough fuel for several more. Rice plays down dramatic announcement The United States has assumed since the mid-1990s that North Korea could make nuclear weapons, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told a news conference in Luxembourg, playing down the dramatic announcement. She said North Korea would only deepen its own isolation, and forego international security guarantees, if it pulled out of six-party talks. “We have for some time taken account of the capability of the North Koreans to perhaps have a few nuclear weapons,” Rice said after talks with the European Union, calling the North Korean statement “an unfortunate move.” Washington and South Korea have a sufficient deterrent on the Korean peninsula to “deal with any potential threat from North Korea,” she said. The new top U.S. diplomat reiterated that the United States had no intention of attacking or invading North Korea and said she hoped the talks would resume soon. “The fact of the matter is that the world has given them a way out and they should take that way out,” she said. The negotiations offered Pyongyang a path out of isolation and the prospect of multilateral security guarantees. “It is very clear to the North Koreans that no such security assurances would be forthcoming if they were not prepared to take a decision to dismantle their nuclear weapons and their programs in a verifiable and irreversible way,” Rice said. North critical of 'hostile' U.S. policy Previously, North Korea had reportedly told U.S. negotiators in private talks that it had nuclear weapons and might test one of them. The North’s U.N. envoy said last year that the country had “weaponized” plutonium from its pool of 8,000 nuclear spent fuel rods. Those rods contained enough plutonium for several bombs. But Thursday’s statement was North Korea’s first public acknowledgment that it has nuclear weapons. North Korea’s “nuclear weapons will remain (a) nuclear deterrent for self-defense under any circumstances,” the ministry said. It said Washington’s alleged attempt to topple the North’s regime “compels us to take a measure to bolster its nuclear weapons arsenal in order to protect the ideology, system, freedom and democracy chosen by its people.” Since 2003, the United States, the two Koreas, China, Japan and Russia have held three rounds of talks in Beijing aimed at persuading the North to abandon nuclear weapons development in return for economic and diplomatic rewards. No significant progress has been made. A fourth round scheduled for last September was canceled when North Korea refused to attend, citing what it called a “hostile” U.S. policy. South Korea said Thursday the North’s decision to stay away from talks was “seriously regrettable.” Foreign Ministry spokesman Lee Kyu-hyung said “we again declare our stance that we will never tolerate North Korea possessing nuclear weapons.” Rising hopes quashed In recent weeks, hopes had risen that North Korea might return to the six-nation talks, especially after Bush refrained from any direct criticism of North Korea when he started his second term last month. On Thursday, North Korea said it decided not to rejoin such talks any time soon after studying Bush’s inaugural and State of the Union speeches and after Rice labeled North Korea one of the “outposts of tyranny.” “We have wanted the six-party talks but we are compelled to suspend our participation in the talks for an indefinite period till we have recognized that there is justification for us to attend the talks and there are ample conditions and atmosphere to expect positive results from the talks,” the ministry said. Still, North Korea said it retained its “principled stand to solve the issue through dialogue and negotiations and its ultimate goal to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula remain unchanged.” Such a comment has widely been interpreted as North Korea’s negotiating tactic to get more economic and diplomatic concessions from the United States before joining any crucial talks. In Vienna, a spokesman for the International Atomic Energy Agency said that “North Korea remains our single highest priority.” “We know they have raw materials to build nuclear weapons. We also know that they have a delivery system and they’ve expressed their intentions to have a nuclear arsenal,” spokesman Mark Gwozdecky said. In Japan, the top government spokesman said he wanted to confirm the North’s intentions. “They have used this sort of phrasing every so often. They didn’t say anything particularly new,” Chief Cabinet Secretary Hiroyuki Hosoda told a regular news conference. Bush tones down rhetoric For months, North Korea has lashed out at what it calls U.S. attempts to demolish the regime of leader Kim Jong Il and meddle in the human rights situation in the North. Washington has said it wants to resolve the nuclear talks through dialogue. In his Jan. 20 inaugural speech, Bush vowed that his new administration would not shrink from “the great objective of ending tyranny” around the globe. In his State of the Union address earlier this month, Bush only mentioned North Korea once, saying Washington was “working closely with governments in Asia to convince North Korea to abandon its nuclear ambitions.” Bush’s tone was in stark contrast to three years ago, when he branded North Korea part of an “axis of evil” with Iran and Iraq, raising hopes of a positive response from North Korea. The nuclear crisis erupted in October 2002 when U.S. officials accused North Korea of running a secret uranium-enrichment program in violation of international treaties. Washington and its allies cut off free fuel oil shipments for the impoverished country under a 1994 deal with the United States. North Korea retaliated by quitting the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in early 2003 and restarting its plutonium-based nuclear weapons program, which had been frozen under the 1994 agreement. The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report. -------- North Korea Says It Has Nuclear Weapons Thu Feb 10, 9:40 AM ET By SANG-HUN CHOE, Associated Press Writer http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050210/ap_on_re_as/nkorea_nuclear_12 SEOUL, South Korea - North Korea on Thursday announced for the first time that it has nuclear arms and rejected moves to restart disarmament talks anytime soon, saying it needs the weapons as protection against an increasingly hostile United States. The communist state's pronouncement dramatically raised the stakes in the two-year-old nuclear confrontation and posed a grave challenge to President Bush, who started his second term with a vow to end North Korea's nuclear program through six-nation talks. "We ... have manufactured nukes for self-defense to cope with the Bush administration's ever more undisguised policy to isolate and stifle the (North)," the North Korean Foreign Ministry said in a statement carried by the state-run Korean Central News Agency. The claim could not be independently verified. North Korea expelled the last U.N. nuclear monitors in late 2002 and has never tested a nuclear bomb, although international officials have long suspected it has one or two nuclear bombs and enough fuel for several more. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said North Korea should return to disarmament talks and avoid a path toward further international isolation. She said the world "has given them a way out and we hope they will take that way out." "The North Koreans have been told by the president of the United States that the United States has no intention of attacking or invading North Korea," Rice told a news conference in Luxembourg. "There is a path for the North Koreans that would put them in a more reasonable relationship with the rest of the world." Previously, North Korea had reportedly told U.S. negotiators in private talks that it had nuclear weapons and might test one of them. The North's U.N. envoy said last year that the country had "weaponized" plutonium from its pool of 8,000 nuclear spent fuel rods. Those rods contained enough plutonium for several bombs. But Thursday's statement was North Korea's first public acknowledgment that it has nuclear weapons. North Korea's "nuclear weapons will remain (a) nuclear deterrent for self-defense under any circumstances," the ministry said. It said Washington's alleged attempt to topple the North's regime "compels us to take a measure to bolster its nuclear weapons arsenal in order to protect the ideology, system, freedom and democracy chosen by its people." Since 2003, the United States, the two Koreas, China, Japan and Russia have held three rounds of talks in Beijing aimed at persuading the North to abandon nuclear weapons development in return for economic and diplomatic rewards. No significant progress has been made. A fourth round scheduled for last September was canceled when North Korea refused to attend, citing what it called a "hostile" U.S. policy. South Korea said Thursday the North's decision to stay away from talks was "seriously regrettable." Foreign Ministry spokesman Lee Kyu-hyung said "we again declare our stance that we will never tolerate North Korea possessing nuclear weapons." In recent weeks, hopes had risen that North Korea might return to the six-nation talks, especially after Bush refrained from any direct criticism of North Korea when he started his second term last month. On Thursday, North Korea said it decided not to rejoin such talks any time soon after studying Bush's inaugural and State of the Union speeches and after Rice labeled North Korea one of the "outposts of tyranny." "We have wanted the six-party talks but we are compelled to suspend our participation in the talks for an indefinite period till we have recognized that there is justification for us to attend the talks and there are ample conditions and atmosphere to expect positive results from the talks," the ministry said. Still, North Korea said it retained its "principled stand to solve the issue through dialogue and negotiations and its ultimate goal to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula remain unchanged." Such a comment has widely been interpreted as North Korea's negotiating tactic to get more economic and diplomatic concessions from the United States before joining any crucial talks. In Vienna, a spokesman for the International Atomic Energy Agency said that "North Korea remains our single highest priority." "We know they have raw materials to build nuclear weapons. We also know that they have a delivery system and they've expressed their intentions to have a nuclear arsenal," spokesman Mark Gwozdecky said. In Japan, the top government spokesman said he wanted to confirm the North's intentions. "They have used this sort of phrasing every so often. They didn't say anything particularly new," Chief Cabinet Secretary Hiroyuki Hosoda told a regular news conference. For months, North Korea has lashed out at what it calls U.S. attempts to demolish the regime of leader Kim Jong Il and meddle in the human rights situation in the North. Washington has said it wants to resolve the nuclear talks through dialogue. In his Jan. 20 inaugural speech, Bush vowed that his new administration would not shrink from "the great objective of ending tyranny" around the globe. In his State of the Union address earlier this month, Bush only mentioned North Korea once, saying Washington was "working closely with governments in Asia to convince North Korea to abandon its nuclear ambitions." Bush's tone was in stark contrast to three years ago, when he branded North Korea part of an "axis of evil" with Iran and Iraq, raising hopes of a positive response from North Korea. The nuclear crisis erupted in October 2002 when U.S. officials accused North Korea of running a secret uranium-enrichment program in violation of international treaties. Washington and its allies cut off free fuel oil shipments for the impoverished country under a 1994 deal with the United States. North Korea retaliated by quitting the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in early 2003 and restarting its plutonium-based nuclear weapons program, which had been frozen under the 1994 agreement. ---- Excerpts From N. Korean Nuclear Statement By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS February 10, 2005 Filed at 4:27 p.m. ET http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-NKorea-Nuclear-Text.html?pagewanted=print&position= Excerpts from an English statement released Thursday by North Korea's Korean Central News Agency on its nuclear weapons program and relations with the United States (North Korea refers to itself as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, or DPRK): - The second-term Bush administration's intention to antagonize the DPRK and isolate and stifle it at any cost has become quite clear. As we have clarified more than once, we justly urged the U.S. to renounce its hostile policy toward the DPRK whose aim was to seek the latter's ``regime change'' and switch its policy to that of peaceful coexistence between the two countries. We have closely followed with patience what policy the second-term Bush regime would shape after clarifying the stand that in that case it would be possible to solve the nuclear issue, too. However, the administration turned down our just request and adopted it as its policy not to coexist with the DPRK through the president's inaugural address and the State of the Union address and the speech made by the secretary of state at the Congress hearing to get its approval. ... - The remarks made by senior officials of the administration clarifying the official political stance of the U.S. contained no word showing any willingness to coexist with the DPRK or make a switchover in its policy toward it. On the contrary, they have declared it as their final goal to terminate the tyranny, defined the DPRK, too, as an ``outpost of tyranny'' and blustered that they would not rule out the use of force when necessary. And they pledged to build a world based on the U.S. view on value through the ``spread of American style liberty and democracy.'' The true intention of the second-term Bush administration is not only to further its policy to isolate and stifle the DPRK pursued by the first-term office but to escalate it. - The U.S. has declared a new ideological standoff aimed at a ``regime change'' in the DPRK while talking much about ``peaceful and diplomatic solution'' to the nuclear issue and the ``resumption of the six-party talks'' in a bid to mislead the world public opinion. This is nothing but a far-fetched logic of gangsters as it is a good example fully revealing the wicked nature and brazen-faced double-dealing tactics of the U.S. as a master hand at plot-breeding and deception. - The DPRK has clarified its stand that it would not pursue anti-Americanism and treat the U.S. as a friendly nation if it neither slanders the political system in the DPRK nor interferes in its internal affairs. It has since made every possible effort to settle the nuclear issue and improve the bilateral relations. However, the U.S. interpreted this as a sign of weakness, defiled the dignified political system in the DPRK chosen by its people and wantonly interfered in its internal affairs. The U.S., turning down the DPRK's request to roll back its anti-DPRK hostile policy, a major stumbling block in the way of settling the nuclear issue, treated it as an enemy and, not content with this, totally rejected it, terming it ``tyranny.'' This deprived the DPRK of any justification to negotiate with the U.S. and participate in the six-party talks. - It is by no means fortuitous that the world people raise their voices cursing and censuring the Bush administration as a group pursuing tyranny prompted by its extreme misanthropy, swimming against such trend of the world. We have shown utmost magnanimity and patience for the past four years since the first Bush administration swore in. We can not spend another four years as we did in the past four years and there is no need for us to repeat what we did in those years. - We have wanted the six-party talks but we are compelled to suspend our participation in the talks for an indefinite period till we have recognized that there is justification for us to attend the talks and there are ample conditions and atmosphere to expect positive results from the talks. The present deadlock of the six-party talks is attributable to the U.S. hostile policy toward the DPRK. There is no justification for us to participate in the six-party talks again given that the Bush administration termed the DPRK, a dialogue partner, an ``outpost of tyranny,'' putting into the shade the hostile policy, and totally negated it. ... The U.S. disclosed its attempt to topple the political system in the DPRK at any cost, threatening it with a nuclear stick. This compels us to take a measure to bolster its nuclear weapons arsenal in order to protect the ideology, system, freedom and democracy chosen by its people. ... We had already taken the resolute action of pulling out of the NPT and have manufactured nukes for self-defense to cope with the Bush administration's evermore undisguised policy to isolate and stifle the DPRK. Its nuclear weapons will remain nuclear deterrent for self-defense under any circumstances. The present reality proves that only powerful strength can protect justice and truth. The U.S. evermore reckless moves and attempt to attack the DPRK only reinforce its pride of having already consolidated the single-minded unity of the army and people and increased the capability for self-defense. ... The DPRK's principled stand to solve the issue through dialogue and negotiations and its ultimate goal to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula remain unchanged. ---- Did Kim Jung Il miscalculate? China may now be forced to trump N. Korea's playing the nuclear card By Jim Bencivenga | Christian Science Monitor February 10, 2005, updated 12:35 p.m. http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0211/dailyUpdate.html North Korea declared itself a nuclear power on Thursday. The Stalinist state coupled a unilateral admission of possessing nuclear weapons with the assertion that it would not take part in "six-nation talks aimed at ending the [nuclear arms] crisis," on the Korean peninsula. Both statements appeared to catch the US by surprise, as wll as China, South Korea, Japan, and Russia, despite the fact that this was the third time in two years that N. Korea pulled the diplomatic rug out from under international talks. A consensus of the parties involved seemed to be that the next move was China's responsibility to confront its ally with the untenable position of nuclear weapons on the Korean peninsula. Top Japanese officials appeared calm in the face of North Korea's abrupt announcement Thursday, reports The Mainichi Daily News. Downplaying the new development, "Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi said that Tokyo's stance of trying to persuade Pyongyang to take part in the six-nation talks would not change." The mainstream South Korean press called on the North to be realistic and come to terms with the consequences of its actions. The Chosun Ibo wrote of the imperative for North Korea to awaken from the self-induced trance where it believes it can gain something only when it takes on the international community head-on. When the other side can read your cards so clearly, an attachment to the strategies of the past could mean that the situation spirals out of control ? with Pyongyang itself the ultimate victim. The JoonAng Daily was uncharacteristically direct: If the North chooses to go against the unanimous demands of the international community like this, an enormous tragedy is inevitable in the end. It is evident that no country, including South Korea, United States and Japan, will give in to such threats by North Korea because peace on the Korean Peninsula is so closely related to their national interests. The same applies for China. The only route for Kim Jong-il to maintain the regime and rebuild the crumbled economy is through giving up its nuclear program. We urge North Korea to return to talks at once. The South Korean government must also reconsider its approach towards the North from the starting point. Most of all, it must get rid of the belief that North Korea will act according to our will if we are considerate of its position. There also is no room for error in cooperating with the United States. The lead editorial in Friday's Times of London at first characterizes the weapons pronouncement as deja vu in dealing with the unpredictable Kim Jung Il. But it concludes that N. Korea will now force China's hand. The truth about North Korea's nuclear capability cannot be verified, but yesterday's boast is compatible with available intelligence. Pyongyang has never before gone further than to claim that it possessed a "nuclear deterrent," had weaponized plutonium and was planning weapons tests.... The regime of Kim Jong Il may not have intended to make life more difficult for Beijing, but it has surely done so. China's stance throughout has been that it opposes a nuclear-armed Korean peninsula, but that since it was unclear whether North Korea was even close to the point of developing actual nuclear weapons, the US and Japan should have the patience to fall in with China's preferred strategy of gradual engagement. In its lead editorial Friday, The Christian Science Monitor places China in the hotseat. "It must consider the reality of a nuclear armed N. Korea in light of its interests in the region." North Korea crossed a red line in international diplomacy Thursday by announcing that it has nuclear weapons. Leaders in Japan, the US, and elsewhere must now deal with their own public's fears of nuclear weapons and act as if North Korea does possess a viable atomic bomb. The US is right to hold China accountable for letting its ally become a nuclear-weapons exporter. But if Mr. Bush is pushed to change tactics now, it should be to put more pressure on China to curb North Korea's nuclear program through economic means. China can't afford to let Japan react and go nuclear, or further push the US to set up a missile-defense shield. If Beijing really believes the North has the bomb, it will act now. The Bush administration's real concern, says the Monitor, is not "that the North would use a bomb or even has one, but that it would export nuclear components and bomb-building knowledge to other rogue states and to terrorists." This further pressures China to act. Clearly, N. Korea may have miscalculated the Chinese response, writes The Sydney Morning Herald. What is becoming clear, however, is that Beijing is not ready to make the same sacrifice again for a communist ally that has become a political embarrassment and a threat to the stability on which China's own economic progress depends. China still feels that "little gratitude" has ever been shown for "the huge casualties involved in saving the North Korean regime in 1950-53," and that N. Korea may be overestimating the level of support it can expect, says the Herald. Chinese scholars in government think tanks say a high degree of ambiguity has been deliberately inserted by the country's leadership under President Hu Jintao into Beijing's treaty obligations to North Korea. Chinese economic pressure is the only viable approach given the reality that the US's hands are tied when it comes to a military response, says columnist Greg Sheridan, in The Australian. He sees "three devastating road blocks" confronting the US, Japan, and South Korea: One, Washington could not be sure it had got all North Korea's nuclear facilities in any attack. Two, the US military is already fully extended in Iraq. Three, North Korea has vast batteries of artillery, deeply embedded in rugged mountainside, all trained on the South Korean capital, Seoul. Professor Moon Seong Hyun from S. Korea's Yonsei University told The Straits Times of Singapore the biggest worry is that N. Korea's latest gambit may backfire as the US can now refer its recalcitrance to the United Nations Security Council. "The Council can then impose sanctions on Pyongyang, a move that the cash-strapped country has warned would be considered an act of war." ---- North Korea's Statement Puts China in a Quandary By KEITH BRADSHER February 10, 2005 NY TIMES http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/10/international/asia/10cnd-china.html?pagewanted=print&position= BEIJING, China, Feb. 10 - China gently urged North Korea late tonight to resume regional talks over its nuclear program and said nothing, at least in public, about Pyongyang's claim to have nuclear weapons - a stance that underlined China's diplomatic predicament. Chinese leaders have tried for years to find middle ground between the United States and North Korea. They have consistently urged the rest of the world, and especially the United States, to show more patience with North Korea. They have also contended that it was unclear whether North Korea had developed nuclear weapons, notwithstanding American intelligence to the contrary. Confronted with a statement by Pyongyang mentioning that nuclear weapons had been manufactured, the Chinese government's initial reaction this afternoon was to say little. Two state-run wire services, the China News Agency and the New China News Agency, each ran articles late this afternoon describing North Korea's decision to suspend indefinitely its participation in the six-country talks with China, Japan, South Korea, Russia and the United States over Pyongyang's nuclear program. But neither article highlighted North Korea's mention of having nuclear weapons - even though the New China News Agency article quoted the North Korean statement at length and included portions mentioning the manufacture of nuclear weapons. The New China News Agency later carried a one-sentence statement from Kong Quan, the Chinese foreign ministry's chief spokesman. "China has noted the reports concerning the announcement by North Korea's foreign ministry that it will indefinitely suspend the six-party talks, and hopes that the six-party talks will continue," he said. The timing of North Korea's announcement is a particular setback for China. Early last week, Chinese officials told an American envoy that they would send a delegation to North Korea later this month seeking to restart the nuclear talks. Mr. Kong then endorsed the six-country talks publicly at a news conference on Feb. 3. "China has all along been staying in close contact with other parties to strive for the early start of the next round of the talks and favorable results thereof," he said then. Chu Shulong, a foreign policy expert at Qinghua University, said that North Korea was sometimes prone to sharp changes in rhetoric. As a result, China and other countries should not rush to respond to Pyongyang's claim to have nuclear weapons, he said. "We should not take that too seriously, we should wait a moment - days or weeks - to see if they consistently say they have them," Mr. Chu added. If North Korea were to disavow its latest statement, or say that the statement had been somehow misconstrued, then this could make it easier for diplomatic negotiations to resume. Jin Canrong, the associate dean of the School of International Studies at People's University, said that Pyongyang's issuance of the statement posed a problem for Beijing. "China is now facing a more awkward situation because China always tries to persuade states to be more patient," Mr. Jin said here. Using North Korea's official name for itself, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Mr. Jin went on to say that, "one excuse for China is that D.P.R.K. has not confirmed that it is a nuclear power" until now. Mr. Jin said that China may want to preserve its negotiating flexibility by coordinating its position mostly with Russia and South Korea. Both these countries have been less critical of North Korea even as Japan and the United States have been strongly warning of the dangers of Pyongyang's nuclear program. Michael Green, the senior director for Asia at the National Security Council, visited here on Feb. 1 and 2 and presented top Chinese officials, including President Hu Jintao, with American intelligence showing that North Korea had produced several tons of a uranium compound that wound up in Libya. He pressed China to increase diplomatic pressure on North Korea, which it heavily supports with fuel oil and other crucial supplies. Many Chinese diplomats are likely to have a personal reason for being upset with Pyongyang this week: Today's statement came in the middle of Chinese New Year's celebrations, the biggest festival of the year. Offices across Beijing are empty following an exodus last weekend, as millions of people across China returned to their hometowns to celebrate the holidays with their families. ---- US asks China to press N Korea on nuclear issue Thursday February 10, 2005 News International, Pakistan http://jang.com.pk/thenews/feb2005-daily/10-02-2005/world/w11.htm WASHINGTON: US President George W Bush sent an envoy to Beijing to seek China's help in convincing North Korea to abandon its suspected nuclear weapons program and also to provide new intelligence on the issue, The New York Times said on Wednesday, quoting US and Asian officials. The envoy, Michael Green - senior director for Asia at the National Security Council — last week delivered a letter from Bush to Chinese President Hu Jintao stressing "the greatly heightened urgency" of the problem, one US official said. Green also showed the Chinese a US intelligence report on North Korea's alleged sale of a uranium compound to Libya — first reported last week by The New York Times. The government in Pyongyang says it is developing plutonium for peaceful purposes, but is not making material for use in nuclear warheads. A senior Asian diplomat quoted by the US paper said the Chinese — who in public have dismissed US charges of a North Korean uranium program — were impressed by "the quality of the scientific evidence." Asian officials told the daily the Chinese promised to send a delegation to North Korea later this month, but also insisted that Bush refrain from making public statements on the North Korean situation to avoid stoking tensions, as occurred the months leading up to the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. The nuclear standoff with North Korea erupted in October 2002 when the United States accused the secretive communist state of operating a program based on highly enriched uranium, violating a 1994 arms control agreement. Pyongyang denied that charge but restarted a plutonium programme. North Korea attended three rounds of the six-nation talks, which also group South Korea, Japan and Russia. ---- World Urges N. Korea Back to Nuclear Talks By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS February 10, 2005 Filed at 2:39 p.m. ET http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-NKorea-World-View.html?pagewanted=print&position= TOKYO (AP) -- North Korea's statement Thursday that it had nuclear weapons and would boycott talks on its atomic programs was seen as a possible negotiating gambit, and governments urged it to return to the six-nation bargaining table. Japan, one of the nations that have met three times since 2003 to try to persuade North Korea to give up its nuclear ambitions, said it was not immediately alarmed since the aim of the announcement was unclear. The six-party talks also involved the United States, the Koreas, China and Russia. North Korea announced for the first time through its state-run media that it has nuclear weapons and rejected moves to restart disarmament talks any time soon, saying it needs the armaments as protection against an increasingly hostile United States. The claim could not be verified independently. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the North had no reason to believe the United States would attack. ``The North Koreans have been told by the president of the United States that the United States has no intention of attacking or invading North Korea,'' Rice said in Luxembourg. ``There is a path for the North Koreans that would put them in a more reasonable relationship with the rest of the world.'' On the flight home, Rice told reporters: ``Let's see what the North Koreans do down the road. Everybody is urging them to get back to the talks.'' Traveling with President Bush to North Carolina, White House press secretary Scott McClellan said the statement from North Korea was ``rhetoric we've heard before.'' ``We remain committed to the six-party talks. We remain committed to a peaceful diplomatic resolution to the nuclear issue with regards to North Korea,'' he said. North Korea had reportedly told U.S. negotiators in private talks that it had nuclear weapons and might test one of them, but Thursday marked its first public acknowledgment it had an arsenal. China, North Korea's main ally, said it would like the six-nation talks to continue. ``We consistently advocate the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula and the preservation of the peninsula's peace and stability. We hope that the six-party talks will continue,'' Kong Quan, chief spokesman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry, said in a statement on the ministry's Web site. Despite some perceptions that North Korea's claim was a negotiating gambit, there was widespread consensus in major capitals that diplomacy must not be abandoned. ``It would be better if we resumed talks soon,'' said Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, a call echoed by France's foreign ministry. In London, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan also urged North Korea to rejoin the talks, and he asked the other five nations to help. ``I expect that with efforts by the other countries involved, North Korea could be brought back to the table,'' Annan said following talks with British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. Russia's Foreign Ministry criticized North Korea's statement and strongly urged it to return to the negotiations. North Korea's move ``can only cause regret,'' the ministry said, adding that Moscow respects Pyongyang's concern about its safety but believes ``that the problem should be resolved through negotiations rather than arms race, especially nuclear arms race.'' The British government said it was deeply concerned by the announcement by North Korea, also known as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. ``It would be a major mistake for the DPRK were they to go down that route,'' Straw said in a joint news conference with Annan. North Korea's statement was met with alarm in the streets of Tokyo -- well within range of Pyongyang's missiles. ---- Rice urges N Korea to return to talks but confident of deterrence LUXEMBOURG (AFP) Feb 10, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050210184257.keg101qm.html US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Thursday urged North Korea to return to talks on its nuclear arms drive but warned that the United States and its allies could deter any threat. Speaking after the Stalinist state abandoned six-party negotiations and said it had already built the bomb, Rice said North Korea only faced deeper isolation if it continued on its present path. "We are trying to give the North Koreans a different path," she told a news conference after meeting officials from the European Union's Luxembourg presidency. "We are confident... that of course the United States and its allies can deal with any potential threat from North Korea. And North Korea I think understands that," the chief US diplomat said. "But the fact of the matter is that the world has given them a way out and they should take that way out. "We would hope that there will be six-party talks again, and six-party talks soon, so that we can resolve the issue," she said referring to a multilateral process also involving Russia, China, Japan and South Korea. In a dramatic rejection of the second administration of US President George W. Bush, North Korea said Thursday it would no longer engage in dialogue on its nuclear programme. It said it had manufactured nuclear weapons to protect itself against a US attack, and was suspending its participation in the multilateral talks. "This is an unfortunate move, most especially probably for the people of North Korea because it only deepens the North Koreans' isolation from the rest of the international community," Rice said. She said that the US government had "assumed" since the mid-1990s that Pyongyang had the capacity to build atomic weapons. "We have known for a while that North Korea probably has enough material to make nuclear weapons," she said. She reiterated assurances by Bush that the United States did not intend to attack North Korea, and that it is ready to provide security guarantees to Pyongyang. "Those security assurances would of course include the United States, if they are prepared to take definitive action to dismantle their nuclear programmes and to do so in a way that is verifiable," she said. Asked why Pyongyang had made its announcement now, Rice said: "I'm not sure anyone gets very far in trying to second-guess the motivations of the North Korean regime." She would not comment further, except to say: "We really do have to consult the other parties and see where we go from here. Let's see what the North Koreans decide to do down the road." Rice said she would be meeting South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-Moon on Monday and that she and US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld would also be holding talks with their Japanese counterparts on Febraury 19. ---- Rice warns N Korea faces deeper isolation over nuclear claims LUXEMBOURG (AFP) Feb 10, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050210113228.ex675un0.html US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice warned Thursday that North Korea faces only deeper isolation if its nuclear arms claims are true, but reiterated US pledges not to attack the Stalinist regime. Rice said Washington had only just seen a statement by North Korea's foreign ministry that the country has manufactured nuclear weapons to protect itself against a US attack, and was suspending its participation in multilateral talks. Rice, speaking to RTL television of the Netherlands while on a visit here, said the United States was analysing the statement and consulting with the other members of the six-party talks -- Russia, China, Japan and South Korea. "But if in fact that this is the case, then the North Koreans are only deepening their isolation because everyone in the international community, and most especially North Korea's neighbours, have been very clear that there needs to be no nuclear weapons on the Korean peninsula in order to maintain stability in that region," the chief US diplomat said. In a dramatic rejection of the second administration of US President George W. Bush, North Korea said it would no longer engage in dialogue with the United States over its nuclear programmes. The statement was North Korea's first official response to what was widely seen as a conciliatory gesture to Pyongyang from Bush in his State of the Union address last week. The statement took special aim at Rice, who branded North Korea an "outpost of tyranny" during her confirmation hearing last month. The North Korean announcement comes as the US government struggles to deal with Iran's own nuclear ambitions, an issue that has dominated Rice's talks in Europe with the European Union taking the lead in negotiations with Tehran. Rice, winding up a week-long tour of Europe and the Middle East, was unable to say how the United States and its allies would respond to the North Korean report. But she reiterated the Americans' pledge that they have no intention of attacking North Korea. "So, there is really no reason for this, but we'll examine where we will go next," she said. Rice rejected North Korean allegations that the Bush administration was intent on isolating and stifling the country. "Obviously they have been given an opportunity by their closest neighbours to get on a different path with the international community," she said. "They have been told that if they simply make the decision that it is time to give up their nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons programme, to dismantle them verifiably and irreversibly, that there is a completely new path available to them." Rice reiterated Washington's willingness to grant Pyongyang security assurances. "They have been told that no one wants to attack them. So the North Koreans should reassess this and try to end their own isolation," she said. The United States and Pyongyang's regional neighbours have been trying to wean the Stalinist regime off its nuclear arms ambitions but with little success. Washington believes North Korea possesses one or two crude bombs and may have reprocessed enough plutonium from spent fuel rods at its Yongbyon nuclear complex to produce enough plutonium for half-a-dozen more. Japan's Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi said that Tokyo would keep trying to resume the six-nation talks on North Korea's nuclear weapons drive, despite the communist state's abrupt suspension of the negotiations. ---- U.S. Plays Down N. Korea Nuclear Declaration By REUTERS February 10, 2005 Filed at 12:20 p.m. ET http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/politics/politics-korea-north-usa.html?pagewanted=print&position= LUXEMBOURG (Reuters) - The United States has assumed since the mid-1990s that North Korea could make nuclear weapons, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Thursday, playing down a dramatic announcement from Pyongyang. She said North Korea would only deepen its own isolation, and forego international security guarantees, if it pulled out of six-party talks on its nuclear program. Rice was responding to a statement from the secretive communist state earlier Thursday that it had manufactured nuclear arms for self-defense and was suspending participation in the talks on its atomic program indefinitely. ``We have for some time taken account of the capability of the North Koreans to perhaps have a few nuclear weapons,'' Rice told a news conference after talks with the European Union, calling the North Korean statement ``an unfortunate move.'' Washington and South Korea had a sufficient deterrent on the Korean peninsula to ``deal with any potential threat from North Korea,'' she said. The new top U.S. diplomat reiterated that the United States had no intention of attacking or invading North Korea and said she hoped the talks, which also involve South Korea, China, Japan and Russia, would resume soon. ``The fact of the matter is that the world has given them a way out and they should take that way out,'' she said. The negotiations offered Pyongyang a path out of isolation and the prospect of multilateral security guarantees. ``It is very clear to the North Koreans that no such security assurances would be forthcoming if they were not prepared to take a decision to dismantle their nuclear weapons and their programs in a verifiable and irreversible way,'' Rice said. CONTRADICTION DENIED Rice told reporters aboard her flight home that she would discuss the issue with South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon at previously scheduled talks in Washington Monday. She and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld would have a joint meeting with their Japanese counterparts later this month, Rice added. Hinting Washington considered the Pyongyang statement as a bargaining tactic, she said: ``Let's see what the North Koreans decide to do down the road. I think that everybody is urging them to return to the talks.'' She denied any contradiction between the pledge not to attack North Korea and recent U.S. statements refusing to rule out military options against Iran, which Washington also accuses of seeking the bomb. ``The message is the same for both: give up nuclear weapons and life can be different,'' Rice said. However, she said Iran's nuclear program was at a much earlier stage. Tehran denies seeking atomic weapons. The European Union, Britain and France expressed dismay at the North Korean statement. ``The EU strongly regrets the statement on the suspension of North Korea's participation in the six-party talks for an indefinite period,'' EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said in a statement, adding the talks were ``the best instrument to deal with the nuclear issue on the Korean peninsula.'' Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said any North Korean withdrawal from the negotiations would be a mistake. Regional powers had been trying to coax Pyongyang back to talks after the re-election of President Bush. The North Korean Foreign Ministry said that by branding the country an outpost of tyranny, the Bush administration had shown its hostility and removed the justification for the talks. ---- Chronology of North Korean nuclear crisis SEOUL (AFP) Feb 10, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050210111610.e6n8kbh6.html Key dates in the crisis over North Korea's nuclear weapons drive: 1994 North Korea and the US sign a nuclear safeguard accord after Pyongyang vows to freeze and eventually dismantle its nuclear weapons program. 2002 Oct: North Korea reportedly admits to US special envoy James Kelly that it is running a uranium enrichment program in violation of the 1994 accord. Nov 14: The United States suspends fuel oil shipments to North Korea promised under the 1994 accord. Dec 21-25: North Korea removes seals and monitoring cameras from its main nuclear complex at Yongbyon, north of Pyongyang. Dec 27: UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors expelled from Yongbyon. 2003 Jan 10: Pyongyang withdraws from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). April 18: North Korea says it has begun reprocessing more than 8,000 spent nuclear fuel rods to make weapons-grade plutonium. Aug 13: North Korea asks for a non-aggression pact with the United States to resolve the nuclear stand-off. Aug 27-29: Six-way nuclear talks start in Beijing. North Korea threatens to conduct a nuclear test and declare itself a nuclear power. Oct 2: North Korea says it has produced enough weapons-grade plutonium for half-a-dozen atomic bombs as a step towards boosting its nuclear deterrent. Oct 16: North Korea vows to display the "physical force" of its nuclear deterrent. 2004 Jan 6: North Korea offers to refrain from testing and producing nuclear weapons in a "bold concession". US Secretary of State Colin Powell says he is encouraged by the offer. Jan 12: North Korea again offers to freeze nuclear reactors producing weapons grade plutonium if compensated by Washington. Feb 3: North Korea agrees to hold a new round of six-way nuclear crisis talks to open on February 25 in China. Feb 4: Abdul Qadeer Khan, the founder of Pakistan's atomic program, admits proliferating nuclear technology after two-month investigation into the leaking of nuclear secrets to Iran, Libya and North Korea. Feb 23: US suggests willingness to consider freeze of North Korea's nuclear program, as delegates start arriving in Beijing for six-party talks. Feb 24: Second round of six-party talks are held in Beijing, but end without concrete progress. China says "severe" differences remain. May 14: North Korea says it will never accept US demands for a complete dismantling of its nuclear programs at working level six-nation talks in Beijing. June 20: Second session of working-level talks start. June 23: Third round of six-party talks to get underway. Aug 1: North Korea announces it will take part in further six-nation talks on the crisis. No date or venue for the meet is set. Aug 12: Washington announces new round will take place in Beijing on August Aug 23: North Korea says it is "impossible" to attend talks because of US policy, labels Bush an "imbecile" and a "tyrant" who is worse than Adolf Hitler. Sept 8: A North Korean official warns that a South Korean uranium enrichment experiment could fuel an arms race in northeast Asia. Sept 28: The US warns North Korea it might have to be brought back to the UN Security Council if it refuses participation in six-party talks. Oct 8: North Korea says it is ready to resume six-party talks at any time and blames the delay on Bush for stalling. Dec 4: North Korea says it will not return to talks until the lineup of a new US administration emerges. 2005 Jan 14: North Korea says it has decided to resume talks. Feb 2: Washington urges North Korea to return to talks. Feb 10: A senior US official says Washington believes North Korea is continuing its weapons program amid a deadlock in talks. Feb 10: North Korea indefinitely suspends participation in talks and reiterates it has manufactured nuclear weapons. -------- mideast Saudi Arabia denies buying nukes Pakistan Daily Times, February 10, 2005 http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_10-2-2005_pg7_5 ISLAMABAD: Saudi Ambassador to Pakistan Ali Awaad Aseeri on Monday denied a report by Time magazine that the Kingdom was trying to buy nuclear weapons through AQ Khan's network. “The basic objective of this report is to tarnish the Kingdom's image and frustrate its efforts at making the region free of weapons of mass destruction,” the ambassador told Okaz in a telephone interview. Aseeri said the Kingdom had been in the forefront of countries seeking to make the Mideast a nuclear arms-free region. “Why would the Kingdom try to get this kind of weapon when it openly opposes the principle of possessing, manufacturing or proliferating weapons of mass destruction at the regional and international levels,” he asked. “The Kingdom has always been seeking world peace and security,” he added. Meanwhile, Pakistan said on Wednesday that the case of nuclear scientist AQ Khan was still open, but it has received no new evidence to suggest that his black market network had sold technology to more countries than earlier thought. Last February, President Gen Pervez Musharraf pardoned AQ Khan after he confessed to supplying sensitive technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea. But this week Time magazine reported that US officials were also investigating whether the scientist's network might have supplied Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries, such as Egypt. On Wednesday, Pakistani Foreign Ministry spokesman Masood Khan said AQ Khan's “case is still open”. “We will quiz any of our scientists if somebody comes up with evidence to prove his links with the proliferators of nuclear technology,” the spokesman said. But he said the government had “received no new evidence from any country, individual or organisation, including the IAEA” – referring to the UN nuclear watchdog, the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency. AQ Khan, who was once regarded as a national hero for his role in making Pakistan a nuclear power, has lived under virtual house arrest in Islamabad for the past year. On Monday, Pakistan denied that AQ Khan's network was still operating. agencies -------- russia Siemens' Russian deal hit by veto By Arkady Ostrovsky in Moscow Published: February 10 2005 Financial Times http://news.ft.com/cms/s/dbb4661e-7b0d-11d9-a3ea-00000e2511c8.html A prospective flagship investment by Siemens, the German industrial giant, in Russia's engineering sector has run into problems following a veto from the country's powerful security services. A senior government official yesterday said Russia's Ministry of Industry had recommended Mikhail Fradkov, prime minister, "postpone" the approval of Siemens' acquisition of Power Machines, Russia's leading power equipment conglomerate, until further investigations were carried out into national security issues. Power Machines is 71 per cent-owned by Interros, a financial and industrial group controlled by Vladimir Potanin, a billionaire tycoon. Last year Siemens, the world's second-largest turbine manufacturer, agreed to buy half of Interros's stake for an estimated $150m. Siemens also agreed to invest $200m in the business over the next three to five years. The deal was set to be approved by Russia's anti- monopoly commission by the end of last year, but ran into trouble after several officials raised concerns about the strategic importance of Power Machines. Stanislav Puginsky, deputy head of Russia's Federal Agency for Industry, said the ministry's recommendations were based on the fact that Power Machines was a strategic asset, involved with the defence sector. Power Machines mostly makes energy equipment, but some of its plants also produce parts for the Russian defence sector, including the nuclear fleet. However, it is understood Siemens is not interested in those assets. "Siemens insists on managing Power Machines, but this is impossible from the security point of view," said Mr Puginsky. He said several interested Russian parties submitted their opinion, including the Federal Security Service - the successor to the KGB - which opposes the sale of Power Machines to Siemens on national security grounds. At the same time, Basic Element, a holding company controlled by Oleg Deripaska, another business tycoon, expressed interest in buying Power Machines from Interros and applied for permission to the anti-monopoly commission. "Everything else being equal, at this stage a national company may have a preference," Mr Puginsky said. He said no decision was likely until Russia passed a new law regulating foreign participation in strategic sectors of the economy. Edward Roberts, engineering and metals analyst at Renaissance Capital, a Moscow-based investment bank, said: "The notion of strategic engineering assets is completely outdated, particularly at a time when engineering companies need to consolidate to survive." Additional reporting by Bettina Wassener in Frankfurt -------- terrorism India to help enhance security of dangerous radioactive sources 10 February 2005 (AP) http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/subcontinent/2005/February/subcontinent_February361.xml§ion=subcontinent NEW DELHI - India has agreed to host international workshops to help investigators crack down on the flow of dangerous radioactive material that could be used by terrorists to build an atomic bomb. The announcement was made late Wednesday following a meeting in India's capital of New Delhi that included representatives of the US Department of Energy and the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency. As part of the Regional Radiological Security Partnership program, India said it would initiate a training course and offer assistance to other nations in tracking down illegal nuclear shipments, a statement by the India's External Affairs Ministry said. The courses will be conducted under the aegis of the IAEA, it said. “The three sides acknowledged their shared objective of enhancing globally the security of dangerous radioactive sources,” the statement said. Two years ago, the US government and the IAEA announced a joint effort with Russia to secure radiation sources in the former Soviet Union. Of particular concern were abandoned - or so-called “orphaned” - materials. Meanwhile, India will send a delegation to Washington next month to affirm its participation in the US-led Container Security Initiative to screen US-bound sea freight containers at ports of origin to prevent smuggling of banned nuclear material, The Indian Express newspaper reported. The Indian team was expected to visit a US port to study the measures being put in place, the newspaper said. India's Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust was chosen as the pilot port in the project because 58 percent of container traffic moving out of India originates there. The initiative will gradually cover other Indian ports as well, the report said Officials of the US Customs and Border Patrol will be posted at JNPT and India is also expected to post its own agents at US ports, the newspaper said. There was no immediate comment from either India's External Affairs Ministry or the US Embassy on the newspaper report. -------- u.s. nuc weapons Encouraging Nuclear Proliferation February 10, 2005 NY TIMES EDITORIAL http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/10/opinion/10thu2.html?pagewanted=print&position= There are many things the United States military badly needs these days, like better armored vehicles for combat zones like Iraq and more unpiloted aircraft for reconnaissance and bombing. One thing it has no pressing use for is a new line of nuclear warheads being designed at America's three nuclear weapons laboratories to replace the roughly 10,000 still on hand from the overbuilding frenzies of the cold war. This is essentially a make-work project for weapons designers that risks triggering a new worldwide nuclear arms race. America's nuclear creativity should be focused on convincing nations like Iran and North Korea that nuclear weapons will not enhance their own security, not on setting a perverse contrary example. Nuclear weapons are extremely ill suited for most conceivable battlefield situations. They are unique in their power to destroy innocent civilian lives, and there are almost always cleaner, more efficient ways to destroy purely military targets. Since the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki almost 60 years ago, they have never again been used in combat. The American arsenal no longer serves its cold war purpose of deterrence. This is an era of conventional combat against lesser military powers, of counterinsurgency operations and global military campaigns against terrorism. American technological supremacy now finds its most effective military expressions in "smart" conventional weapons, like laser-guided bombs and pilotless aircraft and the powerful new satellite reconnaissance and computer communications networks. Back home, however, Pentagon planners and nuclear scientists keep trying to think up new uses for nuclear arms, from miniaturized battlefield weapons to large bombs designed to pulverize underground unconventional weapons labs - provided, of course, that the targeters know where such labs are. The other main argument put forward for designing new nuclear weapons concerns reliability. With nuclear testing indefinitely suspended, some weapons scientists argue that some of the bombs in America's vast but aging stockpile may not detonate properly if they are ever used. That is a legitimate theoretical concern, but it has already been addressed. Since the Clinton era, Washington has lavished money on elaborate programs to test and analyze critical components of stockpiled nuclear weapons and run computer simulations as a substitute for underground testing. Since late last year, however, America's nuclear labs have been instructed to design a new line of heavier nuclear warheads that would be more rugged and long-lasting than those now available. For now, the program is limited to design, not construction and testing. But once the designs are complete, the pressure to test the bombs is sure to mount. After that will probably come calls to spend trillions of dollars for new missiles to carry these heavier nuclear warheads. This program sends a clear message to the rest of the world: now that the superpower arms race has ended, Washington sees nuclear weapons as an important part of its military strategy against small and midsize states. It should be no surprise if those nations conclude that they must develop nuclear weapons of their own. -------- u.s. nuc facilities No Nukes! Patrick C. Doherty February 10, 2005 TomPaine.com http://www.tompaine.com/articles/no_nukes.php While politicians are scrambling to address Iraq and Social Security, the nuclear power industry and the Bush administration are charging ahead with a dangerous plan. Patrick Doherty looks at the false promises of nuclear energy and the massive economic opportunity we'll lose if Bush has his way. Patrick C. Doherty is senior editor at TomPaine.com. Previously, he spent a decade working on conflict and economic development in the Middle East, Africa, the Balkans and the Caucasus. His column, Quo Vadis, focuses on America's big picture: where we are, where we're going, and how to get there. Bush’s second term will include many historic decisions, but none may be more detrimental for long-term American prosperity—and go as quietly unnoticed—than a large-scale federal commitment to nuclear power. The nuclear industry has launched a concerted campaign that, if successful, would allow the two halves of the energy industry—oilmen and power companies—to preserve their market dominance. That’s dangerous. Preserving the energy status quo will cripple any chance that America will escape from our debt-ridden consumer economy. For America to both grasp the emerging vision of a more equitable and prosperous “innovation economy” and achieve true energy independence, this nuclear assault must be stopped. The new year saw the launch of a well-orchestrated, multi-pronged campaign calling for America to end its dependence on oil through massive federal investments in nuclear energy. On Jan. 1, the American Enterprise Institute published an article ominously entitled,“The Solution,” by William Tucker. In the February issue of Wired Magazine , Global Business Network president Peter Schwartz echoed the same argument, but geared toward that magazine’s more libertarian and tech-savvy readers. Then, last week, President Bush singled out nuclear energy in his State of the Union speech. This week, he increased the budget for the controversial Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in Nevada and requested a 50 percent increase over last year’s budget for advanced nuclear power research. But most tellingly, Senate Energy Committee Chairman Pete Domenici is out selling his new book: A Brighter Tomorrow: Fulfilling The Promise of Nuclear Energy . The argument Tucker and Schwartz use is radical for conservatives but commonplace within liberal and centrist circles. They state that America’s dependence on oil in an increasingly tight market with supplies in unstable regions makes our nation massively insecure. In addition, they remind us that nuclear power is climate friendly, as it releases no carbon into the atmosphere. Therefore, to satisfy the dual imperatives for energy security and climate change mitigation, we must make America independent of oil for transportation and carbon-laden coal for electricity. Incredibly, in the three months since our elections, the mainstream debate in energy policy has shifted from whether security and climate change were even worth considering to full acceptance of the dual threat and laying out proposals to deal with it. Nuclear Industry’s Power Grab But in shifting the lines of the nation’s energy debate, the nuclear industry is also trying to obscure its real objectives. Since the 2004 campaign, energy security and climate change have produced policy options that talk about how much oil consumption would be eliminated and by when. In the 2004 campaign, John Kerry adopted the labor- and environment-led Apollo Alliance’s 17 percent reduction in oil consumption by 2020—at the time, a more liberal stance. In December, previously uncommitted centrists (from both parties) have embraced the bi-partisan, National Commission on Energy Policy agenda calling for 15 percent reductions in oil consumption by 2025. In late 2004, the Rocky Mountain Institute mapped a path to reduce oil consumption by 76 percent by 2025 and 100 percent shortly thereafter—using proven technology to increase energy efficiency and shift to renewable energy sources. Nuclear power advocates are avoiding the transparent and market-friendly “X percent reductions by Y date” formula to hide the weakened position of their industry. The reason is simple. They cannot promise any reductions for at least a decade, perhaps longer. Nuclear power in the United States has been on the verge of collapse since the accident at Three Mile Island killed new construction. With aging reactors needing retirement, in the current regulatory environment the nuclear industry will soon have to shut down its heavily subsidized and privately lucrative power plants. Any new reactors built in the next 10 years would merely replace aging reactors, doing nothing to reduce our oil dependence. In essence, the industry is merely fighting to preserve its 20 percent share of the domestic electricity market. To do that, the industry is employing a cynical ‘bait-and-switch’ campaign. Industry advocates are promising the safety, cost and oil-replacing potential of generation-after-next “pebble-bed” reactors, but these designs still need years of research and development. In the meantime, the nuclear industry is working with its congressional allies, like Sen. Domenici, to lift the restrictions on and deliver the subsidies for less-competitive, more expensive 1980s-era nuclear designs to merely replace 30 and 40-year old reactors. These subsidies will cost the taxpayer $8 billion. It’s all smoke and mirrors. In reality, we won’t see pebble-bed reactors replacing oil for 20 years—which may be the Bush administration’s goal. Oil companies are making record profits from high oil prices right now—profits that are possible only so long as America sees oil as a commodity worth fighting for. That requires continued dependence. Yet those companies also recognize that Asian economic growth will, within 20 years, drive oil prices through the roof, making alternatives unavoidable. It all adds up to a well orchestrated hand off from one powerful industry to another. Markets be damned. Denying An Innovation Economy This preservation of the status quo denies America the opportunity of a century: A chance to build an “innovation economy” that delivers not only energy independence but a booming era of growth—growth in large part made possible by transforming our energy infrastructure. Economists and business leaders are increasingly talking about the next economic boom being based on innovation, on the application of knowledge to solve problems and deliver higher-quality services and products. To the extent that America can exploit our scientific and technological advantage to produce the energy and resource efficient products and services the developing world needs, we will be able to dig our way out of the insecurity, indebtedness and inequity that defines today’s consumer economy. The outlines of that “innovation economy” are emerging slowly, but distinctly. Information technology is driving revolutions in biotech, nanotech and materials science. Combining those technological innovations with innovations in the housing market known as ‘smart growth’ —ending sprawl by integrating efficient transportation and healthier communities—America is poised to enter a new economic boom period. That innovation economy requires clean, reliable, flexible and efficient energy. Clean, to mitigate climate change and improve public health. Reliable, to power the high-technology industries and services that require high-quality, uninterrupted power. Flexible, to accommodate the innovations in land use and transportation and the advances in efficiency that make turbines smaller and smaller. And efficient, to reduce overall cost and environmental impact. Nuclear Can’t Deliver Nuclear power can’t deliver on these requirements. When the current system was designed, clean, reliable, flexible and efficient were not priorities. Oil was plentiful, carbon emissions were a non-issue, and our technology was rudimentary and dirty. As our economy grew, we increased scale, not efficiency. The simple truth is the system we’ve got is getting older and more fragile. Crises like California’s rolling brownouts and the big northeastern blackout are only going to become more commonplace. Nuclear power does nothing to fix this fractured system. In fact, it would only reinforce this inefficient system by creating a new generation of massive plants located far from the customers they serve. Consumers would have little choice and the industry would have government over a barrel. There are better answers. Technology and design advances have opened up a new way to organize our energy grid that encourages high-quality energy and healthy markets. Right now, small natural gas turbines combined with better grid design can capture much of the wasted energy by distributing clean generating capacity closer to consumers. Instead of putting one massive power plant tens of miles from the customers and taking five years to build, ‘distributed’ micro-turbine power plants of any size can drop in incremental capacity onto the grid where it’s needed when it’s needed. Since they’re affordable, they eliminate the need for market-corrupting and deficit-worsening subsidies. The resulting vision is quite elegant. Build a new building or housing development, and you can put a clean new power source with it. And it’s not only dependent on natural gas. Wind turbines already allow rural communities to buy a town-sized wind farm and make money when they sell excess power back to the grid. As solar cells become more efficient, middle-class homes and urban rooftops could be generating—and selling—their own electricity. If that were to happen, big centralized plants couldn’t compete with a network of distributed power generators. David will have killed Goliath. The nuclear industry wants to abort that vision of a clean, efficient and distributed energy future before it is born. With the help of George Bush and Pete Domenici, they might just succeed. -------- arizona Arizona: 1 Palo Verde nuclear unit is down Max Jarman The Arizona Republic Feb. 10, 2005 12:00 AM http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/0210paloverde10.html One of three reactors at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station west of Phoenix was shut down early Wednesday morning to repair a faulty breaker. The 1,270-megawatt Unit 1 generator lost offsite power late Sunday when a breaker failed. An onsite diesel generator kicked in and allowed the plant to be shut down slowly over a two-day period. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission requires two independent, alternating-current power sources to be available. Jim McDonald, a spokesman for plant operator Arizona Public Service Co., was unable to say when the unit could be restarted but added he did not expect a lengthy outage. The plant's other two units continue to operate at full capacity, and McDonald said APS has ample power to serve its customers. -------- idaho Idaho to study MS link, nuclear testing THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Thursday, February 10, 2005 · Last updated 5:05 p.m. PT http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apscience_story.asp?category=1500&slug=MS%20Study TWIN FALLS, Idaho -- A study is under way to determine whether Idaho has a higher rate of multiple sclerosis than other Western states because of nuclear testing in Nevada decades ago. State epidemiologist Dr. Christine Hahn said the group conducting the study has started by reviewing Idaho death certificates. But she said that may not paint a complete picture because many people with multiple sclerosis do not actually die from the disease. The group also hopes to gather information from Medicaid claims, she said. If Idaho's rates appear higher than other Western states, then more intensive research will be conducted. The link and subsequent study was first suggested by Fred Trenkle and Arthur Vandenbark. Trenkle, of Shoshone, has been working on his own research of multiple sclerosis rates around the Twin Falls region. He first posed the question of a possible link to nuclear fallout during last year's meeting of the National Academy of Sciences Board of Radiation Effects Research in Boise. Vandenbark, a scientist, sent a letter to Gov. Dirk Kempthorne asking for help obtaining Idaho's disease rates. Some components of nuclear fallout have already been linked to several types of cancer. But the federal Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, which pays $50,000 to residents with exposure-related health problems in some parts of Nevada, Utah and Arizona, excludes Idaho residents from compensation. Idaho downwinders have been pushing for a change to the law so they can receive the federal compensation. The study group also includes representatives from the Bureau of Health Policy and Vital Statistics, the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, Cancer Data Registry, district health departments and a toxicologist from the health department. -------- iowa IAAP claims history at a glance The Iowa Hawk Eye February 10, 2005 http://www.thehawkeye.com/daily/stories/ln8_0210.html Here is a brief look at events leading to an advisory board's decision Wednesday to expedite disability payments for Iowa Army Ammunition Plant workers. 1941 - As war in Europe looms, Iowa Ordnance Plant opens on 19,000 acres in southwest Des Moines County. 1945 - Plant closes at the end of World War II. 1947 - Atomic Energy Commission reopens plant with a secret project: to make nuclear bombs. Assembly of conventional weapons resumes as well. During the height of the Cold War and during the Vietnam War, more than 8,000 people were employed at the Middletown facility. From 1949 to 1951, the Middletown factory is the nation's only nuclear weapons assembly plant. 1960s - The AEC routinely tests nuclear weapons components at IAAP, producing uranium-laden radioactive clouds over the plant, if not over the surrounding area. 1973 - Nuclear weapons production is moved to the Pantex nuclear weapons plant near Amarillo, Texas. The manufacturing of conventional weapons continues at Middletown. Over the years, about 100 boxes of records from Iowa - many involving heath data and weapons technology that remains classified have turned up at the Texas plant. 1974 - The AEC's functions are moved to a new agency, the Nuclear Regulatory Agency under the Department of Energy. 1980s - Groundwater, streams and soil in and around plant are found to be contaminated with DDT, TNT, lead and barium indicating improper disposal of hazardous waste. 1989 - IAAP is named to the federal Superfund list of worst toxic waste sites. Clean-up work is expected to be completed by 2010. 1993 - Congress orders the Department of Energy to screen former employees of nearly 400 weapons and power plants for health problems, but IAAP is not included in the list. 1997 - A former IAAP worker contacts Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, about health-related problems believed to have been caused by chemicals at the plant. 1999 - Harkin tours the plant, saying he was unaware nuclear components were manufactured there. An Army official says he could neither confirm nor deny the information. 2000 - Harkin and Department of Energy Secretary Bill Richardson meet with former employees at Burlington City Hall. In addition: Depleted uranium and a large deposit of barium is discovered at the plant, confirming suspicions that the AEC did not clean up its nuclear weapons operations as well as had been thought. The federal government finally discloses that nuclear tests were conducted at the Middletown facility. Congress passes a compensation package for nuclear-weapons workers across the country. Workers or their survivors can receive up to $150,000 each if they can show that their ailments were related to their work. 2001 - Congress passes legislation expanding the number of survivors who could receive a federal benefits package created for former workers, or their survivors, who suffered long-term illnesses or died from exposure to hazardous materials at the plant. In addition, Congress approved $1 million for a health study of non-nuclear workers at the plant. In addition: Iowa officials ask the Army to conduct a low-level flyover of the plant to detect possible radioactive contamination that may have been left behind by the Atomic Energy Commission. Previously classified documents note a possible radioactive "waste stream" and a possible "blue flash" runaway nuclear chain reaction that may have killed or injured at least two workers. The Army pays to connect about 30 homeowners southeast of the plant to the Rathbun rural water system because of concerns with groundwater contamination. Health researchers from the University of Iowa College of Public Health come to Middletown to help former workers or their survivors complete applications for the federal government's $150,000 compensation package. 2002 - Army conducts a flyover in a specially equipped helicopter to search the plant compound for radioactive hazards. The flyover detects what is believed to be depleted uranium at storage locations and at a firing site, areas where officials knew depleted uranium would be found. Also: Pentagon officials finally admitted nuclear weapons once were manufactured at the plant. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in St. Louis announces that the IAAP had been designated a radioactive cleanup site under the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program. Researchers from the University of Iowa continue their study of the health of former IAAP plant workers. Thus far, nearly $1 million in injury compensation has been given to seven former workers in the nuclear program. A total of 1,257 claims representing 842 workers have been filed. 2003 - Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, accuses the Department of Energy, the agency created from the Atomic Energy Commission, of "stonewalling" in an attempt to stave off criticism of its Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program. Grassley notes that fewer than 6 percent of injured workers' claims have been processed by the DOE. To accelerate the processing of compensation claims for sick nuclear weapons workers, the DOE tells Congress it will need another $33 million. 2004 - Worker payment program is moved to the Department of Labor to speed compensation payments. Harkin writes letters to Labor Secretary Elaine Chao and Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham seeking information about missing claims filed by some former IAAP employees under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program. It is feared the claims have been lost. 2005 - Officials from the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health say they are unable to determine the amount of radiation the weapons workers absorbed on the job without the release of additional classified documents. A NIOSH advisory board recommends unanimously to scrap the dose reconstructions and grant worker petitions. -------- nevada Energy Secretary Reaffirms Commitment to Building Nevada Nuclear Waste Dump February 10, 2005 — By H. Josef Hebert, Associated Press http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=7112 WASHINGTON — Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman told lawmakers Wednesday that while progress on a nuclear waste project in Nevada will be delayed, the government is "very focused and committed" to building the facility. Bodman was questioned about the Bush administration's commitment to the program two days after the Energy Department said it would ask for only $651 million for the Yucca Mountain program for the budget year that begins in October. Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, noted that until recently, it had been anticipated that beginning next year the department would need more than $1 billion a year to keep the program on track so it could begin accepting high-level waste from nuclear power plants by 2010. Department officials have delayed plans to submit a license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the project and acknowledged the new target date for opening the facility -- if it gets an NRC license -- is 2012. Potential problems that could delay programs, Bodman said, are court rulings that strike down the proposed radiation safety standards for the site and problems in preparation of the license application. But that "is not to suggest any less enthusiasm for Yucca Mountain," Bodman told the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Bodman said the $651 million requested for upcoming budget year for the Yucca project is adequate "given the restrains under which we are operating." In Nevada, Robert Loux, head of the state agency fighting the proposed waste site, said he saw the scaled-back spending as evidence that "the project is limping along" and likely never to be built. "We believe the project is dead," said Loux at a hearing before the state Legislature in Carson City. "It looks to us and others that the project may never rekindle and get started again." Bodman, who just took over at the department, said, "It is clear that the administration is very focused and committed to the program." He added, "We need Yucca Mountain to be in place." The project has widespread and bipartisan support on Capitol Hill. But Congress provided $577 million this budget year, far less than the $880 million the administration had sought. Yucca Mountain, a ridge of volcanic rock 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, was first considered as a place for the nation's central repository for high-level nuclear waste 27 years ago. The government initially promised the industry it would begin accepting the waste -- building up at power plants around the country -- for long-term disposal by 1998. President Bush gave the go-ahead to the project in 2002. Congress overrode Nevada's objections to the dump and last year an appeals court rejected Nevada's argument that the federal government's decision to single out Nevada for the facility was unconstitutional. ---- Official: Yucca not dead, just delayed Bush administration's Chu talks of 2012 target By KEN RITTER THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Thursday, February 10, 2005 Las Vegas Review-Journal http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/Feb-10-Thu-2005/news/25838396.html A national nuclear waste repository in Nevada has been delayed but still will be built, the Bush administration official in charge of the Yucca Mountain project insisted Wednesday. "At this point, we're hoping 2012," Margaret Chu, director of the civilian radioactive waste program, said after assuring the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board that the Energy Department remained committed to the nuclear repository. But with funding uncertain, she conceded that it could take longer. "It's very difficult to specify a date with confidence because it's so budget-dependent," Chu told the panel meeting in Las Vegas. Chu denied a Nevada state official's assertion to state lawmakers Tuesday in Carson City that the project was troubled and probably dead. "It's not dead, not at all," Chu said. Bob Loux, Nevada nuclear projects director, on Wednesday cited a federal court ruling last summer that threw out a key Environmental Protection Agency radiation standard on which the project relied. He also noted that the Energy Department missed a self-imposed December 2004 date to submit a license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. President Bush's budget this week cut to $651 million, from about $1.2 billion, the money budgeted for Yucca Mountain. Nevertheless, Loux asked state lawmakers to allocate $4 million to keep up the state's legal fight against the project for the next two years. Chu said the Energy Department hopes to have a new EPA radiation standard when it submits a license application by the end of 2005. The department also expects this summer to complete a requirement that millions of pages of supporting documents be accessible at an NRC online database. The Energy Department plans to entomb 77,000 tons of spent commercial nuclear fuel and highly radioactive military and industrial waste in tunnels beneath Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The panel will meet today in the remote Southern Nevada railroad town of Caliente, which town leaders hope will play a key role in plans to build a railroad spur to carry nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain. "It might help them have a fuller understanding of the lay of the land," Mayor Kevin Phillips said of the science panel's visit to his town of 1,014 residents. Phillips says his community would welcome the jobs, economic development and emergency response training he expects it would get hosting a Yucca Mountain railroad transfer station. -------- new mexico Uranium Enrichment Plant Is Proposed for New Mexico By MATTHEW L. WALD February 10, 2005 NY Times http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/10/national/10nuke.html?pagewanted=print&position= http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/02/10/news/nuke.html HOBBS, N.M., Feb. 9 - The uranium enrichment centrifuge plant that gets the most attention these days is in Iran, but a larger one, carefully watched by the civilian nuclear power industry and its opponents, is taking shape here, in the desert just west of the Texas border. If built, it would be the largest commercial nuclear project ordered in this country in more than three decades. To supporters, the proposed $1.3 billion plant is a sign of faith in the nuclear power industry's perseverance and revival, and a way to make reactor fuel with far less energy, replacing an enrichment technology invented for the Manhattan Project. To opponents, it is a risky new industry that could release clouds of chemical poisons. Even if it operates accident-free, opponents say, it would produce radioactive waste that nobody knows what to do with. New Mexico's governor, Bill Richardson, said in an interview he would support the project if there were "an ironclad guarantee" that the waste would leave the state. But Mr. Richardson, who was energy secretary in the Clinton administration, has expressed skepticism that the Energy Department would take the waste away, as the law requires. The waste would leave the state - barely, says the company that wants to build here, Louisiana Energy Services. The company's preferred disposal site is a landfill several hundred yards over the Texas border that has applied for permission to take low-level nuclear waste. The site itself, a mile square, was determined to be well suited by Louisiana Energy's rival, which faces challenges in surviving the technology developed by Louisiana Energy. The rival, USEC, which used to stand for the United States Enrichment Corporation, uses gaseous diffusion technology, invented for the Manhattan Project. The company, which was part of the Energy Department until it began operation as a private corporation in 1998, tried to build an enrichment system here that used lasers, but it gave up because of technical problems. Now it, too, wants to build a centrifuge plant, near a former gaseous diffusion plant in Ohio. It has a license to build a pilot plant, which it needs to persuade bankers to finance the project, but its application to license a full-scale plant is about a year behind that of Louisiana Energy Services. The Louisiana Energy plant would duplicate centrifuge technology in use in Europe. Uranium, mixed with fluorine and heated to a gas, is spun in a metal tube at more than 1,000 revolutions per second. Uranium 235, the kind that splits easily in a reactor, flows to the center, as uranium 238, which is heavier, flows to the outside. In natural uranium, the proportion of U 235 is about 0.7 percent; for reactors it is raised to 3 percent to 5 percent. For weapons it is commonly pushed above 90 percent. The plant here, which would not begin to produce enriched uranium until late 2008, would be open to inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the builders say. A critical issue in hearings here this week before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is what would happen to the depleted uranium, from which the U 235 had been removed. Louisiana Energy says it has a preliminary agreement with a nuclear services company to take the fluorine out of the mixture. The remaining uranium oxide, which is chemically nonreactive, could be buried in the Texas landfill. It could also be turned over to the Energy Department, which already has about 700,000 tons of depleted uranium, still mixed with fluorine and much of it in decaying metal canisters, in Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee. Two antinuclear groups - the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, and Public Citizen - hired a consultant, Arjun Makhijani, who asserted at the hearings that the depleted uranium had emissions similar to plutonium and that there was no proven means for safe disposal. A Louisiana Energy Services spokesman, Marshall Cohen, said the depleted uranium was "less radioactive than when it came out of the ground." Opponents say that may be so, but it is no longer in the ground, and thus a problem. Hearings in the fall will examine whether the technology is safe and whether the company will set aside enough money for cleanup. Two commercial fuel processing plants have become federal liabilities. Supporters say the plant would modernize nuclear fuel production and cut its costs. Mr. Cohen said that 70 percent of the plant's first 10 years of production had been sold and that the plant would be viable whether or not any new reactors were built. The last time a reactor was ordered in this country and not canceled was 1973. The plant would enrich enough uranium to make about 5 percent of the electricity used in the country. Although Governor Richardson has said that the waste problem is central, local sentiment seems favorable. The plant would run for 30 years and according to Louisiana Energy would provide 210 permanent jobs with an annual payroll of $10 million, including benefits, a substantial sum amid the region's fields of peanuts and cotton, interspersed with oil and gas wells. Harry Teague, who is chairman of the Lea County Commission and whose business is oilfield services, said the oil and gas business was strong but added, "Hobbs has always been a boom-and-bust town." Existing local industry is dangerous, Mr. Teague said, citing the hydrogen sulfide gas that rises with methane out of most natural gas wells here. Nuclear fuel is not risk free, he said, but "it's not near as bad as hydrogen sulfide." -------- south carolina Bomb-grade plutonium conversion delayed Production of fuel for power plants was to start at SRS in four years By SAMMY FRETWELL The State (SC) Staff Writer Thu, Feb. 10, 2005 http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/local/10861225.htm The Department of Energy, which has assured S.C. leaders it would not leave tons of bomb-grade plutonium at the Savannah River Site, now says it cannot meet a schedule to begin converting the deadly material into fuel for nuclear power plants. In letters Monday to Congress, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said it will be “impossible” to meet the production objective for making mixed oxide fuel by January 2009, as required by federal law. Bodman’s letters said the department plans to submit a revised construction schedule. He blamed a continuing dispute with Russia for the delays. The U.S. and Russia, according to a 2000 agreement, plan to render 68 metric tons of surplus plutonium useless for nuclear weapons. But the two nations have been unable to agree on “liability protections” for U.S. work performed in Russia, Bodman’s letter said. The Russians also plan a mixed oxide — called MOX — fuel plant with U.S. assistance. Bodman’s letter comes three years after then-Gov. Jim Hodges predicted the Department of Energy might leave tons of plutonium at SRS forever. The Democrat sued unsuccessfully to block plutonium shipments from other federal nuclear weapons complexes to SRS without ironclad assurances the material eventually would leave the Aiken- area weapons complex. Though he lost the suit, Hodges’ concerns prompted Congress to pass a law setting a firm schedule for turning the plutonium into MOX. The first major milestone was to make a ton of MOX in 2009. All the fuel would have to be made by Jan. 1, 2019, the law said. If the DOE can’t produce the MOX as planned, it could be fined up to $100 million a year and required to move any plutonium it sent to SRS out of South Carolina, according to the law. Bodman said the agency will work to honor its commitments to South Carolina. U.S. Rep. John Spratt, D-S.C., said the delay is disappointing, though not surprising. “This delays the best way of keeping weapons-grade plutonium out of the hands of rogues and terrorists, which is to process it into fuel and burn it,” Spratt said. “For South Carolina, this means that we are going to be stuck with plutonium in our state for longer than we were told.” U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., said the government’s only option is “to make sure the Russian program gets up to speed.” A spokesman for U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., noted that President Bush’s proposed 2006 budget contains more than $300 million for construction of the $4 billion MOX complex. News that the 2009 MOX production schedule could not be met came at the same time the DOE announced it would further delay the start of construction of the mixed oxide fuel plant from May of this year until May 2006. It originally was to start in 2004. The mixed oxide fuel plant would employ more than 1,000 people directly or indirectly. The fuel would be burned by Duke Energy at power plants near Charlotte. Reach Fretwell at (803) 771-8537 or sfretwell@thestate.com. Staff Writer Lauren Markoe contributed to this report. -------- MILITARY -------- arms Lockheed Says It Has Won India Licenses By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS February 10, 2005 Filed at 7:48 p.m. ET http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/business/AP-India-Lockheed-Martin.html?pagewanted=print&position= BANGALORE, India (AP) -- Lockheed Martin Corp., the biggest U.S. defense company, said Thursday it has won export licenses to sell C-130J military transport planes and P-3C Orion naval surveillance aircraft to India. The U.S government granted the licenses after New Delhi urged Washington to allow the sale of the aircraft to India's military, said Dennys Plessas, regional vice president of Lockheed Martin. ``You cannot answer those letters of request unless you have (issued) the export license,'' Plessas said, alluding to the U.S. administration's strict rules for exporting military technology. ``Our understanding is that India would need eight to 12 P-3Cs and a small number of say, six to eight, C-130Js,'' he told reporters on the sidelines of an air show in southern India, where aircraft makers from around the world were exhibiting their products. Although the U.S. government has already provided New Delhi with price and technical details of the planes, Plessas said, the information won't be disclosed until a firm deal is reached. India faced U.S. sanctions following nuclear tests it conducted in 1998. The United States banned the transfer of sensitive technology to India and made it mandatory for American companies to obtain export licenses before selling certain high-technology items to the country. The sanctions were gradually lifted beginning in 2001, but the export-control list -- which predates the sanctions -- remains in effect. India is also considering buying the single crew fighter aircraft, F-16 Fighting Falcon, as its front-line fighter aircraft. Plessas said if India buys the jets, Lockheed Martin would be a reliable supplier of spares and technology, and that the United States was keen to allow joint production of the F-16 in India. India wants state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. to produce its future needs for spares. Lockheed Martin shares rose $1.25, or 2.1 percent, to close at $59.70 in Thursday trading on the New York Stock Exchange. ---- Robotic warfare drawing nearer February 10, 2005 By Fred Reed THE WASHINGTON TIMES http://www.washingtontimes.com/business/20050209-113147-1910r.htm Are we really going to see independent robotic weaponry? It looks that way. Pushed in part by the war in Iraq, the Pentagon is getting more serious about the deployment of remotely controlled semiautonomous and autonomous weapons. John Pike, of http://GlobalSecurity.org, has said, "It's going to change the fundamental equation of war. First you had human beings without machines. Then you had human beings with machines. And finally you have machines without human beings." And it will be a different, though not necessarily better world. The effects on war will be great. More important will be the effects on the behavior of states that have these weapons. The development programs are scattered. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is investing heavily. Boeing with its X-45, Northrop with its X-47 unmanned planes are heavily involved, and the Advanced Physics Laboratory at Johns Hopkins University is working on control systems. Other programs work at improving the wheeled robots used by bomb squads in the United States and troops in Iraq to disarm bombs. The Predator, a remotely piloted craft, has been firing missiles at ground targets in Afghanistan and elsewhere. There are others. Unmanned weapons have advantages. First, they can be much smaller and cheaper than current versions. Much of the expense of, say, a tank goes into keeping the crew alive. Armor is heavy and expensive, and you have to armor a space big enough for four crewmen. Without a crew, you can armor only vital parts and maybe not worry too much about even those. Second, robotic weapons are expendable. You can't easily send pilots on near-suicidal missions. With an unmanned plane, if it doesn't come back, you just order another one. This will be especially true of remotely controlled "soldiers" consisting perhaps of the equivalent of a riding lawn mower, a video camera, and a rocket launcher or gun. You could send one into the most dangerous street in Iraq with no concern for its safety. Finally, unmanned weapons tend to demoralize an enemy. Soldiers will often fight against heavy odds if they have a chance to kill their attackers. Being blown up by machines controlled from afar is dispiriting. Now, what technology is necessary to build robotic weapons? The answer is: not much that we don't already have. We need only to put the pieces together. To make them work at a distance without crew, you need good networking, which we have. Global Positioning System satellites exist to allow precise location. Satellite uplinks can provide communication with remote controllers. Powerful computers fitting in a lunchbox can sometimes allow weapons to find their own targets if need be. What are the implications for foreign policy? A war has to seem pretty important for a country to put up with expensive, long, bloody fighting. This gives an enemy the option of trying to drag out the conflict until that limit is reached, as happened in Vietnam. A public is less likely to care how many cheap motorized "soldiers" are destroyed. The downside is that unmanned armament may make it easier for governments to engage in military adventurism. To the extent that war can be made cheap and bloodless for one side, less reason will be required for going to war. -------- europe France will not forget Iraq splits, says minister NICE, France (AFP) Feb 10, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050210184635.91qe0pvc.html French Defence Minister Michele Alliot-Marie said Thursday that Paris will not forget its divisions with the United States over Iraq, even if everyone had learned to love eachother again. "That everyone loves eachother, that is fundamental," she said, when asked if everything was forgiven and forgotten two years after the transatlantic crisis triggered by the Iraq war. "But that everything be forgotten? No," she said. "I don't think it should be forgotten," she continued. "I think that in the end these periods of tension are part of our transatlantic relations, and have been for a long time. "There have been many of them and I think it is on the contrary our ability to know how to overcome our differences, that we have sometimes, which provides the solidity of our relationship." France led a group of anti-war countries along with Germany during the 2003 transatlantic split. Alliot-Marie was speaking after a day of informal talks with her counterparts from NATO, which was plunged into one of its worst ever crises by the Iraq conflict. The talks in the riviera city of Nice were the first such meeting in France for at least four decades, after French president General Charles de Gaulle pulled his country from NATO's integrated military command in 1966. The French minister referred to the symbolic nature of the meeting when she welcomed her fellow ministers Thursday morning, declaring: "NATO is at home here." ---- Bush to Seek $100 Million in Military Aid for His Polish Ally By DAVID E. SANGER February 10, 2005 NY TIMES http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/10/politics/10prexy.html?pagewanted=print&position= WASHINGTON, Feb. 9 - President Bush told President Aleksander Kwasniewski of Poland on Wednesday that he would ask Congress for $100 million to modernize the Polish military, part of a program of support for a new NATO ally that has more than 2,000 soldiers in Iraq. In an interview shortly after his meeting with Mr. Bush, the Polish president said he had no intention of withdrawing Poland's troops from Iraq this year, unless the new government asked them to leave. "I'm almost sure that if it will be necessary, they will be there," said Mr. Kwasniewski, who has been under pressure at home to bring the troops back. "The question is how to organize it." That indication of support is critical to Mr. Bush, who is struggling to maintain a broad international presence in Iraq, where the United States and to a lesser extent Britain have provided the great majority of the troops. Mr. Kwasniewski has been among the strongest supporters of Mr. Bush's decision to invade Iraq, and there are 2,400 Polish soldiers in Iraq, leading a 5,000-strong multinational division in the central and southern parts of the country. About 800 Polish soldiers are to leave this month. In the interview, Mr. Kwasniewski, who leaves office in December, also said he had advised Mr. Bush not to act unilaterally against Iran in the current standoff over its nuclear program. "My advice was simple," he said, sipping tea in Blair House, across the street from the White House, after his lunch with Mr. Bush. "I am absolutely against taking action by one side only. I said this," he said, and Mr. Bush, he said, seemed to agree. "This must be one of the main topics when the president comes to Europe," he said, speaking of Mr. Bush's trip, planned for two weeks from now. Mr. Bush, speaking to reporters in the Oval Office with Mr. Kwasniewski at his side, seemed to agree, saying: "I look forward to going over to Europe to continue discussing this issue with our allies. It's important we speak with one voice." The $100 million for military modernization was hinted at by the new secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, during a brief stopover in Warsaw a week ago. "I don't get to write the checks in the American system," Mr. Bush cautioned. "The government - the Congress does that. But I get to put out requests." Mr. Kwasniewski's meeting at the White House was his fourth in recent years. President Bush has visited Poland twice, and often cites his relationship with the Polish president as an example of a diplomatic success in Europe, one that has flourished even when the president had sharp disagreements over Iraq with France and Germany. Mr. Bush also announced that he would ask Congress for $400 million in additional funds "to strengthen the capabilities of our partners to advance democracy and stability around the world." Poland would receive a significant portion of those funds as well, officials said. Mr. Kwasniewski said the money was not a quid pro quo for Poland's troop presence in Iraq. But clearly, returning home with financial commitments from Mr. Bush will help him in a parliamentary debate about how long to remain in Iraq, at a time when opinion polls show that a clear majority of Poles want an end to the troops presence. -------- nato Rice Hopeful of Getting More NATO Help to Train Iraqis By STEVEN R. WEISMAN and ERIC SCHMITT February 10, 2005 NY TIMES http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/10/international/europe/10diplo.html?pagewanted=print&position= LUXEMBOURG, Feb. 9 - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld lobbied European allies on Wednesday for more help in training Iraqi security forces, and the secretary general of NATO suggested that more aid would be forthcoming soon. Before flying to Luxembourg to meet European Union officials, Ms. Rice said she was increasingly confident that all 26 countries in the military alliance would commit to some form of training for Iraqis before President Bush visits Brussels on Feb. 22. Mr. Rumsfeld, in Nice, France, to meet NATO defense ministers, said the administration would seek to capitalize on the perceived success of the Iraqi elections to encourage reluctant European allies to help do the training. "I think we'll find that countries recognize that Iraq is on a path where they have a very good crack at making it successfully as a peaceful, representative system," Mr. Rumsfeld told reporters in Nice. "Since the elections, it is correct to say that some countries have in various ways indicated their desire to be supportive in Afghanistan and Iraq." Ms. Rice, at a lunch of NATO envoys in Brussels, said there were "a number of countries that immediately agreed to contribute and a number of others that said they intended to contribute." United States officials have made clear their disappointment at the lack of help in what they consider a major challenge in Iraq. Last week the deputy defense secretary, Paul D. Wolfowitz, told a Senate committee in Washington, "The numbers are not where we'd like them in terms of NATO contribution." In Brussels the secretary general of NATO, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, said he was trying to persuade all members to take part in training in some way - inside or outside Iraq, or by putting up money - by Feb. 22. Mr. de Hoop Scheffer said he believed that the foreign ministers had made progress toward that goal. An administration official said about 20 countries were currently helping with training. NATO has already pledged to train 1,000 Iraqis a year, but Mr. de Hoop Scheffer said he thought that pledge would be increased. In separate efforts, France and Germany have committed to training 1,500 Iraqi security or police forces each, but not in Iraq. Germany intends to do the work in the United Arab Emirates; France has not selected a location. In a continuing irritant to the United States, neither country will do the work in Iraq because of opposition to the war. Nearing the end of her weeklong visit to Europe and the Middle East, Ms. Rice seemed ready to proclaim success in her efforts to narrow trans-Atlantic differences. She was enthusiastic about the NATO lunch, calling it "the best discussion of Iraq that we have had as an alliance since the Saddam Hussein regime fell, and in fact before that." Despite the feel-good atmosphere, there remained significant areas of disagreement. Ms. Rice suggested, for example, that Britain, France and Germany needed to a better job of persuading Iran to drop its suspected nuclear weapons program if it wanted to avoid having the issue sent to the United Nations Security Council for possible sanctions. And Ms. Rice caused jaws to drop Wednesday at a breakfast in Paris when she suggested that Iran had become a "totalitarian" state. In an interview on Fox News, Ms. Rice suggested that in the nuclear negotiations, the Europeans might not have conveyed the message strongly enough to Tehran that it risked sanctions at the Security Council if it did not comply with their demands. There were also indications of differences over American opposition to Europe's plans to lift an arms embargo it imposed on China in 1989 after the crushing of a demonstration at Tiananmen Square in Beijing. Washington has worried that lifting the embargo might help China update its military abilities. But José Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission, the executive arm of the European Union, said Europe would limit the transfer of sensitive high technology by adopting a "code of conduct" for exports, and Ms. Rice said she appreciated that the Europeans were taking account of American concerns. Offering further details of the shortage of trainers for Iraqis, an American defense official said of the 144 training positions that NATO had agreed to fill with non-Americans, 50 remain unfilled. Mr. Rumsfeld expressed irritation that some officers assigned to NATO were barred by their countries from serving in Iraq. He did not identify the countries, but Germany, France, Belgium, Greece and Spain have said they would not send officers there. Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American and trainer in Iraq, is attending the alliance meeting in Nice, partly to help work out differences with alliance members, defense officials said. Iran Repeats Claim to Technology By The New York Times TEHRAN, Feb. 9 - President Mohammad Khatami on Wednesday reiterated his country's right to acquire nuclear technology, saying Iran would not give up its program based on what he called illegitimate demands. Mr. Khatami, speaking at a meeting with Iranian diplomats, said Iran considered uranium enrichment its right and had suspended it voluntarily to show its good will, the news agency IRNA reported. "We give our guarantee that we will not produce nuclear weapons because we are against them and do not believe they are a source of power," he said. Iran, which says its nuclear effort is for peaceful purposes, agreed to suspend its enrichment program during talks with Britain, France and Germany in return for economic concessions and assistance in its nuclear technology. In a parallel development, Japan rebuffed requests from Iran for more investment, citing the nuclear dispute. Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi, who is visiting Japan, was told by Foreign Minister Nobutaka Machimura that such investment was not possible "because of uneasy relations between the U.S. and Iran and nuclear concerns," Agence France-Presse reported, quoting a Japanese official. Steven R. Weisman reported from Luxembourg for this article, and Eric Schmitt from Nice, France. ---- Rice, Rumsfeld Make Overtures to NATO Assistance Sought in Iraq, Afghanistan By Keith B. Richburg and Robin Wright Washington Post Foreign Service Thursday, February 10, 2005; Page A16 http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A12044-2005Feb9?language=printer PARIS, Feb. 9 -- After launching wars in Afghanistan and Iraq while largely bypassing NATO, the Bush administration is now pressing for an expanded role for the alliance in both countries and signaling a new readiness to work more closely with its NATO allies. That message was delivered Wednesday by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who held a working lunch with her 25 NATO counterparts in Brussels and afterward declared, "It was clearly a unified alliance." "Our differences, I think, are really behind us," she said at a news conference, "because it is so clear what the future holds for us." The same message came later from Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who arrived in Nice, France, for a meeting of NATO defense ministers. Rumsfeld told reporters that persuading more NATO countries to take part in training and equipping Iraqi security forces was high on his agenda. The American secretaries' consultations came in advance of President Bush's planned visit to NATO headquarters on Feb. 22, when he is to confer over lunch with the leaders of the other NATO countries. U.S. and NATO officials pointed out that Bush's first meeting with a foreign leader after his November reelection was with NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer. "I have never doubted the president's commitment to NATO," de Hoop Scheffer said in an interview Monday at his office in Brussels. "That he is coming to NATO so shortly after his inauguration shows his continued commitment." A senior U.S. official, who under briefing ground rules could not be named, said: "This is a period of intensive American engagement with NATO. . . . The intention obviously is to reach out to our most important allies." The practical reasons for the outreach are clear: The Bush administration wants NATO members to step up plans for training Iraqi security forces, both inside and outside the country, and is seeking financial contributions to a new fund to help purchase and transport equipment to the nascent Iraqi military. In the interview, de Hoop Scheffer said he would like to see all 26 NATO members participate in some form -- either through training or financial contributions -- by the time of Bush's visit in two weeks. "I see very positive signals coming," de Hoop Scheffer said. "The president is coming; the sounds and noises I hear from Paris and Berlin and everywhere else are good." Although some countries, such as Germany and France, have insisted for now on training Iraqi officers outside the country without the alliance's involvement, he said, "I would hope in the longer term what is being done outside Iraq could be brought more and more under a NATO umbrella." In Afghanistan, NATO members have already pledged more troops to expand the 8,000-member foreign peacekeeping force there, which operates mainly in and around the capital, Kabul. The goal is for the force to extend its area into the west of the country in coming months. De Hoop Scheffer said he hoped NATO could also expand into the south and Kandahar province. Offensive operations against Taliban and al Qaeda fighters are the job of Operation Enduring Freedom, most of whose 18,000 troops are American. The Bush administration would like to see that force merged with the NATO-led peacekeeping force. But a merger is being resisted by some NATO countries that do not want their troops drawn into combat operations. After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, in the United States, NATO for the first time in its history invoked its self-defense clause, allowing it to assist the American military -- but the Bush administration ignored NATO and launched airstrikes in Afghanistan with only select allies. In 2003, the U.S. decision to invade Iraq split NATO, with some countries, notably France, Germany and Belgium, staunchly opposed. Various officials from the United States and NATO agreed that the new tone is in part a result of the Jan. 30 Iraqi elections passing more smoothly than anticipated. This allows the countries to say they are assisting the Iraqi people in their quest for democracy instead of aiding an American occupation, the officials said. In France, Rumsfeld said Wednesday: "Countries recognize that Iraq is on a path where they have a very good crack at making it successfully toward a peaceful representative system. . . . Since the elections, it is correct to say that some countries have in various ways indicated their desire to be supportive in Afghanistan, in Iraq." De Hoop Scheffer, in the interview, said, "Europe realizes now in this moment, after the successful elections -- and we must admit that President Bush was right there and the cynics were wrong . . . that this is the moment to support the political process from all angles." Others attribute the change to new outreach from Washington, beginning with Rice's trip to Europe, where she has talked about the need for a fresh start following the bitterness over Iraq. "There is certainly a new tone on the part of the United States," French Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie said in an interview Tuesday, just before Rice's arrival. She said now was the time "to use this attitude to consolidate the relationship, to reaffirm the confidence." Speaking of Rice, she said, "I have a lot of esteem for her." While differences over Iraq seemed to be fading, continuing transatlantic disputes over how to deal with Iran's nuclear ambitions continue to complicate relations. In an interview Wednesday with Fox News, Rice seemed to suggest that the three European countries conducting negotiations with the Tehran government had not been tough enough in warning the Iranians of punitive action if they reject a deal to abandon their weapons ambitions. "I don't know that anyone has said that as clearly as they should to the Iranians," she said, in what appeared to be a slight rebuke to France, Germany and Britain. Later, however, Rice appeared to back away somewhat from that criticism, saying, "I believe that everybody is letting the Iranians know that they have to live up to their international obligations." Wright reported from Brussels. Staff writer Josh White in Nice contributed to this report. ---- The Pentagon's 'NATO Option' Thursday, February 10, 2005 CommonDreams.org by Lila Rajiva http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0210-22.htm Washington is shocked by Seymour Hersh’s scoop about the Pentagon’s “Salvador Option,” an ambitious plan to deploy secret special forces in friendly and unfriendly countries to spy, target terrorists and their sympathizers, and conduct “hits,” all without Congressional oversight. Its model is the American counter-insurgency program in Salvador in the 1980s which funded nationalist death squads to hunt down insurgents. What’s new today is that the program would be run by the Pentagon, not the CIA, and it would be much broader in scope. According to Hersh, the Pentagon's gremlins are already at work in Iran prepping targets for possible US or Israeli strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities. But Washington’s shock is misplaced. There’s nothing new about the “Salvador Option.” At the end of last month, Frank Cass in London released a new book by Dr. Daniele Ganser of the Center for Security Studies at the Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich called, “NATO’s Secret Armies. Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe,” which offers plenty of evidence that there was also a “Salvador Option” in post-war Europe. It turns out that during the Cold War, European governments and secret services conspired with a NATO-backed operation to engineer attacks in their own countries in order to manipulate the population to reject socialism and communism. It was called “the strategy of tension” and it was carried out by members of secret stay-behind armies organized by NATO and funded by the CIA in Italy, Portugal, Germany, Spain, and other European countries. The strategy apparently involved supplying right-wing terrorists with explosives to carry out terrorist acts which were then blamed on left-wing groups to keep them out of power. Only three countries, Italy, Belgium, and Switzerland, have had a parliamentary investigation into NATO’s role and a public report. The US and UK, the two nations most centrally involved, are refusing to disclose details, so crucial pieces of the story are missing. Still, Ganser’s book offers some disturbing insights into a hidden aspect of the Cold War. It all began during WWII when British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, ordered a secret army to be created to fight communism. Allen Dulles, the first chief of the CIA, worked out the original plan, and British MI6 and special forces teamed up with the CIA to train “stay- behind armies” in Western Europe to counter a possible Soviet invasion. It was all very James Bond - only grim - with forged passports, dead letter boxes, and parachute jumps over the channel, according to some of the trainees. It turns out that what Washington meant by counter-terrorism, might often have been, well, terrorism. Here’s the money part from one of the field manuals (FM 30-31B): "...when the revolutionaries temporarily renounce the use of force ….US army intelligence must have the means of launching special operations which will convince Host Country Governments and public opinion of the reality of the insurgent danger…” That’s to say, if there wasn’t any terrorism to speak of, the secret armies were prepared to get some going. According to Ganser, the secret army was behind waves of attacks in Italy in the 1970s. In Spain, it worked with Franco and may have supported over a 1000 attacks. In Germany, it had standing plans to murder leaders of the Social Democrat party in case of a Soviet invasion. It carried out terrorist actions against President de Gaulle and the Algerian peace plan in France. It seems to have been involved in the assassination of Amilcar Cabral and Eduardo Mondlane, prominent leaders in African liberation in the Portugese colonies. It was involved in the coup against Greek Prime Minister Papandreou and fomented terrorism against the Kurds in Turkey. In the Netherlands, Luxemborg, Denmark, and Norway, however, the secret networks don’t seem to have been linked with terror. The secret armies were first outed in August 1990 when then Italian Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti confirmed the existence of Gladio, Latin for sword, a super secret group squirreled away in the military secret service, that had been manipulating the public with terrorist acts that it blamed on the Italian left. NATO’s reaction to Andreotti’s revelation was first denial, then stone-walling, and finally a closed-doors admission to the ambassadors of the European countries. Since then, although a former CIA director William Colby has confirmed the creation of the stay-behind command centers and networks, NATO itself has withheld details. Asked about Gladio in Italy in 1990, former CIA director Stanford Turner angrily ripped off his microphone and shouted: "I said, no questions about Gladio!" Today, with the Pentagon’s “Salvador Option” on the table, it’s time to revisit this hidden history of European counter-terrorism. While the Washington press corps seems convinced that the main problem with the "Salvador Option" is that the Pentagon is taking over what’s always been the CIA’s turf, the story of NATO’s stay-behind armies suggests that whether the CIA or Pentagon runs it, the new program will be a very ugly business. As one of Gladio’s operatives said, “You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security.” Despite repeated requests from researchers, the CIA, like MI6, refuses to release its files on the subject. Before the government begins the new “Salvador Option,” though, isn't it time for the world to learn about the very first one? Lila Rajiva (lrajiva@hotmail.com) is a free-lance analyst and writer. She is the author of “The Language of Empire: Abu Ghraib and the American Media” (Monthly Review Press, 2005) -------- pakistan / india India makes a play for F-16 fighters Feb 10, 2005 Asia Times By Siddharth Srivastava http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/GB10Df05.html NEW DELHI - It is now official: India has indicated to the United States that it is interested in purchasing advanced F-16 fighter jets for its air force, a move that has sent frissons throughout the establishments in India, the US and inevitably Pakistan. Indian air force chief S K Tyagi said at the Aero India industry show at Bangalore this Monday that New Delhi is seeking to buy 125 fighter jets and has approached Lockheed Martin Corp, which makes F-16s, and is also considering Swedish Gripens made by Saab, French Mirages, and Russian MiG-29 fighters. "Consideration of Lockheed Martin would have been unthinkable just four years ago, when the US maintained military sanctions against New Delhi following India's May 1998 nuclear tests. But sanctions were phased out starting in late 2001, and bilateral ties have since flourished," the forum F-16.net reported in response to Tyagi's remarks. Lockheed Martin executives have already made an initial sales pitch in which India must cobble together US$25 million apiece, amounting to a healthy $3 billion over five years. The jets will also need to be in synch with the other cutting-edge Indian fighters: the Sukhois, Mirages, Jaguars and MiGs, besides the nascent Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas. Indian air force test pilots have had first-hand experience with the F-16s during their visits to the United States to check for LCA systems, as well as exercises with the air forces of Singapore and Israel, in the past couple of years. Apart from the strategic defense consequences of relations between India and Pakistan, India's intent to purchase the F-16s marks another closure of a paradigm of defense relations that harked back to the Cold War era. In the past India relied heavily on French and Russian fighters but is now seeking to spread its wings further. The MiG fighters have also invited censure because of their numerous crashes as of late. Speaking in Banglaore about the Indian request, US Ambassador David Mulford said his country has yet to decide on the matter: "We have been contacted with an RFI [request for information]. We are considering that matter at the moment. No decision has been made." Mulford said the United States had also not decided on whether to approve a longtime request by Pakistan to buy F-16s, and added that any talk of linking India's moves with the decision on Pakistan was "irrelevant". Mulford said Washington wants to be a very big supplier of military equipment to India. India-Pakistan and F-16s F-16s form part of Pakistan's key military arsenal, and 40 of them were supplied to Pakistan by the US from 1983 to 1987, when Pakistan supported the US in its efforts to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan. But in 1990, the US Congress passed legislation halting the delivery of the jets for fear that Pakistan was on the verge of building a nuclear bomb. Washington's fears were not unfounded, as in May 1998 Pakistan carried out nuclear-weapons tests in response to India turning into a fully nuclear-armed state. Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, Pakistan has re-emerged as a key US ally in the "war on terrorism", but further supplies of about 70 fighter jets are still held up by US sanctions because of congressional laws that Pakistan must not be nuclear to avail of US aid. Though the US returned the advance money that Pakistan had already paid, the military establishment in Pakistan has remained very unhappy with the move and makes regular pleas to the US for the F-16s, the latest being a personal request by President General Pervez Musharraf when he met with US President George W Bush late last year, after the latter's November re-election. The jets are clearly seen as the key to Pakistan balancing its military strength vis-a-vis India, which does not have any. The F-16 is also known as the Viper, and is acknowledged by some as the finest fighter jet in the world. It is believed that 32 of the fighters supplied initially to Pakistan are still in service. Although there is still a long way to go before India can acquire the F-16s, the mere proposal will raise the hackles of Pakistan, which will now likely push much harder for the lifting of the curbs. In the past few months there have been concerted efforts by India to ensure that Pakistan does not procure the jets. Late last year, Washington pledged a $1.2 billion arms package to Islamabad, though there was no categorical mention of the F-16 jets. The Bush administration notified Congress of its intention to sell sophisticated weapons to Pakistan, including eight P-3C Orion planes to beef up surveillance of its coasts and borders. US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who visited New Delhi around the same time, was strongly told that any sale of fighter jets to Pakistan might affect India-US relations. The US in turn tried to placate an incensed India over Washington's impending arms sale to Pakistan by offering to sell more weapons to New Delhi. India also sacked its high-profile US lobbying firm, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer and Field, in order to make a fresh start and inroads into the US establishment. Pakistan, at last count, has appointed no fewer than eight law firms to plead its case in various forums of the US legislature and executive. In December, India claimed a partial victory in thwarting Pakistan's F-16 shopping spree by saying that Belgium had agreed to New Delhi's request not to sell the fighter jets to Islamabad. The issue of Pakistan's formal request to Belgium to procure F-16 jets was taken up with the Belgian authorities in September 2003, Indian Defense Minister Pranab Mukherjee said in parliament. "Given the sensitivity of the geopolitical situation in South Asia, the Belgian government took a conscious decision not to sell F-16 fighter aircraft to Pakistan," Mukherjee announced amid desk-thumping by the lawmakers. Islamabad in turn has accused Delhi of being paranoid about Pakistan's defense requirements. Foreign Ministry spokesman Masood Khan said recently that India's weapons acquisition and weaponization program is very ambitious. "They have been buying weapons and sophisticated technology from all over the world. Pakistan's program is modest compared to that of New Delhi, which it said spends billions of dollars on weapons. We do not want to match India gun-for-gun, missile-for-missile, aircraft-for-aircraft," he said. Indeed, over the past couple of years the US has been at its wits' end to keep in good humor both India and Pakistan. The US needs Pakistan as a key ally in its "war against terror" while India is seen as a huge emerging market for weapons as well as other exports ranging from retail goods to passenger aircraft. The Pentagon's argument that it is necessary to supply weapons to Pakistan to assist in operations against terrorists holed up in difficult terrain in the northwest reaches does not hold water with New Delhi, which feels that the same weapons could very easily be trained against India. In the 1980s Washington could afford to ignore India when the Soviet Union occupied Afghanistan, and offered the F-16s exclusively to Pakistan, until the Pressler amendment of October 1990. Post-2000, as the Indian economy started to muster, Washington warmed up to New Delhi by offering a next-generation strategic partnership. But in the wake of September 11, Pakistan bounced back into the reckoning, with the US designating the country as a major non-North Atlantic Treaty Organization ally, taking India by surprise. Last month, former US ambassador to India Robert Blackwill questioned any US sale of F-16 fighter jets to Pakistan when it had not ceased cross-border terrorism. "Why should Washington transfer these fighters to Pakistan when the country has not stopped sponsoring cross-border terrorism?" asked Blackwill in New Delhi. "Such a sale will compromise India's air-power superiority. The F-16 models that Pakistan is seeking are nuclear-capable models. Could these not be used against India? US military sales to Pakistan should be that of a strategic supplier taking into full consideration India's security concerns," he said. Some experts have argued that the US is playing a dangerous game by agreeing to supply deadly weapons to both India and Pakistan, which could have a deleterious impact on the fragile peace process between the two countries that began in January last year. However, it should also be remembered that the US is driven by its own self-interest in the region, whether the business of arms supplies or its "war against terror". It is for India and Pakistan to set their own house in order by engagement as well as forward movement in the peace process. It is always a bit foolish to expect any third party to be driven by the principles of a higher good when the fault lies within two warring neighbors who refuse to budge from their intransigent positions. Siddharth Srivastava is a New Delhi-based journalist. -------- POLICE -------- drug war Afghans Say No Evidence That Opium Fields Sprayed February 10, 2005 AFGHANISTAN: REUTERS http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/29445/story.htm KABUL - Afghan investigators sent to investigate fresh reports that opium fields had been aerially sprayed with pesticide in violation of official policy found no evidence that it had occurred, the government said on Wednesday. Officials and villagers in the southern province of Helmand, a major poppy-growing area, said this week that several aircraft had sprayed pesticide on opium fields in four villages last Thursday, prompting the dispatch of Interior Ministry investigators. "There was no evidence of aerial spraying for eradication of poppy," General Mohammad Dawood, the deputy minister of interior for counter narcotics, said in a statement. "The MOI investigation team found that a naturally occurring disease affected those four villages in Helmand province." Dawood did not identify the disease but described reports that spraying had happened as "propaganda" by enemies of Afghanistan who wanted to create misunderstandings between local people, the government and the international community. The statement said about 150 residents of the province had complained that they were suffering from skin diseases and that livestock had been affected. It said the investigators had brought samples to Kabul for tests. Government spokesman Jawed Ludin said on Tuesday that aerial spraying of opium fields had occurred in the past even though this was against government policy. He said the United States, whose troops overthrew the former Taliban government in late 2001, scrapped plans to eradicate opium crops by aerial spraying after President Hamid Karzai declared his opposition to it last year. Afghanistan's air space is tightly controlled by US-led forces, but the US military and government has repeatedly denied involvement in spraying of opium fields. Wednesday's Interior Ministry statement came a day after the US embassy said there was "no credible evidence" that aerial spraying had taken place in Helmand. US ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad has suggested in the past that such reports could have been concocted by drug lords to thwart international efforts to cut production of narcotics. Karzai took his position after reports of a mystery spraying of opium fields in an eastern province last year. The government has expressed concern that aggressive eradication would deprive farmers of their livelihoods and risk feeding the Islamic insurgency in the south where most opium is grown. It has expressed concern that spraying could harm health. Afghanistan is the world's leading producer of opium and its derivative, heroin, and output soared to near record levels after the Taliban's overthrow. The United Nations says drug exports now account for more than 60 percent of the economy. -------- homeland security / national intelligence No Place to Hide: Award-Winning Journalist Robert O'Harrow Goes Behind the Scenes of Our Emerging Surveillance Society Thursday, February 10th, 2005 Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/10/1545230 O'Harrow explores how the government is teaming up with private companies to collect massive amounts of data on citizens and how, he writes, "More than ever before, the details about our lives are no longer our own. They belong to the companies that collect them, and the government agencies that buy or demand them in the name of keeping us safe." [includes rush transcript - partial] This week in New York, three members of the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement were arrested in Brooklyn. At the time of their arrest, the three were monitoring police activities as part of the group"s Copwatch Program and were attempting to film a police beating. They were stopped and arrested on charges of assault and obstruction of governmental administration. The three deny the charges. Citizens trying to monitor the state. What happens when the state joins with private companies in monitoring you? When you go to work, stop at the store, fly in a plane, or surf the web, you are being watched. They know where you live, the value of your home, the names of your friends and family - even what you read. Where the data revolution meets national security, there is no place to hide. That is the title of a new book that examines how the government is turning information technologies against its own citizens. We are joined now by Robert O'Harrow, author of "No Place to Hide." He is a reporter for The Washington Post and is an associate of the Center for Investigative Reporting. He was a Pultizer Prize finalist for articles on privacy and technology and a recipient of the 2003 Carnegie Mellon Cyber Security Reporting Award. He joins us from Washington DC. * Robert O'Harrow, Jr. , reporter for The Washington Post and is an associate of the Center for Investigative Reporting. He was a Pulitzer Prize finalist for articles on privacy and technology and a recipient of the 2003 Carnegie Mellon Cyber Security Reporting Award. NoPlaceToHide.net RUSH TRANSCRIPT AMY GOODMAN: We're joined now by its author, Robert O'Harrow. He's the reporter for The Washington Post and associate with The Center for Investigative Reporting. He was a Pulitzer Prize finalist for articles on privacy and technology, and a recipient of the 2003 Carnegie Mellon Cyber Security Reporting Award. He joins us from Washington, DC. Welcome to Democracy Now! ROBERT O'HARROW, JR.: Thanks for having me. AMY GOODMAN: Well this is quite a frightening book, No Place to Hide. Why don't you start at the beginning? What exactly is happening today? ROBERT O'HARROW, JR.: Well, we will start at the beginning. It starts, in a sense, in the early 1990's. It goes along with the explosion in computing power. Everybody knows how cheap and fast and powerful our home computers have become. The same thing happened probably at an even more accelerated rate in the information industry, so that in the 1990's, these private companies were able to collect literally billions of records. It's hard to believe, but it's a amount of information that few people can really reckon. And they did it supposedly -- well, actually -- primarily to target us for better marketing, to make services for efficient and convenient for us. And to jump forward a little bit, after 9/11 when the government was anxious to prevent another terror attack and we really didn't know what was going to happen next, the information services jumped into the fray, and offered their help and the government reached out to them. And so we had a marriage of the data revolution in which is what I call it, and the Homeland Security initiatives. The result was, in effect, the jump-starting of a national surveillance system, or a security industrial complex if you will. AMY GOODMAN: Bob O'Harrow, talk about what the government and companies know when you use your cell phone? ROBERT O'HARROW, JR.: Well, the way this works is that as we go through our lives, we leave more and more -- we're like comets in a way, we leave a long trail of data behind us. Most of us won't don't worry about it or think about it, because it's routine and the information seems banal because who cares about us, right? When you use your cell phone, you leave a record of when you made the call, who you called, how long you were on the phone, and where roughly you were at the time. The location of the cell phone is becoming more and more precise. So, in some places, it might be up to a mile in some cities. It might be a few blocks. But there's a general location. When you use your ATM card, you're leaving a record of obviously where you were, when you used it, the fact that it was you. There's often a video camera shot of you at that location, which will get back to in a little bit. But more than that, the banks, as a result of the PATRIOT Act, have a legal mandate. They're required to watch that transaction, and so they are using artificial intelligence to check whether that's really you using it, to check whether you have ties to unsavory people, to look at the patterns of your financial activity to see if maybe you're trying to perpetuate money laundering, or if you have ties to terrorism finance. So if there are any suspicious signs at all, they're sending reports to a very little known branch of the Treasury Department, which is creating a data mine of all of the reports. There are many, many of them now. And they share them with law enforcement across the country, local, state, and federal law enforcement as well at intelligence agencies. When you go to the grocery store and use the discount card when you go through an automatic toll booth; when you call online to get a sweater or pair of jeans; or if you have an adventurous marriage and you buy something fun to use privately with your spouse or your mate, believe it or not, all of that stuff is swept up somewhere, and more and more is available to the information companies to get to know you better, so to speak, or to share or resell. Now, the government doesn't really care about all of that, but it is routinely tapping billions of records about where you have lived in your entire adult life. I mean, I'm talking every house and apartment, all of the phone numbers that you have had, the cars that you have owned. It can find links between you and me, for example. They can show, by looking into these billions of records, how we're related. If we know somebody who knew somebody that shared an apartment with somebody we have in common. And they're using these systems really, I believe, earnestly, to protect us. I have talked to -- I have spent time with Viet Dinh, the author of the PATRIOT Act, John Poindexter, lots of counter-terrorism and counter-intelligence guys, as well as with these private company officials. And I do honestly get the feeling that there's an earnest desire to tap all of this information to protect us. But we all know, we have either heard the great Brandice quote directly or we know this in our guts, which is that we shouldn't necessarily -- we all fear evil-minded ruler, but the real threat in many ways comes from people who are earnest or zealous, but not necessarily completely aware of the ramifications of what they're doing. AMY GOODMAN: You mentioned John Poindexter, Total Information Awareness, that people pretty much beat back, or so people thought. There was such an open revolt across the political spectrum, the idea of John Ashcroft and John Poindexter recruiting 20 million Americans to spy on each other, the Fed Ex person, the person who delivers your mail take a sneak and peek, and if you see something funny, report back. But when did this actually start, and in fact, are they really doing it just by another name? ROBERT O'HARROW, JR.: I did spend a lot of time with John Poindexter, and in No Place to Hide, I think people will be surprised at my finding, and I like to think of myself as a pretty tough-minded guy, there's a human person here. He is very, very earnest about trying to help the United States, but of course, he is a deeply zealous patriot, and he has a view of the world that included thinking about privacy. But in any case, he's a human person, somebody that I think we need to take on as human, not sort of as the boogeyman that a lot of people made him out to be. What happened with the Information Awareness Office that he headed at the Defense Department was that people sort of recognized the scope of the ambition of the government, and as a consequence, congress undercut the funding because they didn't trust him because of his role in Iran contra in the Reagan administration. And I won't go into details about that, but I think people recognized the scandal. And they also didn't trust the idea that there was going to be this all-seeing office collecting information about people around the world with what they felt was very little oversight. Now, the thing that's really interesting here is that I have spoken to somebody that was working very closely with John Poindexter at a private company called SAIC. This guy was actually the fellow who invented the concept of Total Information Awareness, and it happened back in the Clinton administration in 1999. And this guy on the record in the book and on tape for that matter, said that in fact, after Poindexter left the post that interest in the intelligence community actually increased, and that he was giving more briefings than ever on the concepts and technology that lay behind their thinking of this system. That's one thing, and the other thing is that the program may be gone, as I say, but it's not forgotten. Components of it are very much alive in the black world, in the classified world. And there are components of it that were killed but continue in other agencies so that you see there's a program called HS-ARPA, Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency. They're pursuing exactly some of the same things that Poindexter was. There's a data mining operation at the FBI that very few people have paid attention to. The CIA has a program that's similar, and of course, the NSA is pursuing a program that involves massive amounts of data. So, I would say that the notion of Total Information Awareness being dead, a lot of people have talked about it, it's still alive, but in fact, I think I have documented pretty clearly for the first time the extent of the research continuing. AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Robert O'Harrow Jr., an award winning Washington Post reporter. His new book is called No Place to Hide. When we come back, we're going to play a clip of a film called Unconstitutional on this issue. And then talk with Bob O'Harrow about some of the companies that are doing this data mining, the private corporations that are working more and more closely with the state. Stay with us. [break] AMY GOODMAN: We're going to go back now to the issue of the government monitoring its own citizens. We're talking with Robert O'Harrow, Jr. His book is called No Place to Hide, but before we go back to him, just a clip of a documentary produced by Robert Greenwald called Unconstitutional. NARRATOR: The ACLU is not the only organization that has been silenced by the PATRIOT Act. ANNE TURNER: If librarians have been approached by the F.B.I., they, of course, can't say that, because one of the rules in the PATRIOT Act is that you can't tell, which is terrifying, really. RYAN COONERTY: What it allows the government to do is to come in and subpoena your customer records to find out what books have been checked out or what books they have bought. It doesn't allow the bookstore to contact a lawyer to fight it. It's all done through Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and doesn't give us an opportunity to stand up for our customers. ANNE TURNER: At least when you get a subpoena from a local court, because there's reasonable cause to suspect that someone has broken the law and their library records would contribute to the investigation, that's what the law used to be. At least you could tell anybody that you had responded to the subpoena. NARRATOR: They don't even need reasonable suspicion to obtain records on you. Employment records, medical records and even banking records DOUGLAS HELLER: The government has deputized the banking industry to spy on American consumers. What we see is the possibility that banks in their -- in doing their policing duty for the government are going to be looking at who we are, finding out more information than they ought to. It's a profitable place for them because they get to sell information about us. You just wonder, are you giving the wrong people too much authority? NARRATOR: Government agents can now check on who you are sending email to, who you are getting email from, and what websites you visit by claiming it is relevant to an investigation. DAVID COLE: It requires no showing that the individual whose records are being sought actually engaged in or had any connection to any kind of terrorist conduct. So, it basically makes all of us vulnerable. FORMER REP. ROBERT BARR: When you look at the PATRIOT Act you are truck struck by the fact that many of its provisions are not limited to fighting terrorism. They affect federal criminal law and procedure generally. ANTHONY ROMERO: Most Americans believe that the PATRIOT Act was focused on the war on terror. And yet they're surprised to find that there are portions of the PATRIOT Act that have nothing to do with the war on terror. AMY GOODMAN: An excerpt of the film Unconstitutional. Anthony Romero, the last voice, head of the ACLU. Before that, former republican Congress member Bob Barr, as well as constitutional lawyer, David Cole. Our guest in the Reuters studio in Washington, D.C., is Robert O'Harrow, Jr. A remarkable book he has written, No Place to Hide. Robert O'Harrow, you talk in the book about a company called Axiom. You say, “You may not know Axiom, but it knows a lot about you.” Tell us about this company. ROBERT O'HARROW, JR.: Before I do that, let me make a remark on that film clip. People think that the PATRIOT Act is the front and center, and it is. One thing that I have found and that some of those same people who appeared on that would confirm is that at if the PATRIOT Act were to disappear tomorrow, companies like Axiom, ChoicePoint, Seisint, a lot of these companies would continue rushing ahead, and we would have as difficult an issue to deal with absent the PATRIOT Act as almost as we do with it, because there are really no rules that govern how the government uses these private companies, so that even if the PATRIOT Act strips away some of their ability to get records, the private companies would be able to collect them for the government, and in a sense, the government is outsourcing security and intelligence. Now, one other thing about -- before we get to Axiom is that -- just to sort of frame this a little differently, people may recall that Eisenhower warned about a military industrial complex in 1961. It's a great speech. It's very compelling stuff, because people see how much it applies to our era, if you change the word military industrial complex to security industrial complex. He warned about unaccountable power, and that's really what we're dealing with here. It's not, you know, there's no great Hoover that I have identified, but it's a systematic thing that's creating this power, so that if a Hoover comes along, it's really going to be able – it's going to make what Hoover did look like amateur hours as one of my specialists told me. Now, Axiom-- AMY GOODMAN: I could only imagine if J. Edgar Hoover got to vacuum up all this information. ROBERT O'HARROW, JR.: Now, the power, compared to what they were doing when they were trying to undermine political opponents and anti-war activists and women's rights activists and such, the power to do that now is sort of infinitely beyond what they could do with their paper and the many files they collected and created. It's really -- you know, as I said, it's something -- it's awesome to behold. It's not being used in that way now. I don't see there's a Hoover out there. In fact, as I said before, I believe that a lot of the people taking advantage of this are working in the nation's interests, and they're earnest about it, but you have this partnership that is really remarkable, and few of us really understand it. My advocacy here is very journalistic. It's that we come to understand this, and deal with it as soon as possible. By the way, Viet Dinh, the author of the PATRIOT Act, Bob Barr, of course, who's a very conservative civil libertarian, counterterrorism officials, all sorts of people agree with me exactly. And they advocate this, as well. Viet Dinh says the amount of information that's out there is mind boggling and that the government's use of it is not properly limited. I just think that's amazing coming from the author of the PATRIOT Act. Now, Axiom. Axiom is an amazing company based in Little Rock. They are perhaps the largest aggregator of information about private Americans. And they work on behalf of all of the -- virtually all of the main banks. They work with retailers. They collect information from hundreds and hundreds of sources so that they have these billions of records that help companies to know you better, to find out more about you. And after 9/11, they reached out to former President Clinton and asked him to make a call to John Ashcroft to help sort of help out the government's war on terror and then to help ease the way for contracts. AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Robert O'Harrow, author of No Place to Hide. Now let's talk about these government -- well, you call it the 'security industrial complex.' We are talking about Axiom, also Choicepoint, which people may know from the 2000 election, the ones who purged the voter database in Florida of what they said were felons; and, of course, many of them, of the people who should have been voting, were not felons. Choicepoint and these other companies like -- What is it, Seisint, Seismic Intelligence, Verint, Verifiable Intelligence? ROBERT O'HARROW: Amazing stuff. I mean, these are public companies. You can go and look at their securities filings and read some of what they do. I did that intensively, and I went to these companies, and I looked at other records and lawsuits and all the stuff that I could get my hands on. And the portrait that emerges is that, in effect, what you have?And this is no exaggeration; it sounds a little goofy, but it's true, and I'll explain that in a minute. You have in effect the creation of private intelligence services that in many ways do what James Bond and his colleagues would have liked back in the 60's movies except they do it faster and better in terms of finding links among people, establishing patterns, you know, showing tendencies, risk assessment. Choicepoint, based outside of Atlanta, has collected -- has bought fifty-eight companies since 1997. They -- the companies include a genetic repository, biometrics, fingerprint; they are becoming a fingerprint specialist. They've got something like 19 billion records, and they have become, they say, the nation's largest background screener. So that when you try to get a job, there's a chance that the company is going to Choicepoint to check your background out. And so, if you had a – you know, if you wrote a bad check or if you had a bust for smoking pot when you were in college, or drunk driving or, you know, whatever, that kind of background is going to probably follow you forever now, and is going to be instantly available to anybody who's willing to pay the $50 or $100 to check you out. And one fellow who's concerned about it called it that we're moving toward a “scarlet letter” society where you -- you are branded for life for whatever you did when you were 19 and foolish. But, more than that, Choicepoint is providing these intelligence services, and when I said I'd get back to it, it's this: I concluded in my book that Choicepoint was operating as a private intelligence service. And I was very excited in a sense and kind of awed by the idea of it. I took that to the company before I went to press with the book, and I said, 'Here's what I've concluded you are and that you're becoming;' and the company said, 'Well, yes, guess what? You're right.” And, so, using that, as well as more reporting, I wrote a story for the front page of the Washington Post basically declaring them a private intelligence service, and, you know, we'll see where that takes us. I think that's -- The idea of that, I'm hoping, will help people understand that we're not just dealing with a direct mailing list here anymore. AMY GOODMAN: Bob O'Harrow, I was just at Heathrow airport last weekend and, as usual, I was pulled out of the line coming back to the United States. And the security woman -- ROBERT O'HARROW: Your obviously a threat. AMY GOODMAN: The security woman said to me: 'We would like to dose your body with low-level radiation. Can we have your permission, please? And I said, 'What you are talking about? Is this a joke?' And she said, 'No. Can we have your permission? We'll do a low dose of radiation through your body.' And I said, 'Hell, no.' I said, 'Would you do this?' And she said, 'No.' So I said, 'Well then, I would like to go back in the line.' She said, 'Well, now that you've refused we're going to do a particular -- almost a body cavity search or something.' I said, 'Yeah, you can do anything, but I'm not going to get my body dosed with radiation.' And she said, 'Okay, that is your choice.' I said, 'Will it be our choice in three months or five months? You're saying this is a test now, but–' Do you know about this, and can you talk more broadly about the airlines and these lists? ROBERT O'HARROW: I don't know anything about that, but I will tell you that I find it outrageous in the extreme. And I -- Kind of an interesting thing about the book here is that a lot of people talk about privacy and such, and I've written a lot about that, but as I've focused on this more and more in the last several years, I realized that it's not really about privacy; it's about this thing that we have known about for a couple of hundred years in the United States, which is autonomy, this notion to be free from people meddling with us and messing with us. And, to me, that's one of those things where if you say, 'no,' somehow you're suspect; but, you know, my response to that is: Go to hell. To me, a lot of this?the data collection, the use of it in ways that no one bothered to tell us about, the targeting us even for marketing or including us in the special deals or discounts, or whatever, and then especially the government using it in ways that we don't understand?is really about autonomy and it reminds me of when I was a little kid in Indiana hearing my relatives say, “Who gave them the right?” and it could have been about any issue, but, to me, it's: Who gave them the right to do this? Why isn't – why aren't people telling us what's really happening here in terms of the data collection and the scrutiny of us as individuals and letting us engage in a real, honest debate about the parts that we really want to make us safer and the parts where there needs to be limit on these kinds of intrusions? AMY GOODMAN: What about R.F.I.D.'s, radio frequency identification chips? ROBERT O'HARROW: R.F.I.D. is a classic example that holds for a lot of this technology. It has a real use. Just like the information that we've been talking about has a real use and we like a lot of it. We like the discounts. We like the conveniences. And, in fact, I would argue that we have to use information technology to make us safer to some degree. R.F.I.D. is like that. It can be used to tag pallets of goods that are going from California to New York, and what it allows the logistical managers to do is to wave a wand over the R.F.I.D. chip, and the chip will have an i.d. code on it that bounces right back?it reflects the radio frequency?and the i.d. chip would tell you where the pallet of goods came from, where it's supposed to go, what's there, what's in it, because the i.d. that's on that chip is also in a computer that has all this information. The thing that's interesting is that, for all that utility, R.F.I.D. is going to be used more and more on people and on i.d.'s. And what it's going to do is accelerate the collection of information about people. So, once R.F.I.D. becomes more common, there's going to be readers presumably in doorways at airports; so, when you go through with your i.d., it'll automatically record that Bob O'Harrow was there at a certain time. These readers presumably and almost surely will be placed into doorways where we're not told they're there. Initially, we will be, but eventually there will be some – become so common that we're just going to get used to them, and we'll forget to ask: Are there R.F.I.D. readers here? So that as we go about our live, it won't be just cameras which exist in far greater numbers than ever before, or the data, which exist in far greater numbers than ever before when we swipe our cards, use our credit card and so on. It will be these R.F.I.D. readers that automatically record as we move about in the world. Now, again, there's security there, because there's a certain level of security because they're going to know whose coming and going; but the question is: How are we going to limit the use of the information that's collected, and how are we going to insure that the government and these private companies aren't being intrusive and undermining the sense of autonomy that I would argue we must have in a free society so that we can be politically active, so we can be creative, so we can be different if we choose to be, without being made to feel odd or peculiar. AMY GOODMAN: Bob O'Harrow, can you talk more about biometrics like iris scans and fingerprinting? ROBERT O'HARROW: Sure. The same – same thing. An R.F.I.D. chip is something that you carry with you or in some cases people are having, believe it or not, embedded in their bodies. Biometrics is something that you don't even have a choice. AMY GOODMAN: Wait, wait, wait. Embedded in their bodies? ROBERT O'HARROW: Yeah. There are R.F.I. -- People will recognize that their dogs have these R.F.I.D. chips in them in case the dogs go missing. And in some places it's a requirement. You have to have this thing, and it's injected in, and it's a chip that's embedded under the skin. Well, there's a company that has started doing this now for a number of different reasons. And it's kind of funny, they argue that it's to contain medical information and they argue that it -- if you put it in your children, if they go missing, that it will help you find them more quickly. But the reality is – and I know this because I've reported on it, is that it's moving toward a general identity system where, if you have that on your -- embedded in your skin or on an i.d. card, you're going to be able to get through the line, whether it's at work or the airport and such eventually more quickly than the people who choose not to do it, just as you chose not to have this radiation infusion, whatever that was. That cost you time. It made things inconvenient, because you'd opted not to do it. In the same way, if you choose not to have the R.F.I.D. on a card or embedded in your skin, you're not going to get through the fast line. Now, biometrics. It's the same sort of thing. I would argue in our lifetimes, we're going to have to share our fingerprints on i.d. cards and electronically to get into facilities, to go through the airport, to get into buildings. And that's just a fact of life. It's – a biometric is an immutable characteristics, like a fingerprint, your face, your voice. These are things that, for the most part, people can't mimic. And it's an identity system. And the question isn't the use of the biometric, because the reality is biometrics could actually help prevent identity theft because it's hard to imitate someone's face to take on that identity. But once you have an identity system like that, that -- where a biometric is used universally whether it's your fingerprint or face print, once again it, makes – it creates enormous opportunities for private companies to track you, or to watch you for -- you know, mercantile purposes in ways that weren't possible before. My argument is: How can we adopt the one which could help us without having rules to limit the use of the other, which is the tracking part of it? Why do I say that? It's a very simple, very old-fashioned idea. In a free society, we want people to be as non-conformist as possible. We want people to sort of feel free to express political opinions that are unpopular. We want them to be artistic. We want them to, you know, just be themselves. When you have a sense of being watched, a watched society where biometrics are used to watch everywhere you go, where your data is picked up, at some point we begin to realize in a way that we haven't to date how much we're being watched, and there'll be the people who don't care, and they'll do whatever; but the reality is that the rest of us are going to feel this chill that maybe if we misstep, we could be taken away for questioning, that -- you know, it might be recorded that we did something foolish. And so, to avoid embarrassment or those kinds of questions, or the sense that we're somehow suspect, we're going to all become a lot more conformist, which I think -- I know it seems amorphous, but I find that a tragic idea. AMY GOODMAN: Robert O'Harrow, tell us very briefly (we only have a few more minutes, there's so much to talk about) but, who Hank Asher is. ROBERT O'HARROW: Well, thank you for asking about Hank. I spent a fair amount of time with him, and he's an amazing character. Just in purely in terms of readability (to kind of plug the book here for a second) we ended up talking about computers and data and government power and all of that, but at root here is you have these amazing characters, and their stories that help understand this data revolution that we're going through. Hank Asher was a data pioneer. And he invented two systems now that have helped change the landscape of law enforcement surveillance, and the delivery of information about Americans. He created the system called D.B.T. that was sold to Choicepoint that was used in the Florida election. And he started out with almost nothing in the early 1990's, and created a system that collected -- when he sold his system and became wealthy in the late 1990's, it had 8 billion records. Well, now, D.B.T. is part of Choicepoint, which of course, has something like 19 billion or 20 billion records. He also, after 9/11, had a company called Seismic Intelligence. Its name was Seisint, and it created a system called the matrix. A lot of people would have heard about the matrix, because it, for the first time to my knowledge, combined criminal investigative records and confidential investigative records from police and law enforcement and driver records and photographs with these 20 billion records that, you know, showed where we lived and the cars we owned and the assets that we have; and it did it in a way where I could make a query, if I were a cop, that had a partial license plate, a description of, you know, that I'm a white guy with -- six foot with brown hair, and a general location, and come up with everybody that fit that description within the snap of a finger. It was an amazing, amazing system. Now, Hank Asher is an especially interesting character, because in interviews with me, he acknowledged that in the early 1980's for a short time, he was a drug smuggler, and flew to and from South America and Central America with drugs. He didn't specify, but I obtained records under Freedom of Information that showed that the drugs, according to police, appeared to be cocaine and lots of pot. Hank Asher said that that was a short period of his life, he was an adventurer, and that he hadn't done it since, and there's nothing to indicate that he has. What's interesting is that after he built the matrix system, spending at least $10 million and perhaps as much as $20 million of his own money, he was invited to the White House and escorted there by the President's brother, Jeb Bush, to demonstrate this system, which, in fact, from what I can tell, is a mind-blowing technology for Vice President Cheney, for soon to be Homeland Secretary Tom Ridge, and for others in the White House in the Roosevelt room. And after that he received funding from Homeland Security to help expand the use of this. Now, the matrix system is one of those things that a lot of people thinks was killed because a number of states dropped out both for concerns about privacy and the intrusion, as well as the cost. But the reality is, some states are still using it, and more importantly, last summer, Hank Asher's company was bought by Lexus Nexus, this giant company that nobody thinks of really in this realm because we all use them to get newspaper clips; but in fact, Lexus Nexus is one of the main players in the war on terror, and is sharing its information under contract with the government. Now, they bought the matrix system and Hank Asher's company, Seisint for three-quarters of a billion dollars. And it's a sure thing that the matrix technology is now being used for homeland security. And I would argue (I'm betting. I don't know this for sure.) that it's going to be interwoven into the much larger, vastly larger company, Lexus-Nexus which has a – you know, a global scope because it's based out of the U.K. And so, it just becomes this incredible fascinating story that sounds like science fiction or Hollywood, but, in fact, is truer than most people probably want to recognize. AMY GOODMAN: Robert O'Harrow, we're going to have to leave it there. I want to thank you very much for being with us and for writing this book. Doesn't make you feel very comfortable, but it's important information. No Place to Hide. ROBERT O'HARROW: Well, if we -- Thank you so much. AMY GOODMAN: Okay. Thank you. Robert O'Harrow, Jr. No Place to Hide. -------- patriot act Patriot Act strikes Marshall Islands bank AFP Thu Feb 10, 2005 http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1503&ncid=733&e=3&u=/afp/20050211/ts_afp/marshallsusattacksbanking MAJURO (AFP) - Residents of the Marshall Islands will be unable to use their credit cards from next week after the central Pacific nation's leading bank was cut off from a US partner by the anti-terrorist Patriot Act. The act, introduced in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks by US President George W. Bush (news - web sites), has forced the Guam-based Citizens Security Bank (CSB) to end credit card and other services to the Bank of Marshall Islands on February 15. The Patriot Act is designed to boost the ability of US intelligence and law enforcement agencies to disrupt terrorist funding and activities and imposes restrictions on links between US and non-US banks. The CSB faced possible multi-million dollar fines from US regulators if it continued offering the Bank of Marshall Islands credit card services and so-called "payable through" links which allow Bank of Marshall Islands checks to be used worldwide. CSB confirmed on Friday that it would terminate its services to the Marshalls bank on Tuesday. Bank of Marshall Islands officials said they stood to lose as much as seven million dollars in deposits as customers move to the Bank of Guam, the only bank in the country that is insured by the US Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and so protected from the Patriot Act. Although the Marshall Islands is a close ally of Washington and its national budget is about 60 percent funded by the US government, the Bank of Marshall Islands is not a US bank and does not have FDIC status. As of Tuesday, the bank's checks will only be good domestically. In addition, the electronic credit card verification and authorization service provided to local merchants by the bank through CSB will also end. The Bank of Marshall Islands currently provides the only credit card verification service for merchants in this country of 60,000, spread over a vast archipelago in the central Pacific. The termination of the service on Tuesday means that until the Bank of Guam can organize a similar service, the ability of people to use credit cards will come to a halt or be greatly restricted, depending on the willingness of individual merchants to accept credit cards without electronic verification. Officials at the National Telecommunications Authority said they had provided the necessary dedicated telephone links needed by Bank of Guam to start the electronic credit card verification service for merchants. "If they want to start it today, they can," said the authority¹s general manager Anthony Muller. "It¹s up to them." But Bank of Guam officials in Majuro said they could not give any timetable for when the service might be available. -------- torture Detainees Accuse Female Interrogators Pentagon Inquiry Is Said to Confirm Muslims' Accounts of Sexual Tactics at Guantanamo By Carol D. Leonnig and Dana Priest Washington Post Staff Writers Thursday, February 10, 2005; Page A01 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12431-2005Feb9.html Female interrogators repeatedly used sexually suggestive tactics to try to humiliate and pry information from devout Muslim men held at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, according to a military investigation not yet public and newly declassified accounts from detainees. The prisoners have told their lawyers, who compiled the accounts, that female interrogators regularly violated Muslim taboos about sex and contact with women. The women rubbed their bodies against the men, wore skimpy clothes in front of them, made sexually explicit remarks and touched them provocatively, at least eight detainees said in documents or through their attorneys. A wide-ranging Pentagon investigation, which has not yet been released, generally confirms the detainees' allegations, according to a senior Defense Department official familiar with the report. While isolated accounts of such tactics have emerged in recent weeks, the new allegations and the findings of the Pentagon investigation indicate that sexually oriented tactics may have been part of the fabric of Guantanamo interrogations, especially in 2003. The inquiry uncovered numerous instances in which female interrogators, using dye, pretended to spread menstrual blood on Muslim men, the official said. Separately, in court papers and public statements, three detainees say that women smeared them with blood. The military investigation of U.S. detention and interrogation practices worldwide, led by Vice Adm. Albert T. Church III, confirmed one case in which an Army interrogator took off her uniform top and paraded around in a tight T-shirt to make a Guantanamo detainee uncomfortable, and other cases in which interrogators touched the detainees suggestively, the senior Pentagon official said. The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the report has not yet been made public, said the fake blood was used on Muslim men before they intended to pray, because some Muslims believe that "if a woman touches him prior to prayer, then he's dirty and can't pray." Muslim men also believe that contact with women other than their wives diminishes religious purity. Defense Department officials said they have reprimanded two female interrogators for such tactics. It is unclear whether military personnel, employees of other agencies or private contractors were involved. The attorney interviews of detainees are the result of a Supreme Court decision last summer that gave the captives access to lawyers and the opportunity to challenge their incarceration in U.S. courts. In previous documents, detainees have complained of physical abuse, including routine beatings, painful shackling, and exposure to extremes of hot and cold. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld insisted then that detainees were treated "humanely," and Pentagon officials said terrorists were trained to fabricate torture allegations. Some of the accounts resemble the sexual aspects of the humiliation of Iraqi prisoners at the U.S. prison at Abu Ghraib. Photographs that became public last year showed a servicewoman there holding naked prisoners on a leash and posing next to a pile of naked prisoners. Pentagon officials said yesterday that wearing skimpy clothing or engaging in provocative touching and banter would be inappropriate interrogation techniques. "I don't see that as being authorized by secretary of defense's approved interrogation techniques for Guantanamo," said Col. David McWilliams, a spokesman for the U.S. Southern Command in Miami, which oversees operations at Guantanamo Bay. McWilliams said it is premature to comment on whether the detainee allegations are credible until a second military investigation that focuses on Guantanamo Bay abuse allegations is complete. The inquiry, which began in early January after the release of documents in which FBI agents said they witnessed abuse, is scheduled to be completed this month. "That's exactly why we're doing an investigation," McWilliams said. "We're going to establish the facts and the truth." Church's report found that interrogators used sexually oriented tactics and harassment to shock or offend Muslim prisoners, the senior Pentagon official said. The official said that the military would not condone "sexual activity" during interrogation, but that good interrogators "take initiative and are a little creative." "They are trying to find the key that will get someone to talk to them. Using things that are culturally repulsive is okay as long as it doesn't extend to something prohibited by the Geneva Conventions." Attorneys for detainees scoffed at the Pentagon's insistence that the military can fairly investigate its own personnel. They noted that the Defense Department last fall initially dismissed torture allegations, insisting that detainees were trained at terrorist camps to lodge false claims. Even detainee lawyers doubted that interrogators would spread menstrual blood on prisoners when a recently released British detainee first made the allegation in early 2004. A month ago, a Pentagon spokesman confirmed it had verbally reprimanded one female interrogator who, in early 2003, had smeared red dye from a marker on a detainee's shirt and told him it was blood. In a yet-to-be-published book, former Army translator Erik Saar said he saw a female interrogator smear red dye on a Saudi man's face, telling him it was blood. Saar's account was first reported by the Associated Press last month. And Mamdouh Habib, an Australian man released from Guantanamo Bay last month, said he was strapped down while a woman told him she was "menstruating" on his face. One lawyer, Marc Falkoff, said in an interview that when a Yemeni client told him a few weeks ago about an incident involving menstrual blood, "I almost didn't even write it down." He said: "It seemed crazy, like something out of a horror movie or a John Waters film. Now it doesn't seem ludicrous at all." Some of the newly declassified accounts of detainees evoke scenes from a rock music video. German detainee Murat Kurnaz told his lawyer that three women in lacy bras and panties strutted into the interrogation room where he was sitting in chains. They cooed about how attractive he was and suggested "they could have some fun," he said. When Kurnaz averted his eyes, he said, one woman sat on his lap, another rubbed her breasts against his back and massaged his chest and a third squatted near his crotch. He head-butted the woman behind him, he said, knocking her off him. All three ran out and a team of soldiers stormed in and beat him, he said. Detainee lawyers likened the tactics to Nazis shaving the beards of orthodox Jews or artists dunking a crucifix in urine to shock Christians. "They're exploiting religious beliefs to break them down, to destroy them," said Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents several dozen detainees. "What they're doing, it reminds me of a pornographic Web site -- it's like the fantasy of all these S&M clubs." Falkoff said some of his clients have also been threatened with rape by male interrogators. One soldier told another detainee, Muktar Warafi, that he had to start telling the truth or he would be raped, according to Falkoff's notes of the interview. When he left the room, another person immediately came into the room and told Warafi: "That interrogator is new and doesn't know the rules. We apologize on his behalf. Now let's talk." Yasein Esmail, a Yemeni detainee, said he had been interrogated more than 100 times since being "kidnapped" in a marketplace in Kabul, Afghanistan, and brought to Guantanamo Bay. He recounted to his lawyer that when he refused to talk in one interview, a female soldier entered wearing a tight T-shirt. "Why aren't you married?" she reportedly asked Esmail. "You are a young man and have needs. What do you like?" Esmail said "she bent down with her breasts on the table and her legs almost touching" him. "Are you going to talk," she asked, "or are we going to do this for six hours?" Researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report. -------- POLITICS -------- us politics Plans to Create Senate Intelligence Oversight Panel Run Into Snag By Walter Pincus Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, February 10, 2005; Page A21 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12205-2005Feb9.html Congressional plans to improve oversight of intelligence have hit another roadblock, with the Senate having second thoughts about its decision in October to create an Appropriations subcommittee on intelligence. The subcommittee, approved as part of a Senate resolution containing other oversight changes, was designed to handle 80 percent of the $40 billion-plus budget of the 15 agencies that make up the intelligence community. Those agencies will come under the jurisdiction of the new national director of intelligence, a position the administration has not yet filled. The decision to create the subcommittee was made when the Senate had included in its version of the intelligence reorganization bill a provision that would have made public the amount of money the U.S. budgets for intelligence. However, the final version of the bill signed into law in December kept the intelligence budget secret. As a result, the Senate Appropriations Committee may not create the subcommittee, said Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), who was in line to chair the subcommittee. The problem, a senior Appropriations staff member said yesterday, is that the Appropriations subcommittees all disclose their budget figures. If an intelligence subcommittee were created to oversee a classified budget, it would be simple to determine the secret number by subtracting the other subcommittees' figures from the Appropriations Committee's total budget number. "Since it would be difficult to create an intelligence subcommittee with a classified budget, it may not be possible to do so at this time," Specter said in a statement released Tuesday. A spokesman for Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), chairman of the Appropriations panel, said yesterday no decision had been made. Improving how Congress monitors the performance of the intelligence community was a key recommendation of the Sept. 11 commission. Former representative Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.), the commission's vice chairman, said yesterday that members of Congress had described intelligence oversight to him as "dysfunctional," largely because neither the House nor Senate intelligence committees had authority over appropriations. The secret intelligence community budgets have until now been overseen by the Senate and House Appropriations subcommittees on defense. Some members of the Appropriations defense subcommittees, Hamilton said, told him they spend minimal time on intelligence spending because it is less than 10 percent of the defense budget. Another congressional staff aide noted that senior members of both defense Appropriations subcommittees have opposed any transfer of oversight responsibility. In the Senate debate that led to approval of an intelligence Appropriations subcommittee in October, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) noted that judgments made by the intelligence committee on projects costing enormous amounts of money were "overridden in the appropriations process . . . time after time." Hamilton said he recognized that the commission's recommendation that one committee in each body be given both authorizing and appropriations oversight was not acceptable. "I know the Senate and House have wrestled with this, and I hope the process is not at an end," he said. "Robust congressional oversight is essential for effective counterterrorist policy . . . and that means control of the budget." On the House side, the only reorganization has been establishment of an oversight subcommittee within the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. That was described yesterday as "a ray of light" by Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), ranking Democrat of the House committee, who noted that there was no change in the House appropriations process. The Senate, meanwhile, reduced the membership of its Senate Select Committee on Intelligence but gave each member his or her own staff member -- a move made when the plan was to give the panel both authorizing and appropriations responsibilities. ---- The French Are Charmed and Jarred by 'Chère Condi' By ELAINE SCIOLINO February 10, 2005 NY TIMES http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/10/international/europe/10france.html?pagewanted=print&position= PARIS, Feb. 9 - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stood before the audience at the Institute of Political Studies on Tuesday afternoon and rewrote cold war history, to the consternation of many in the highly sophisticated audience. In an answer to a question from the floor, she told her audience that in 1947 Greece and Turkey had suffered through civil wars. Greece, yes, but Turkey? "It was a glaring mistake," said Guillaume Parmentier, director of the French Center on the United States, an independent research organization at the French Institute of International Relations. "She's smart, yes, but I don't think she is as knowledgeable as one would expect with a career like hers." Ms. Rice was applauded and criticized, flattered and cross-examined during her maiden voyage to Paris as secretary of state. During her 24-hour visit, the former national security adviser and Stanford University provost and professor charmed her hosts with her gushing praise for France but alarmed them with her ideological zeal - which included branding Iran a totalitarian state. "Let me thank the people of France for being such perfect hosts," she said in opening her speech on Tuesday. The left-leaning daily Libération ran a headline that read, "Condi's Great Game: To Seduce Paris." The article noted that in her "pumps and navy blue suit accessorized with a belt and large strand of pearls, she gave a speech in her own image: impeccable and soignée, seductive but without overdoing it." President Jacques Chirac kissed her hand twice when she entered and when she left Élysée Palace on Tuesday evening and twice complimented her on her speech, saying he had watched part of it on television. Foreign Minister Michel Barnier called her "Chère Condi" during their news conference afterwards. She called him "Michel." But Ms. Rice, who was once called "the princess warrior" by the weekly magazine Le Point, is still regarded with a degree of suspicion here. "Can We Trust Rice?" asked the popular daily France-Soir. Jacques Lang, the Socialist former culture minister, told France Inter radio that while he recognized Ms. Rice's "charm and seduction," she is still the "Madame Hawk of yesterday" who had been "aggressive and fanatical" on "Iraq in particular." On Wednesday, Le Monde ran a cartoon of Ms. Rice perusing a menu in a restaurant as the waiter asks, "We can also heat up some French fries for you." It was a not so subtle reminder of moves in the United States to rename the fried potatoes "freedom fries" to protest France's opposition to the war in Iraq. Indeed, at a private breakfast on Wednesday with six French intellectuals at the American ambassador's residence, Ms. Rice revealed her steely, deeply ideological side. She shocked at least some of her guests by branding Iran a "totalitarian state," said four of those who took part. She added that the free world was wrong to accept the Soviet Union on its terms during the cold war and must not make the same mistake now with Iran, they added. A number of guests challenged her assertion, but Ms. Rice is not the type to back down. She called her characterization of Iran deliberate. A year ago, she said, she would have called Iran's Islamic Republic authoritarian. But after flawed parliamentary elections last spring that produced a conservative majority, she said, it moved toward totalitarian, a term that historians tend to use restrictively to define violently absolutist regimes that govern through terror. "I tried to explain that Iran was not like the Soviet Union, that the mullahs were deeply unpopular but unlike their predecessors over the last 150 years they were not in the hands of the British or the Russians or the Americans," said François Heisbourg, director of the Foundation for Strategic Research in Paris. "She gave no proof that Iran was totalitarian, because she didn't have any. It was scary. Unless there is some give on the American side we are heading for a real crisis." Ms. Rice also expressed deep skepticism about the European-led initiative to persuade Iran to abandon its uranium enrichment programs in exchange for economic and political rewards, participants said. France, Britain and Germany, Iran's negotiating partners, know that any meaningful benefits for Iran depend on American support, something that Ms. Rice made clear would not be forthcoming. Such an approach, she said, would only help sustain the hard-liners' grip on power. "I told her that it is my sense that public opinion in Europe, and maybe even elected officials, are ready to accept the idea that Iran may have some kind of nuclear weapons capability with some limitations," said Nicole Bacharan, an expert on the United States at the Institute of Political Studies. "She was startled. She wasn't quite aware of what she is up against." For his part, Mr. Parmentier said he told her, "We in Europe believe that it is more likely the regime would fall if we are opening up to Iranian society rather than closing off." The American Embassy in Paris declined to comment on the breakfast or even to identify the guests, saying it was a private event. While most of the discussion focused on Iran, Ms. Rice was much more willing to absolve Pakistan's military-led government of any tyrannical tendencies. When Mr. Parmentier called Pakistan "the most dangerous country there is," Ms. Rice acknowledged that the country was dangerous but said it was "on the right track" and "improving," participants said. "We were all skeptical about how much the Pakistani military and intelligence could be trusted," said Alexandre Adler, a foreign policy expert and columnist for Le Figaro. Ms. Rice, who almost became a concert pianist but chose Soviet studies instead, had an easier time at the Hector Berlioz Conservatory on Wednesday. There she attended a class of 7- to 9-year-olds who were learning to read music and listening to the teacher play the piano. "I learned to read music from my grandmother when I was 3½ years old," she told them, even before she could read. She later said: "Keep working hard," and "Practice and practice and practice." She left Paris with a gift from Richard Descoings, the director of the Institute for Political Studies: a letter signed by Berlioz to a friend thanking him for visiting. Mr. Descoings said he bought the letter for $1,500 from a dealer on the chic Rue Bonaparte just hours before Ms. Rice delivered her speech. Steven R. Weisman and Hélène Fouquet contributed reporting for this article. Correction: February 11, 2005, Friday: An article yesterday about mixed reaction in France to the visit of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice misstated the given name of the Socialist former culture minister who said on France Inter radio that Ms. Rice was charming but still the "Mme. Hawk of yesterday." He is Jack Lang, not Jacques. ---- Rice Mends Fences in Europe But Nuclear Crises Loom By REUTERS February 10, 2005 Filed at 12:18 p.m. ET http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/politics/politics-rice.html?pagewanted=print&position= LUXEMBOURG (Reuters) - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice ended a fence-mending trip to Europe on Thursday having begun repairing transatlantic ties but with nuclear crises looming larger with North Korea and Iran. As Rice concluded a week-long, 10-nation tour by meeting European Union officials in Luxembourg, North Korea announced for the first time that it has nuclear weapons and was pulling out of six-party talks on its atomic program. Pyongyang's declaration followed a defiant statement by Iranian President Mohammad Khatami Wednesday that no present or future Tehran government would renounce nuclear technology, including uranium enrichment, which can help produce a bomb. ``The message is the same for both: give up nuclear weapons and life can be different,'' Rice said. Luxembourg Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn, whose country holds the 25-nation EU's presidency, said the Europeans would work to try to prevent any country acquiring nuclear arms. ``We in the European Union want to avoid that Iran can have a nuclear bomb. That's dangerous for the region. We negotiate with Iran to avoid to avoid this development, and it is very positive that on the American side there is cooperation,'' he said. The positive tone on a range of issues signaled that both sides of the Atlantic are determined to make a new start after deep rifts over Iraq and strains over the Middle East, including Iran's nuclear program. Rice's trip laid the foundation for President Bush to make a highly symbolic visit to EU headquarters on Feb. 22, the first by a sitting U.S. president. ``I think he is going to find a very constructive environment,'' she told reporters on her homebound plane. CONCILIATORY The two sides agreed to work closely together within the Quartet of international mediators to support fledgling Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts. Rice made supportive comments on the EU's negotiations with Iran, saying Washington felt fully consulted. And she and Asselborn played down lingering differences over the EU's intention to lift its arms embargo on China this year. The secretary sought to dispel suggestions by journalists that the United States was inconsistent in its approach toward the nuclear programs of Iran, Pakistan and North Korea. She said Pakistan, a U.S. ally, had made progress on security, fighting terrorism, reforming its education system and seeking rapprochement with India in the last three years.who can argue that the trends in Iran are going in the right direction.'' She also disputed the notion that the lesson of Washington's treatment of Pakistan and North Korea was that Iran needed a nuclear bomb to be treated better by the United States. North Korea would only receive multilateral security assurances, including the United States, if it was prepared to dismantle its nuclear weapons program verifiably, she said. ``The message to the Iranians is: you can have a different path with the international community if you are prepared not to go the route of a nuclear weapon, and to dismantle whatever activities might be devoted to building a nuclear weapon under cover of civilian nuclear power,'' Rice said. Khatami's statement could be a blow to the EU, which is offering Iran trade and political benefits if it gives up uranium enrichment. But EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana played down the remarks and said the bloc had every reason to remain engaged. ``There are a lot of things to talk about... Iran has the right to have nuclear power for peaceful means,'' he told Reuters. ``Khatami said that 'we have the right to have the system to produce enrichment for peaceful means','' Solana said. ``He hasn't gone any further than that. Now what we have to avoid is that those things are used for non-peaceful means.'' ---- Rep. Woolsey Calls For Hearings on Iraq Withdrawal February 10, 2005 Democracy Now! Headlines http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/10/1545225 On Capitol Hill, California Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey called on the House International Relations Committee Wednesday to have hearings on her resolution for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops in Iraq. -------- OTHER -------- health Carrots may stave off cancer, study finds February 10, 2005 By Marion Baillot THE WASHINGTON TIMES http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050210-123419-9230r.htm An apple a day might keep the doctor away, but scientists have found that eating a carrot every day could keep cancer at bay. A new study conducted by researchers at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne in England and the Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences suggests that a natural pesticide called falcarinol produced by carrots to protect the root vegetable from fungal diseases may be a potent cancer fighter, reducing malignancies in rats by a third. Epidemiological studies have already shown that individuals with the highest carrot consumption can lower their risk of cancer by up to 40 percent. "We already know that carrots are good for us and can reduce the risk of cancer, but until now we have not known which element of the vegetable has these special properties," said Newcastle University lecturer Kirsten Brandt, who carried out the research. The findings, published yesterday in the Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry, were made after 24 rats with precancerous tumors were divided into three groups and fed with different diets. After 18 weeks, the rats on the carrot diet and the falcarinol diet were a third less likely to develop full-scale tumors than the control group. Falcarinol is toxic in large amounts, but a person would have to eat 400 kilograms of carrots — 882 pounds — at once to ingest a lethal dose. It is not known exactly why the natural pesticide is effective, but it could be because it stimulates mechanisms in the body that fight cancer, the research team suggests. "We now need to take it a step further by finding out how much falcarinol is needed to prevent the development of cancer and if certain types of carrot are better than others, as there are many varieties in existence, of different shapes, colors and size," Dr. Brandt said. "We could also expand our research to include other vegetables. For consumers, it may soon no longer be a case of advising them to eat five portions of fruit and vegetables per day, but to eat particular types of these in certain quantities," she added. However, the experiment was conducted using raw carrots, so researchers do not yet know if eating boiled carrots or drinking carrot juice would have the same effect. In addition to contribution to healthy eating advice for consumers and recommendations for growers, the research team believes the findings could aid the development of anti-cancer drugs and lead to specific fruit and vegetable diets that are targeted toward certain diseases. But Vicky Stevens, a research scientist at the American Cancer Society, remains cautious. "It is definitely worth following up on data that could be helpful in preventing cancer, but we have to keep in mind that this is done in animals, and that it is a big jump to say that it is going to do the same things in humans," she said. Ms. Stevens thinks falcarinol might be just one weapon in the vegetable anti-cancer arsenal. "We don't expect that there is going to be one single magic bullet. It is still important to consider the rest of the carrot, and other vegetables," she said. "There is likely to be numerous things in vegetables that are helpful. It is not just going to be this single compound." -------- ACTIVISTS German police ban rally of Iranians BERLIN (AFP) Feb 10, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050210120605.8k2l40sn.html German police on Thursday banned a rally by Iranians aimed at protesting against the regime in Tehran and its alleged nuclear weapons programme because they had doubts about the demonstration's real goals. The rally, timed to take place around the 26th anniversary of Iran's Islamic revolution, was due to be held at Berlin's historic Brandenburg Gate at around midday (1100 GMT). But city police said in a statement that discussions overnight led them to believe that the rally might have been planned for different reasons, without expanding on what they were. A spokesman for the interior ministry said that the authorities believed the rally was aimed at recruiting more members for the People's Mujahedin, a group that is classified as a terrorist organisation by the European Union. The organisers, who have lodged a legal appeal against the police action, said the ban was announced as some 40,000 Iranians from across Europe were converging on Berlin. The figures could not be independently verified. An AFP photographer said that around 400 to 500 people, ostensibly pro-democracy supporters, had gathered peacefully on a square in western Berlin well away from the Brandenburg Gate and were being carefully watched by police. More than a dozen buses stood nearby. Some in the crowd held banners criticising the Islamic regime in Tehran.