NucNews - February 27, 2005 -------- NUCLEAR -------- depleted uranium The Silent Genocide from America Sunday, February 27 2005 @ 10:45 AM MST Contributed by: Milton Views: 714 by Mohammed Daud Miraki, MA, MA, PhD Director Afghan DU & Recovery Fund Mdmiraki@ameritech.net http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20050227104549992 When Bush jr. said, "we will smoke them out…" he lived up to his promise, making life an unattainable reality for the unborn and unsustainable reality for the living sentencing the Afghan people and their future generations to a predetermined death sentence. "After the Americans destroyed our village and killed many of us, we also lost our houses and have nothing to eat. However, we would have endured these miseries and even accepted them, if the Americans had not sentenced us all to death. When I saw my deformed grandson, I realized that my hopes of the future have vanished for good, different from the hopelessness of the Russian barbarism, even though at that time I lost my older son Shafiqullah. This time, however, I know we are part of the invisible genocide brought on us by America, a silence death from which I know we will not escape." (Jooma Khan of Laghman province, March 2003) These words were uttered by an aggrieved Afghan grandfather, who saw his own and that of others' familial extinction at the hands of the United States of America and her allies. Another Afghan, who also saw his demise, said: "I realized this slow, yet certain death, when I saw blood in my urine and developed severe pain in my kidneys along with breathing problems I never had before. Many of my family members started to complain from confusion and the pregnant women miscarried their babies while others gave birth to disabled infants" (Akbar Khan from Paktika province, February 2003) The perpetuation of the perpetual death in Afghanistan continues with the passage of each day. Every day, people see the silent death striking their families and friends, hopeless and terrified at the sight of the next funeral in their minds' eyes. This indiscriminate murder of the Afghan people continues while those, whose tax money paid for the monstrous weapons and brought about this genocide pretend as though all is well. The horrific pictures of those dying--whose bodies do not correlate to their age since they have internalized so much uranium dust that it impacted the morphology of their bodies--remain in the memories of those still living who are fearfully waiting for their turn of disaster. The pregnant women are afraid from giving birth to babies--horrified to see a deformity instead of a healthy child. This is the legacy of the US "liberation", an indiscriminate murder of the weak and the unarmed that do not have any means of self-defense. In fact, there is no defensive measure against such Weapons of Mass Destruction because these deadly particles of uranium oxide--the dust formed after uranium pulverizes upon impacting a target--remain in soil, water and cover the surface of vegetation for generations to come. When a US bomb or that of her allies landed on an Afghan village or town, the land and its people have become part of the deadly legacy of silent death. This death sentence is different from any other type because in this type death sentence all the people, their land and future generations are condemned to an inescapable genocide. The tragedy that makes this state of affairs so dreadful is the unavoidably invisible threat that targets everyone indiscriminately. Moreover, the threat has become endemic to the fiber of existence, contaminated the land, water and its inhabitants. In fact, when Bush jr. said, "we will smoke them out…" he lived up to his promise, making life an unattainable reality for the unborn and unsustainable reality for the living, hence, sentencing Afghan people and their future generations to a predetermined death sentence. The true extent of this disaster is unfolding as time goes by. In light of the continuous revelations about the quantity and types of weapons used in Afghanistan, the worse has not fully materialized. Everyday, US AC 130 gunships, A-10s and B 52s bomb Afghan villages and towns at each turn when a unit of US troops encounter resistance. Consequently, not only, the perpetual death continues but rather, every round of depleted uranium is one additional nail in the collective coffin of the Afghan people. The usage of great number of munitions and armaments dropped by US jets resulted in upsurge of various health problems weeks into 2002. This pattern is different from that experienced by the Iraqi after the first Gulf War where it took years for many of the birth defects, deformities and other health conditions to surface. This points to the enormity of uranium weapons used in Afghanistan, a fact, illustrated by many investigators world wide, notably Dai Williams in England, and Dr. Durakovic from the Uranium Medical Research Center in Canada, and Dr. Marc Herald in the United States among others. Furthermore, various international newspapers and media outlets notably Le Monde Diplomatique, Guardian, Frontier Post, BBC, CBC, Al Jazeera among others have reported the types of weapon systems used against Afghan targets--villages, towns--and mountain cave complexes. According to the BBC (April 10, 2002), more than 6600 J-dam bombs were dropped on Afghanistan. On October 2002, Boston Globe also reported: "In contrast with older weapons, the new generation finds its way with advances such as target-elevation data and satellite signals. The JDAM already has proven itself in Afghanistan. By February [2002], commanders had dropped 6,600 JDAMs, consultants estimate - so many that stockpiles ran low and officials had to scramble up more production from a Missouri factory." By October 2002, the first anniversary of US invasion of Afghanistan, more than 10000 tons of bombs landed on Afghan soil. (Socialist Worker Online, October 11, 2002) Imagine the magnitude of carnage and contamination caused by such barbarism. While another report by Kate Randall on December 2001, put the number of US bombed dropped at 12000: "Since the US launched the war on Afghanistan October 7, more than 12,000 US bombs have been dropped on the country. According to the Pentagon, about 60 percent of these bombs have been precision-guided by satellite or laser technology. However, many of these bombs–dropped by B-52s and other aircraft from tens of thousands of feet in the air–have strayed off course, hitting civilian targets." (WSWS, December 29, 2001) In another report, a year after September 11, 2001, Matt Kelley of the Associated Press put the US munitions statistics as follows: "U.S. and coalition airplanes have conducted more than 21,000 flights over Afghanistan, dropping more than 20,000 munitions. About 60 percent of the ordnance dropped on Afghanistan has been precision guided, the highest percentage in any conflict." Similarly the Guardian reported on April 10, 2002: "More than 22,000 weapons - ranging from cruise missiles to heavy fuel-air bombs - have been dropped on the country over the past six months…. US pilots dropped more than 6,600 joint direct attack munitions (J-dams), the satellite-guided bombs… One in four bombs and missiles dropped by the US on Afghanistan may have missed its target" The new generations of hard target weapons whose warheads are made of dense metal have contributed to the heavy contamination of land, water and general population. The following munitions have been deployed in bombing the poorest country of the world, Afghanistan: Smart Bombs Guided Missiles Sub-munitions GBU-15 Y AGM-86D CALCM Y BLU-97B cluster bomb Y GBU-24 Y AGM-130C Y GBU-27 Y AGM-142 Hav Nap Y GBU-28 B/B Y AGM-154C JSOW 154 P GBU-31 JDAM Y AGM-158 JASSM P GBU-32 JDAM Y BGM-109 Tactical Tomahawk P GBU-37 B/B Y Storm Shadow / SCALP P SSB P Y = reported use P = prototype testing expected The patent information of many of these munitions point to the usage of dense metal--depleted uranium, non-depleted uranium, or Tungsten, the latter is not likely since it costs more and is difficult to manufacture. Tungsten is more expensive than depleted uranium, which is in abundance. The world uranium industry has over one million tons of depleted uranium to dispose of. Tungsten is also difficult to manufacture because is 1.75 times harder than uranium and tungsten has a much higher melting point, (U = 1132 Celsius, W = 3422 Celsius). Moreover, depleted uranium is also effective as incendiary device since it burns fiercely in air. As incendiary weapon, it could ignite munitions inside tanks and burn underground weapon and fuel storage facilities and would serve effective in destroying chemical and biological agents in underground facilities. The suitability of uranium whether depleted or non-depleted is further reinforced by the claims of the Uranium Medical Research Center (UMRC): "By the DOD’s own admission, the best performing metal that consistently fits these functional military profiles is uranium and alloys of uranium. Titanium and tungsten are not suitable as the prime alloy base for these purposes. Uranium (whether NDU or DU) offers unique structural features and the chemistry best suited for the defeat of deep, bunkerized targets, multiple types of targets in area denial munitions, and penetrating composite ceramic and metal armoured [sic] targets." "Uranium can be engineered to be "self-sharpening" so that when it hits a target, it retains its punching point as material erodes off the warhead (titanium and tungsten will not do this). Uranium’s molecular structure can re-formed, using metallurgical and "nano-technologies" to deliver a selected range of ballistic features, including kinetic, thermal, pyrophoric, liquid metal and high-pressure/high-heat, plasma effects. Uranium is a readily available metal, cheap to produce and is in abundance in DOE’s, DOD’s and their weapon’s contractors’ stockpiles." Based on these favorable military characteristics including low cost, it is logical to use uranium than tungsten. With this mind, the following patent information would further shed light on the composition of these DU based munitions: These extracts are from the works of renowned independent DU researcher Dai Williams eoslifework "Patent 6389977 (Shrouded Aerial Bomb) clearly identifies Depleted Uranium as an intended design option for the hard target guided bombs most widely used in Afghanistan - upgraded versions of the 2,000 lb. BLU-109/B hard target warhead with the AUP-116 advanced penetrator. These include versions of the GBU-15, 24 and 31 and the AGM-130C." In light of the advantages of uranium over tungsten, exploring the following US patent table should further put to rest any doubts about the deadly composition of those weapons that turned Afghanistan uninhabitable wasteland. The extracts in the following table are presented by Dai Williams and could be on the following web-site eoslifeworkUSpatreport Table A: US Patents with direct references to Uranium or Depleted Uranium DU US Patent Number Date Title and extracts from patent specifications 4,638,737 June 28, 1985 A missile for defeating active armor1 of a target as set forth in claim 3, wherein said primary warhead is made of a heavy metal selected from tungsten carbide and uranium ore… … these subcaliber warheads are preferably kinetic energy warheads that are referred to as flechettes and are made of heavy material such as depleted uranium or tungsten carbide 5,542,354 July 20, 1995 Segmenting warhead projectile The warhead of claim 2 wherein said first housing and said second housing are independently each selected from the group consisting of iron, steel, tungsten, tantalum, depleted uranium and alloys thereof ... Other metals useful for the frangible first housing include tungsten, tantalum, depleted uranium and alloys thereof. 5,691,502 June 5, 1995 Low velocity radial deployment with predetermined pattern The invention can be employed in an interceptor missile for the purpose of increasing the area of potential impact with a target. Each lethality enhancing object (28) is preferably fabricated from a dense metal. While any suitable dense metal can be employed, metals having a density of at least 15 gm/cc are presently preferred, e.g., tantalum, tungsten, rhenium, uranium, etc. The higher densities permit a greater mass in a given volume or the same mass in a smaller volume, thereby enhancing the impact force of a lethality enhancing object…. 6,389,977 Dec 11, 1997 Shrouded Aerial Bomb [BLU-109/B and variants] This is definitive patent for the outer casing of the upgraded GUB-15, 24,27, 31 and AGM- 130C warheads. The shroud contains the AUP-116 advanced penetrator. This patent specifically identifies BOTH Tungsten AND Depleted Uranium penetrator versions Claims: 1…. … 5. The shrouded aerial bomb as claimed in claim 1, wherein the penetrating body is formed of depleted uranium. Since 1997, the US has been modifying and upgrading its munitions enhancing their penetrability by using dense metal as the following quote further exposes: "Since 1997 the United States has been modifying and upgrading its missiles and guided (smart) bombs. Prototypes of these bombs were tested in the Kosovo mountains in 1999, but a far greater range has been tested in Afghanistan. The upgrade involves replacing a conventional warhead by a heavy, dense metal one. Calculating the volume and the weight of this mystery metal leads to two possible conclusions: it is either tungsten or depleted uranium." Le Monde diplomatique March 2002 "The DU explosive charges in the guided bomb systems used in Afghanistan can weigh as much as one and a half metric tons (as in Raytheon's Bunker Buster - GBU-28)" Le Monde March 2002 The usage of new generation weapons was also confirmed by the Uranium Medical Research Center (UMRC): "Independent research and publicly available documentation of NATO and US weapons’ development programs hinted at or noted directly that non-fissionable (non-thermal nuclear) uranium weapons (including DU) development programs are still underway. Sources include: military research laboratories and sub-contract research & development programs; the US Science Based Stockpile Stewardship Program; the Federation of American Scientists; veterans’ reports; and, the annual reports and advertising of independent weapons contractors. US military health warnings to OEF [Operation Enduring Freedom] personnel indicate the presence of radiological contaminants; recommending troops take protection measures. OEF’s forward targeting personnel, Special Forces and post-bombing, site inspection teams have been given radiation protection instructions, radiation detectors and protective equipment prior to and since entering Afghanistan." It continues: "The U.S. DBHT (Deeply Buried Hard Target) Project, aimed at developing weapons to destroy biological, nuclear and chemical weapons storage and manufacturing facilities in rogue states; and, the US Strategic Military Plan and US Nuclear Posture Review expresses intentions to use new classes of weapons in Afghanistan and other states. This program was known to be accelerating its weapons development and experiments in readiness for a possible Iraqi incursion. The White House and US-DOD spoke frequently about the development and use of fission, low-yield and non-fission, seismic bunker- and cave-busters. These weapons, by design, require heavy ballast and narrow diameter casings that can drive deeply into the earth or through super-reinforced military targets, tough enough to withstand high velocity impacts before they reach detonation depth." UMRC articulates the difference of these weapons with those of the first Gulf War: "These new generations of weapons and the targets for which they are designed dictate specific features and functions: They are designed as "self-forging" and capable of punching through multi-layered, extra-reinforced, hardened-targets. They must be able to defeat 14 to 20 feet of heavily reinforced concrete. Unlike the Gulf War DU armour [sic] defeat penetrators, these new warheads would be used in conjunction with high explosive charges and or high-pressure, shaped charges and delayed-action detonators." In addition to the bombs and rockets, the US air force relies heavily on AC-130 flying gunships which are equipped with the 25 mm GAU-12 Gatling gun (1,800 rounds per minute) with DU ammunition further adding to the contamination of the environment and misery of the poor people of Afghanistan. Furthermore, US ground forces also rely heavily on A-10 'tank killer' that uses 30 mm rounds of depleted uranium ammunitions. These two weapon systems contribute on daily basis to the misery of the people there. This disaster will haunt Afghan children, women and men for generations to come. Dr. Michael H. Repacholi of the World Health Organization reported: "DU [deleted uranium] is released from fired weapons in the form of small particles that may be inhaled, ingested or remain in the environment." He added further: "Children rather than adults may be considered to be more at risk of DU exposure when returning to normal activities within a war zone through contaminated food and water, since typical hand-to-mouth activity of inquisitive play could lead to high DU ingestion from contaminated soil." (The Laissez Faire City Times, Vol 5, No 44, October 29, 2001} At the defense department briefing, Dr. Ross Anthony, from the Rand Corporation had said the following about depleted uranium: "The kidney is the part that is the most susceptible." (The Laissez Faire City Times, Vol 5, No 44, October 29, 2001} Steve Fetter and Frank von Hippel wrote in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (1999) "Radiation doses for soldiers with embedded fragments of depleted uranium may be troublesome…The ground the DU-contaminated plumes passed over would be coated with a thin layer of DU dust, some of which would be later kicked up by wind and human activity. ...The munitions could deposit a layer of [depleted uranium] dust on crops that could be eaten directly by humans or by animals later consumed by humans. …However, rough estimates suggest that the cancer risk from consumption of contaminated produce would be less than from inhalation" What this translates into is more deformities, diseases and deaths for the poor Afghans. As I also stated in my previous report perp, it took on average 5 years for various deformities to emerge in Iraq after the first Gulf War, however, in Afghanistan, people started to complain from various health problems within weeks of the initial bombing. This means only one thing, the magnitude of uranium based weapons used in Afghanistan is much higher than that in Iraq during the first Gulf War. This fact is reinforced by the news that in the first few months of the bombing more 6,600 J-dams/smart bombs have been dropped on Afghanistan, making the size of the uranium contamination much higher than in Iraq during the first Gulf War. The emergence of excessive health problems increased curiosity and concerns among scientists worldwide of the usage of depleted uranium. The first scientific undertaking was led by the Uranium Medical Research Center (UMRC) which consisted of two consecutive trips to JalalAbad and Kabul. The preliminary findings by the UMRC research teams concluded: # "Radiological measurements of the uranium concentrations in Afghan civilians’ urine samples indicate abnormally high levels of non-depleted uranium. Radiological measurements of Afghan civilians’ have high concentrations of uranium in a range beginning at 4 X’s and reaching to over 20 X’s normal populations. This is 400% to 2000% higher than the study controls and normal population baselines of the concentrations of nanograms of uranium per liter of urine in a 24-hour sample." # "The isotopic ratios of the uranium contaminant measured in Afghan civilians show that it is not Depleted Uranium (DU). The isotopes of uranium found in the Afghan civilians’ urine is Non-Depleted Uranium." # "UMRC investigated the possible origins of this contamination. The preliminary results of the radiological urine analysis are corroborated by radiological measurements of debris and weapons’ fragment samples at OEF (Operation Enduring Freedom) target sites and bomb-craters." # "UMRC’s Field Team found several hundred civilians with acute symptoms and reportedly developing, chronic symptoms of uranium internal contamination (including congenital problems in newborns). All subjects’ on-set of symptoms are reported to coincide with the calendar dates of the bombing and were not present prior to the bombing." # "Radiological measurements of any populations’ urine specimens identify, as a standard practice, the abundance of each of the 3 naturally occurring isotopes of uranium (U234, 235, 238). These isotopes’ abundances (quantities) are measured as a fraction of the uranium released in a 24-hour sample of urine. The isotopic ratios (proportions) of the uranium in the urine collected in Afghanistan has the unmistakable signature of Non-Depleted Uranium. It does not express the isotopic ratio of DU. Depleted Uranium and Non-depleted Uranium are both species of uranium. UMRC is reporting the isotopic signatures of the uranium found in the Afghan civilians’ urine." (UMRC Preliminary Findings from Afghanistan & Operation Enduring Freedom, AfghanistanOEF) The staff of UMRC communicated the following about Non-Depleted Uranium: "Actually, NDU, if it is "virgin uranium", is pure uranium extracted from the feed stock at the pre-enrichment phase of either the fuel or weapons development cycles and is significantly less expensive per ton than DU. The gaseous diffusion and centrifuge processes of enriching uranium require so much electrical power, they need dedicated power production sources - some powered reactors have been constructed simply to power up the enrichment process. They also are expensive technologies to operate and capitalize. DU, being the by-product of enrichment is by definition, much more expensive per ton since it had to be processed through the enrichment phase." After collecting samples of urine, soil from blast sites and surrounding areas in Kabul and JalaAbad and other areas, UMRC carrying out detailed scientific analysis of these samples and released their findings on 21.05.2003, umrc.net: * UMRC’s recent findings, May 2003, reveal a wider scope of human and environmental contamination in Afghan civilians, corroborating the November 2002 Jalalabad findings. * Jalalabad area: New reference levels based on recent collections of samples and controls have revised the Jalalabad results upward to uranium values 45 X’s normal. * New bioassay studies identify uranium internal contamination in Spin Gar (Tora Bora) area and the City of Kabul are up to 200 X’s the Reference Level of the unexposed population. * Surface water, rice fields and catch-basins adjacent to and surrounding the bombsites have high values of uranium, up to 27 X’s normal. * Low but as yet inconclusive readings of U236 have been identified by the laboratory in some urine samples; further analysis is underway to determine the metallurgical origins of the uranium with a consideration of "commercial natural uranium" containing recycled reactor spent fuel products. * Analyses of soils and debris collected inside OEF bomb craters and target sites have uranium values 3 X’s to 6 X’s normal. * Surface soils surrounding the bombsites and downwind from ground-zero are elevated close to 3 X’s reference levels. * Field and laboratory data show that samples with elevated uranium levels, civilian health problems, and weapons exposure histories correspond spatially and chronologically to ordnance deployed by Operation Enduring Freedom. Along the lines of the UMRC findings, I instructed two groups of field surveyors to comb eastern and southeastern Afghanistan as well as Kabul for effects on uranium on local populations, they have found many dreadful conditions. They targeted wide areas all over Afghanistan, however, the depth of the contamination is situated in the Pashtun dominated areas, east, southeast, south and southwestern Afghanistan. More then thousands tons of non-depleted uranium along with depleted uranium (mostly from A-10 and AC-130 Gatling guns) has been used by the US and her allies against the defenseless people of Afghanistan. The bulk of the contamination is in ToraBora, Bagram frontline--north of Kabul, Shaikoot, Paktia, Paktika, Mazar-i-sharif, and Kundoz frontline. (Field surveyors) Data Collected by field surveyors: Subsequent to the contamination, newborn children have physical deformities and those that do not have physical deformity are suffering from Mental Retardation. These cases are reported from Paktia, Nanagrhar, Bagram, Mazar-e-Sharif and Kundoz. As in my previous report, the survey team reported again that in bombardments of ToraBora, Shaikoot and Bagram frontline large number of antiaircraft weapons and rifles had melted. During the bombardments of ToraBora, Bagram front lines, Kundoz and Mazar-e-Sharif, many Taliban soldiers were seen with blood coming out from their mouths, noses and ears. Meanwhile, those Taliban soldiers who returned to their respective villages started to vomit blood and had bloody stools. Subsequently, many have died from their conditions. During bombardment of Kuram village, Surkhrod district of Nangarhar, the village was completely destroyed and many peoples were killed without any physical injuries. After bombardment in Khost public health workers have reported some skin lesions. Those that developed the skin lesions died after their conditions were deteriorated. In Pachir Wa Agam district near to ToraBora targeted area, women started to suffer from a deadly condition. Several months after the bombing, women of the area would become angry by petty things and that anger turns into rage, which subsequently causes the women to collapse and die. (Field Surveyors of the Afghan DU & Recovery Fund) My team also reported that many children are born with no limbs, no eyes, or tumors protruding out from their mouths and their eyes. The following testimonies and photos--filmed in Iraq are used here to exhibit the identical conditions of Afghan victims-- exhibit the horrific conditions from which children in Afghanistan, similar to those in Iraq, suffer from. The father one of the children in Paktia said this about his child: "When I saw my little boy with those monstrous red tumors, I thought to myself, why is it difficult for Americans to understand that they are hated in our country. If I do this to the child of an American family, that family has the right to pull my eyes out of my eye sockets. I like to tell the Americans that they love to live their lives of luxury at the expense of our extermination" (Assadullah, February 2003) The father of one of the victims from Kundoz whose wife had given birth to a deformed child that hardly resembled an infant said this to our survey team in Kabul: " My wife was pregnant and we were happily waiting for the moment to see our second child. On the day of the delivery, my wife felt weird, saying that she did not feel good and had pain in her abdomen. When the baby was born, it was hardly a human. It looked as if some one had beaten a baby and then covered its body with floors. My poor child looked like someone has rolled it in a basket of floors. When my wife saw the baby, she went into shock and died after 5 hours." (Zar Ghoon, December, 2002) A man from ToraBora lost controlled of his emotions while chatting with one of the field volunteers, screamed and posed a question and continued: "What else do the Americans want? They killed us, they turned our newborns into horrific deformations, and they turned our farmlands into graveyards and destroyed our homes. On top of all that their planes fly over and spray us with bullets. We have nothing to lose; we will fight against them the same way we fought the previous monster [the former Soviet Union]" (Sa'yed Gharib, April 2003) Most of the people that developed various health problems have died; others suffer from conditions such as kidney disease/failure, confusion, and loss of immunity and painful joints. I wish to conclude this paper with the following quote from one of the victims of the US bombing: "Tell America, we are not fools. Your words and actions are those of evil. We do not have airplanes like you do, however, we have one thing that you do not have principles and morals. We will never do anything remotely similar to American children what Americans have done to our children and families. They might win some fights, but we have already won the big fight, the moral ground." (Nurullah Omar-Khail, March, 2003) Mohammed Daud Miraki, MA, MA, PhD Director Afghan DU & Recovery Fund Mdmiraki@ameritech.net -------- iran Report: Khan Network Offered Iran Nuclear Kit By REUTERS February 27, 2005 Filed at 7:09 a.m. ET http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-iran-nuclear.html?pagewanted=print&position= WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Investigators have found evidence of a meeting 18 years ago between Iranian officials and associates of the scientist dubbed the father of Pakistan's nuclear program that resulted in a written offer to supply Tehran with the makings of a nuclear weapons program, The Washington Post reported in its Sunday edition. Citing unnamed foreign diplomats and U.S. officials, The Post said the secret 1987 meeting in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, between Iranian officials and Abdul Qadeer Khan's associates started both Iran's nuclear efforts and Khan's black market. Iran, according to the newspaper, bought centrifuge designs and a starter kit for uranium enrichment. While Iran recently told the International Atomic Energy Agency it turned down the chance to buy the more sensitive equipment required for building the core of a bomb, there is evidence the country used Khan's offer as a guide to acquire some of the pricier items elsewhere, the newspaper said. It quoted an unnamed Western diplomat as saying the offer was the ``strongest indication to date that Iran had a nuclear weapons program, but it doesn't prove it completely.'' The newspaper said much of the equipment Iran obtained could be used for peaceful purposes and is scattered throughout Iran's energy program. The United States has accused Iran of secretly pursuing an atomic weapons program under the cover of its nuclear energy program. Tehran, however, insists its nuclear activities are focused on producing energy. The report surfaced as the IAEA prepares to meet next week. ---- Diplomats: Iran Got Nuke Know - How in '80s By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS February 27, 2005 Filed at 7:20 a.m. ET http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Nuclear-Agency-Iran.html VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- By the late 1980s, members of a black market network had handed Iran all the basic knowledge the Middle Eastern country needed to set up technology that can be used to make atomic weapons, diplomats familiar with an investigation of Iran's nuclear ambitions said Sunday. The officials, who are familiar with the work of the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency, spoke to The Associated Press on the eve of a board meeting of the U.N. nuclear watchdog that will discuss Iran and other potential world nuclear concerns. An agency probe over the past two years had earlier established that Iran ran a clandestine nuclear program for nearly two decades, including working on uranium enrichment -- which can be used to make weapons. Diplomats, who requested anonymity, said Saturday that the new revelations were significant because they indicated Iran had full possession of enrichment know-how from the black market network run by Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of Pakistan's atomic bomb, earlier than previously believed. On Sunday, the diplomats said that Iran turned over to the IAEA the initial written information provided by the Khan network as part of the country's cooperation with an agency probe of its suspect nuclear activities. One of the diplomats said that the information may be used by the United States as it considers reviving attempts to have Iran's nuclear dossier forwarded to the U.N. Security Council. But he said other countries were unlikely to go along because the new information was far from the ``smoking gun'' they sought to back American assertions that Tehran was covertly seeking nuclear weapons capacity. Nuclear concerns over Iran focus on its enrichment program because that can be used to process uranium for two purposes -- as fuel for power generation or as the core of warheads. Iran insists its nuclear aims are peaceful, while the United States and its key allies say Tehran is interested in making weapons. France, Britain and Germany are trying to secure an Iranian commitment to scrap enrichment plans in exchange for economic aid, technical support and backing for Tehran's efforts to join mainstream international organizations. Iran has suspended enrichment-related activities during talks with the Europeans but insists the freeze will be brief. Both sides have described the talks as difficult. Hassan Rowhani, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, accused the Europeans in a French newspaper interview published Friday of being ``incapable of keeping their promises.'' President Bush has expressed support for the European efforts. And State Department nonproliferation officials grudgingly accepted a decision by IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei not to publish a written report on the probe of Iran's nuclear activities for the first time in two years of board meetings because of lack of major new findings. Still, there was evidence before the IAEA board meeting Monday of an American effort to increase pressure on Tehran by the next agency board meeting in June, should the French, German and British talks fail. A confidential position paper being circulated by the Americans to the other board members and shared in part with the AP called for a new written report on Iran by the June meeting. Furthermore, it urged the June board meeting to ``take further action if needed'' against Iran -- in effect a demand that Tehran be hauled before the U.N. Security Council if there is any indication it was defying the agency board on nuclear matters. A separate, restricted U.S. document outlined the need for a ``Special Committee'' to deal with nations violating the Nonproliferation Treaty -- which Washington says Iran has done. Such a committee could ``make recommendations to the board'' to report suspect nations to the Security Council nations, said the document, leaked to the AP. European diplomats representing IAEA board members said the U.S. efforts were hurting the three-nation negotiations with Iran. ``Mr. Bush ... promises support of the European effort, while the board is presented with such papers -- a case of very unfortunate timing,'' said one senior European diplomat. Another European diplomat criticized the U.S. position paper for suggesting Iran was not negotiating in good faith with France, Germany and Britain, saying ``that is not for the U.S. but for the Europeans to decide.'' On the Net: http://www.iaea.org ---- Iran Was Offered Nuclear Parts Secret Meeting in 1987 May Have Begun Program By Dafna Linzer Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, February 27, 2005; Page A01 http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A56391-2005Feb26?language=printer International investigators have uncovered evidence of a secret meeting 18 years ago between Iranian officials and associates of Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan that resulted in a written offer to supply Tehran with the makings of a nuclear weapons program, foreign diplomats and U.S. officials familiar with the new findings said. The meeting, believed to have taken place in a dusty Dubai office in 1987, kick-started Tehran's nuclear efforts and Khan's black market. Iran, which was at war with Iraq then, bought centrifuge designs and a starter kit for uranium enrichment. But Tehran recently told the International Atomic Energy Agency that it turned down the chance to buy the more sensitive equipment required for building the core of a bomb. There is evidence, however, that Iran used the offer as a buyer's guide, acquiring some of the pricier items elsewhere, officials said. "The offer is the strongest indication to date that Iran had a nuclear weapons program, but it doesn't prove it completely," said one Western diplomat who is familiar with the details of the offer and would comment on the investigation only on the condition of anonymity. Much of the equipment that Iran obtained can be used for peaceful purposes and is scattered throughout Iran's energy program. Iran insists that its nuclear activities are aimed at producing nuclear energy, and IAEA inspectors have not found any weapons program underway now. The Bush administration charges that Iran is using the energy program as a cover for a secret effort to build nuclear weapons. Although the latest discoveries shed no light on Iran's current activities, diplomats believe they provide the most significant public information to date regarding Tehran's interest over the years in nuclear weapons technology and its possible intentions. The White House often focuses on those two areas when trying to explain why Iran should face greater international pressure. After prodding by the IAEA, Iran turned over a copy of the offer last month. Its contents, along with details of the Dubai meeting, were substantiated in interviews conducted by the agency in recent months, according to diplomats who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the investigation. The information comes as the IAEA's probe of Iran's nuclear program enters its third year. Tomorrow, the IAEA's 35-member board will meet in Vienna, as it does every three months, to discuss Iran's case and the agency's latest lines of inquiry. The Bush administration has tried unsuccessfully at board meetings to persuade members to send Iran's case to the U.N. Security Council, which has the authority to impose sanctions or an oil embargo. Some U.S. officials familiar with limited details of the new intelligence believe it could strengthen the case for U.N. referral. But the new information is unlikely to sway Britain, France and Germany from a negotiating path they began with Iran in November. European diplomats, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that although the new information reinforces suspicions, it is not enough to take the issue to the Security Council -- a move that would likely end their process with Iran. Since November, Iran's uranium enrichment facilities, which could be used to make the key ingredient for a bomb, have been shut down and are under constant IAEA monitoring as part of Tehran's deal with the three European powers. Iranian officials have said the suspension will continue as long as there is progress in negotiations. For Europe, the deal is meant to avert a crisis over Iran's nuclear program by finding diplomatic, rather than military, options. President Bush indicated during a trip to Europe last week that he would be willing to consider ways to assist the diplomatic process, although some of his top aides have long expressed concern that such a move would only strengthen Iran's clerical government. Over the last two years, the IAEA has uncovered an 18-year-old nuclear program, which the Iranians began in secret and in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. But because much of the equipment can be used for energy development and there is no evidence of past weapons work, the violations are technical and based on Iran's not reporting the program. IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei said recently that there is no new evidence to suggest Iran is working on a nuclear weapons program. But he gave no indication in an interview on Feb. 15 that the 1987 offer had been discovered weeks earlier and was being considered as a new development in the investigation. "There's not much happening on the nuclear file," he said then. But he made clear that the IAEA had learned much about Iran's programs over the years. "Iran tried to cover up many of their activities, and they learned the hard way." Aides, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said ElBaradei is expected to report to the board that Iran is honoring a suspension of its nuclear-related activities, as it committed to do in a deal it signed last year with European powers. But he also plans to chide the Islamic Republic for breaking the spirit of the accord. Since it was signed in November, Iran has carried out limited uranium-conversion work, quality control tests and maintenance on some equipment, and is constructing tunnels near a nuclear facility for storing materials in case of an attack. Beyond monitoring the suspension, the IAEA's investigation into the black market network that supplied Libya and Iran has led to several new lines of inquiry on Iran's program. Inspectors began pursuing the 1987 information in November. Several details have since come to light, but inspectors still lack a coherent picture. Diplomats believe the Dubai meeting was attended by as many as three Iranian officials, a Sri Lankan businessman named Mohamed Farouq who was friendly with Pakistan's Khan, and a German named Heinz Mebus, who was one of Khan's original suppliers. Mebus is deceased and Farouq's whereabouts are unknown. Khan's network of nuclear manufacturers and suppliers stretched across more than 30 countries and sold goods to Iran, Libya and North Korea. He was put out of business in 2003, mostly as a result of the Iran investigation and the exposure of Libya's now-dismantled weapons program. Farouq's nephew, B.S. Tahir, is in jail in Malaysia for his role in the network and its sales to Libya. Tahir was recently questioned by IAEA officials and by the CIA, U.S. and foreign diplomats involved in the Khan investigations said. Khan, who often sold his products through friends and intermediaries while he ran Pakistan's nuclear program, did not attend the meeting. He and several associates are under house arrest in Pakistan and are off-limits to U.S. and foreign interrogators. But the IAEA learned enough about the meeting to prod Iran again about the offer, and last month Iranian official produced a copy for inspectors. Two Western diplomats familiar with its contents described it as a five-point, phased plan in which the network offered to supply Iran with drawings for Pakistani centrifuges and then a starter kit of one or two centrifuges. Phase three included as many as 2,000 centrifuges, which could be used to enrich bomb-grade uranium. Auxiliary items for the centrifuges and enrichment process would have been delivered afterward, followed by reconversion and casting equipment for building the core of a bomb. Khan and his associates stood to gain millions from the sales, but the agency believes Iran outsmarted the dealers by buying much of the equipment and technology at lower prices from European, Russian and Chinese competitors during the early 1990s. The equipment was used for programs that could develop nuclear energy, and there is no evidence the materials were assembled in a manner consistent with bomb-building. "Iran had its own procurement network and bought a lot of stuff themselves," said David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, who has monitored the Iran and the Khan investigations. "But this offer would also show that even this early on, Pakistan was willing to go the extra mile to help Iran get the bomb. Maybe Iran didn't take the offer, maybe Pakistan wanted too much money, but what's new is that Iran got a guide, and if you have a guide it's a lot easier to do." ---- Iran offered black market nuclear materials 18 years ago: report WASHINGTON (AFP) Feb 27, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050227132049.00tzniaf.html Associates of Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan offered to sell Iran the makings of a nuclear weapons program after a secret meeting in Dubai 18 years ago, The Washington Post reported Sunday. "The offer is the strongest indication to date that Iran had a nuclear weapons program, but it doesn't prove it completely," a Western diplomat told the paper on condition of anonymity. Iran provided a copy of the offer last month to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which is investigating Iran's nuclear program. Iran insists its nuclear activities have been solely geared toward producing nuclear energy. The 1987 meeting in Dubai was attended by up to three Iranian officials and associates of disgraced Pakistani scientist Khan, according to the Post. Khan, who is now known to have run an international nuclear smuggling ring, did not attend. The meeting resulted in a five-point phased plan to furnish Iran with nuclear materials including 2,000 centrifuges and equipment for building the core of a bomb, according to the Post report. Iranian officials told the IAEA it bought centrifuge designs and a starter kit for uranium enrichment, but turned down more sensitive equipment. Evidence suggests, however, that Iran went on to buy much of the equipment and technology outlined in the offer from other sellers at cheaper prices. "Iran had its own procurement network and bought a lot of stuff," David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, told the Post. "This offer would also show that even this early on, Pakistan was willing to go the extra mile to help Iran get the bomb," he said. "Maybe Iran didn't take the offer, maybe Pakistan wanted too much money, but what's new is that Iran got a guide, and if you have a guide it's a lot easier to do." IAEA chief Mohammed ElBaradei is expected to tell a meeting of the agency's board in Vienna on Monday that Iran was honoring a suspension of its nuclear-related activities, according to the Post. But he will take Tehran to task for "breaking the spirit of the accord," the Post said, by carrying out limited uranium enrichment tests, quality control and maintenance work, and constructing storage tunnels near a nuclear facility. Tehran agreed to freeze its nuclear fuel work in a deal with the European Union late last year. In return the EU has held talks on offering Iran trade, technology and security rewards, but concern over possible violations remains high. ---- Timeline of Iran's nuclear standoff TEHRAN (AFP) Feb 27, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050227130902.87wzdblw.html Iran and Russia on Sunday signed a landmark nuclear fuel accord that paves the way for the firing up of the Islamic republic's first atomic power station, a project the United States alleges is part of a cover for weapons development. Following is a chronology of major dates in Iran's standoff with the West over its nuclear activities: -- 2002 -- Dec 12-13: Satellite photographs broadcast by US television stations reveal the existence of nuclear sites at Arak, southwest of Tehran, and Natanz in the centre of the country, which the US media claims could have a military use. Iran agrees to an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspection. -- 2003 -- Feb 21: IAEA head Mohammed ElBaradei visits Iran to verify Tehran's claims that its nuclear programme is peaceful, contrary to Washington's assertion that the country is preparing to build nuclear weapons. June 19: IAEA requests that Iran sign on to an additional protocol of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and allow unannounced inspections of its nuclear sites. Aug 26: Teheran says it will allow unannounced inspections, but demands guarantees that the inspectors will not divulge its strategic military secrets. A confidential UN report reveals that Iran has developed two kinds of enriched uranium that are not needed for peaceful energy production. Nov 10: An internal IAEA report states: "At the moment, there is no proof that Iran is creating nuclear weapons," a conclusion dismissed by the United States. Dec 18: Iran signs the additional NPT protocol allowing unannounced inspections of nuclear sites. -- 2004 -- April 4: Iran denies having any secret nuclear sites, insisting that its experimental use of a uranium enrichment site in Isfahan, south of Tehran, does not violate any of its NPT obligations. May 21: Iran hands over a more than 1,000-page report to the IAEA. June 1: IAEA claims to have found new traces of enriched uranium that exceeded the levels necessary for civilian energy production. July 31: Iran admits to having resumed production of parts for centrifuges that are used for enriching uranium, but insists that it has not resumed its enrichment activities. Aug 28: Iranian President Mohammad Khatami says the IAEA must accept Iran's right under the NPT to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. Sept 1: An IAEA report says a number of Iran's claims concerning its nuclear development are "plausible" but expresses renewed concern over Iran's decision to resume large-scale production of the feed material for enriching uranium. US Secretary of State Colin Powell says the IAEA report warrants Security Council action. Sept 13: IAEA board of governors meeting gets under way in Vienna. Sept 14: Iran refuses to accept an unlimited suspension of uranium enrichment and says it will not stop manufacturing centrifuges. Sept 18: IAEA gives deadline of November 25 for Tehran to reveal all its nuclear activities. Sept 21: Iran say it has resumed large-scale conversion of uranium yellowcake ore, a step towards uranium enrichment. Oct 21: Berlin, London and Paris call for Tehran to suspend all uranium enrichment activities to avoid its case being brought before the Security Council, offering incentives for it to do so. Oct 31: The Iranian parliament passes bill approving resumption of enrichment activities. Nov 5-6: Talks in Paris, followed by announcement of "preliminary agreement". Nov 14: Iran accepts complete suspension of uranium enrichment activities while further talks are held. Nov 22: Suspension of enrichment takes effect, a move hailed by the IAEA, although Iran later says it will resume the activity in future and that it will "never renounce" its right to enrich uranium. Dec 13: Talks open between Iran and EU. -- 2005 -- Jan 13: IAEA inspectors visit Parchin site southeast of Tehran. Feb 13: Iran says it will not give up construction of a heavy water reactor which can be used for military purposes, despite an EU offer of a light-water reactor. Feb 27: Iran and Russia sign nuclear fuel accord that paves the way for the start-up of the Bushehr plant. Russia will fuel the reactor on condition that Iran sends back spent fuel, which could be upgraded to weapons use. ---- Russia to Deliver Nuclear Fuel to Iran February 27, 2005 By BRIAN KNOWLTON International Herald Tribune http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/27/international/middleeast/27cnd-policy.html? WASHINGTON, Feb. 27 - Russia agreed today to provide fuel for an Iranian nuclear reactor and sought to assure a wary world that tough safeguards would prevent any diversion of the fuel to build weapons. But the accord, vigorously opposed by the United States, carried a potential to undercut European-led efforts to curb the Iranian nuclear program, and it brought calls from some in Washington for a tougher stance on Russia. It came only three days after President Bush, who has sharply denounced the Iranian program, expressed his trust in President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia and joined with him in saying that Iran should not have nuclear weapons. The White House had no immediate comment on the agreement, but lawmakers responded sharply. The agreement "calls for sterner measures taken between ourselves and Russia," said Senator John McCain of Arizona, a Republican leader in security matters. "It has got to, at some point, begin to harm our relations." He called the accord "almost aberrational." Representative Jane Harman of California, the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee, agreed. "This is the time to be tough with Russia," she said on CNN. "Iran going nuclear is a danger for the entire world, including Russia." Senator McCain said that the Group of Eight industrial countries should exclude Mr. Putin from its next summit meeting, in Edinburgh in July. He told Fox News that the United States should support European diplomatic efforts to persuade Iran, through incentives, to permanently halt any weapons-related activities. But Europe, he added, should then support a call by the United States for United Nations sanctions if Iran fails to comply. "We'd send much more powerful messages if we agreed with our European allies," Mr. McCain said. The proponents of a tough line on Iran also pointed to a report today of a secret 1987 meeting in Dubai that reportedly led to an offer by associates of Abdul Qadeer Khan, who once led the Pakistani nuclear program, to supply Tehran with nuclear weapons components. The Washington Post, citing foreign diplomats and United States officials, said that the meeting had helped Iran launch its nuclear efforts. But it said that Tehran had recently told the International Atomic Energy Agency that it had turned down the chance to buy some sensitive bomb-making equipment from the Khan group. Iran might, however, have used the highly detailed Pakistani proposal as a guide for purchasing equipment elsewhere, the officials said. The Pakistani network sold nuclear equipment to Iran, Libya and North Korea before the Islamabad government closed it down in 2003, according to American officials. Mr. Khan and some colleagues are under house arrest in Pakistan. Iran insists that its nuclear work is devoted solely to energy production, but United States officials have said they fear it is a cover for weapons development. An Iranian bomb, they say, would be deeply destabilizing to the region and could pose a terrorist threat. American media reports that the administration might be contemplating military action on Iranian nuclear facilities have rattled Europeans. Asked about the possibility last week during his European tour, Mr. Bush dismissed such an attack as "ridiculous" but then added incongruously to the ears of some Europeans that he could not rule anything out. But the Russian-Iranian agreement today included an important clause meant to assure worried outsiders: that Tehran would return spent fuel to Moscow. Iran initially had rejected the demand, but needed a fuel source for the $800 million Bushehr nuclear plant, built with Russian assistance. Spent fuel can be reprocessed to make plutonium for military uses. The Russian Federal Atomic Energy Agency has insisted that the plutonium that could thus be obtained is scant and "practically useless for making a nuclear weapon." Outside specialists disagree, saying spent fuel could be used to build several rudimentary atomic bombs a year. The first Russian fuel shipments to Iran could begin within two months, Russian officials said. Iran's uranium enrichment facilities have been closed since November by agreement with the Europeans subject to their talks continuing - and are being monitored by the I.A.E.A. The agency has found no evidence of weapons work, though some of the nuclear research can be used for civilian or military purposes. Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former United States national security adviser, defended the Russia-Iran agreement today, though he said it underscored the urgency of closer United States cooperation with Britain, France and Germany on Iran. "The Russians are actually acting in consonance with international law," he said on the CBS News program "Face the Nation." "The Iranians do have a right to have a nuclear program." "The key question will be whether the spent fuel is returned to Russia, and that can be monitored," he said. "So I don't really fault the Russians for doing this." But Senator McCain was not nearly as sanguine. Mr. McCain, who has often criticized Mr. Putin for moves considered anti-democratic, said the Russian president was acting "like a spoiled child." "The United States and our European allies, I think, should start out by saying, 'Vladimir, you're not welcome at the next G-8 conference,' " Mr. McCain said. David Manning, the British ambassador to Washington, disagreed with Mr. McCain. "Certainly we think Russia should participate" in the Group of 8 meeting, he said on CNN, noting that Russia is set to host the group's 2006 meeting. He said Britain had no problem with the Russia-Iran agreement, because it will be "under full-scope safeguards." Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a ranking Republican member of the Armed Services Committee, supported the call for a tougher approach to Russia, saying that an exclusion from the G-8 meeting should at least be considered. It was time, he said, "for the Russian government to pay a price for empowering the bad guys." ---- Iran and Russia Delay Signing Fuel Accord For a Reactor February 27, 2005 By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/27/international/middleeast/27tehran.html TEHRAN, Feb. 26 (AP) - Last-minute disputes led Iran and Russia on Saturday to postpone the signing of an agreement to supply Iran with fuel for its first nuclear reactor, a deal the United States strongly opposes. Russia and Iran's top nuclear officials had been set to sign the agreement on Saturday morning. Muhammad Saeedi, deputy director of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, attributed the postponement to differences over the delivery time of the first shipment of fuel and the opening of the nuclear power plant, built with Russian help, in Bushehr, a southern town. Mr. Saeedi said the deal might be signed Sunday in Bushehr. Under the agreement, Russia would provide Iran with fuel and take back the spent fuel, a safeguard meant to address concerns that Iran would misuse it to build nuclear weapons. United Nations nuclear specialists also would monitor the plant. Still, the United States has pressed Russia to call off the deal, saying that Iran could use the Bushehr reactor as part of a nuclear weapons program. At their summit meeting on Thursday in Bratislava, Slovakia, President Bush and President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia touched on American concerns, but Mr. Putin has said he is sure Iran does not intend to build nuclear weapons and Russian cooperation with the country would continue. Russia helped build the $800 million Bushehr reactor, which is complete. It is a light-water reactor capable of generating 1,000 megawatts of electricity. Specialists say spent fuel from the Bushehr reactor could be used to produce enough plutonium to make 30 rudimentary atomic bombs a year. Russia could be delivering nuclear fuel to Iran within two months after the deal was signed, Nikolai Shingarov, a spokesman for Alexander Rumyantsev, the director of Russia's Federal Atomic Energy Agency, said last week. Russian officials insist that the deal to return the spent fuel would make it impossible for Iran to divert the fuel for a weapons program. Mr. Rumyantsev arrived in Tehran on Friday night ahead of the signing of the fuel supply agreement with Vice President Gholamreza Aghazadeh, the director of Iran's Atomic Energy Agency. After hours of delay Saturday morning, Yacoub Jabbarian, an official at Iran's agency, said the talks had been prolonged and it was unclear when the signing would take place. An Iranian nuclear official said "deep differences" had arisen, but the official would not elaborate. -------- korea U.S. and Its Allies Offer to Expand North Korea Talks February 27, 2005 By REUTERS http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/27/international/27korea.html SEOUL, South Korea, Feb. 26 (Reuters) - South Korean, Japanese and American negotiators agreed Saturday that they could discuss all issues of concern to North Korea in an effort to bring it back to six-nation talks on its nuclear ambitions. But the negotiators stopped short of offering concessions. Representatives of the three countries met for the first time since North Korea hinted last week that it might be ready to resume negotiations under the right conditions. On Feb. 10, North Korea declared that it had nuclear weapons and was also pulling out of the talks. Discussions to coordinate positions among the three allies had preceded previous rounds of the six-nation talks, which also include North Korea, China and Russia. "We urge the North to return to the talks without delay, and stressed that the talks are a forum to discuss all issues, including North Korea's concerns," said the South Korean deputy foreign minister, Song Min Soon. Participants in Saturday's session included the American ambassador to South Korea, Christopher R. Hill, and an official from the Japanese Foreign Ministry, Kenichiro Sasae. Mr. Song declined to say whether the three allies were prepared to offer concessions to North Korea for returning to the talks. Saturday's meeting follows a senior Chinese envoy's visit to North Korea last week as Beijing tried to restart a process it had helped lead. The North Korean leader, Kim Jong Il, told the envoy, Wang Jiarui, that North Korea would return to the talks if the conditions were right and the United States showed "trustworthy sincerity." In June, the United States and South Korea presented a blueprint for North Korea to freeze and then dismantle all its nuclear projects in return for "corresponding measures." North Korea countered by demanding compensation first. -------- missile defense Divergent Paths: Canada Breaks With U.S. Over Missile Shield February 27, 2005 By CLIFFORD KRAUSS The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/27/international/americas/27canada.html TORONTO, Feb. 26 - "If a missile is going over Canadian airspace, I want to know, I want to be at the table," Paul Martin said while still running for the leadership of the Liberal Party in April 2003. His support for a missile defense system was consistent with more than a half century of Canadian national security policy of sharing responsibility for continental defense with the United States, even in times when the two countries sharply disagreed on Cuba, Vietnam and most recently Iraq. But on Thursday, Mr. Martin, now prime minister, reversed course and said that Canada would not take part with Washington in the development of a missile defense shield, essentially because he faced a rebellion on the issue at a Liberal Party conference next month. Mr. Martin tried to frame the decision as a matter of priorities, preferring to emphasize increased cooperation with the United States on securing the borders against terrorists and building up the armed forces, even though the Bush administration had asked for little more than moral support for the new system. Many national security experts, however, consider his announcement to be a fundamental shift in relations, more abrupt even than the decision by Mr. Martin's predecessor, Jean Chrétien, not to take part in the invasion of Iraq. "It's a big departure," said David J. Bercuson, director of the Center for Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary. "Anytime we have had a major evolution in North American defense policy since 1940 the two countries have been together." Some experts say Mr. Martin's decision will weaken the North American Aerospace Defense Command, or Norad, the bilateral organization that since 1958 has enforced control of the skies over Canada and the United States with jointly operated ground-based radar, airborne radar, satellites and fighter aircraft. The agreement establishing Norad is coming up for renewal in 2006. Christopher Sands, a Canada policy expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said it would now be difficult for the two countries to expand Norad to include coordination of land defenses and water patrols, as Canadian officials have suggested. "Norad could disappear," he said, with the United States military's Northern Command and the United States agencies created for missile defense assuming the traditional Norad tracking and intelligence operations. "I see this as a big break," Mr. Sands said. "This is the first time that Canada has refused to participate in a system that partially defends itself." From time to time, the two countries have had different views on continental defense, particularly in the late 1950's and early 1960's, when there was a sharp public debate in Canada over the stationing of nuclear-tipped Bomarc-B antiaircraft missiles in Ontario and Quebec. A Conservative government fell over the issue, and the warheads were delivered, although they were later withdrawn by Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Nevertheless, Mr. Trudeau allowed President Ronald Reagan to test American nuclear cruise missiles over sub-Arctic Canada, and joint American-Canadian military radar outposts watched over the Arctic for a Soviet nuclear attack throughout the cold war. Canadian diplomats say they do not consider the missile defense decision to be a watershed, but they are concerned about how the White House, Congress and the United States military will interpret it, especially after President Bush made a concerted lobbying effort for the program during a visit here last year. Mr. Martin has made an effort to smooth relations with the Bush administration, which suffered as a result of the Iraq war and the chilly rapport between Mr. Chrétien and Mr. Bush. But Mr. Martin preferred to use his political capital in recent months defending same-sex marriage legislation rather than fighting elements of his party on the missile defense system. Canadian officials were looking forward to a possible meeting between Mr. Martin, President Vicente Fox of Mexico and Mr. Bush in Texas next month. Mr. Martin has indicated that he wants to use a meeting to propose an expansion of the North American Free Trade Agreement, thereby averting squabbles over softwood lumber and other products. But now Canadian and American policy experts say Mr. Bush will be less likely to be receptive. "The Canadians seem to be trying to find ways to deepen the relationship," noted Robert A. Pastor, director of the Center for North American Studies at American University. "But part of the question is how President Bush will respond." The Canadian decision was sharply criticized by the United States ambassador, Paul Cellucci, and drew him into a rare public disagreement with Mr. Martin. "We simply cannot understand why Canada would in effect give up its sovereignty - its seat at the table - to decide what to do about a missile that might be coming toward Canada," Mr. Cellucci said. "We will deploy. We will defend North America." Mr. Martin insisted that he was defending Canada's sovereignty. "This is our airspace, we're a sovereign nation, and you don't intrude on a sovereign nation's airspace without seeking permission," he said. -------- russia For Russia, nuclear deal with Iran puts trust with US to test MOSCOW (AFP) Feb 27, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050227130818.llksyk9w.html Russia won a major victory under the letter of the law in signing a deal with Iran Sunday on return of spent civilian nuclear fuel, but the pact will put US-Russian trust in a shared spirit of weapons proliferation control to a critical test, experts say. Even as the ink was drying on the agreement signed by Russian and Iranian nuclear officials at the site of the Islamic republic's first nuclear power station, officials in Moscow tempered their satisfaction at the deal with fresh assurances that the process was under the tightest control. "Russia's signature with Iran of the agreement on return of spent nuclear fuel does not mean that delivery of Russian nuclear fuel to this country is to start immediately," foreign ministry spokesman Alexander Yakovenko was quoted by Interfax news agency as saying. The comment suggested that despite securing a legal go-ahead to proceed with its construction of the plant at Bushehr and winning the crucial commitment from Iran that many states have made a prerequisite for the plant to be built, Russia was nonetheless proceeding with high caution. While the international consensus prior to Sunday's agreement suggested that a commitment from Iran to relinquish possession of spent nuclear fuel would be sufficient to assent to Russia's building of the plant, it was uncertain whether that view would hold as the project advanced. The United States and Israel have led the charge against Iran's nuclear program, and on a swing through Europe earlier this month US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Tehran's nuclear ambition "has to be seen in context as Iran is in other ways out of step" in the Middle East. In Washington's tough line on Iran's nuclear program, many in Russia see not just an obvious concern to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction and try to enhance stability in the Middle East but also an unstated design to thwart Russia's commercial and strategic interests. "The US is not using this subject as a strategic resource but as a bargaining chip in its relations with Russia," Konstantin Kosachyov, head of the Russian State Duma's foreign affairs committee, was quoted by Interfax news agency as saying earlier this month. "The US's firm position on Iran is being used to drive back and limit Russia's positions," he said. Those positions, from Moscow's point of view, include not just completion of the 800 million-dollar Bushehr nuclear power station but strategic commercialization of its civilian nuclear expertise at other projects in Iran, the Middle East and elsewhere in the world. Several days prior to his summit meeting with US President George W. Bush in Bratislava last Thursday, President Vladimir Putin met at the Kremlin with Iran's top nuclear negotiator and said afterwards Russia was certain Iran had "no intention" of trying to manufacture a nuclear weapon. Putin and Bush then sang in unison at the summit, with both leaders agreeing that Iran must not be permitted to acquire a nuclear weapon. Putin and other top Russian officials have stressed that few countries have more interest than Russia in making sure Iran does not get the bomb. But behind the scenes in Washington, US officials and security experts question whether even the strictest verification measures would suffice to make certain Iran never acquired the capacity to enrich uranium to weapons-grade levels. With US worries in mind, Russia has stressed that its contract for construction of a nuclear power plant in Iran violates no law or international agreement and will go ahead only if Tehran gives the watertight assurances the world has demanded that it will not pursue uranium enrichment. "The Americans are against it," Viktor Kremenyuk, head of the Moscow-based think tank USA-Canada Institute, said of the Russian deal to build the plant in Iran. "But we have told them: 'If you fear that this nuclear program could be used for military purposes, have the IAEA verify it'. Russia however will not accept... pressure from Washington to limit its own nuclear program." Rose Gottemoeller, a former US official working on nuclear nonproliferation issues, wrote in an analysis published by the Carnegie Moscow Center that despite US concerns over the Russian project at Bushehr, Moscow may be better placed than anyone to contain Iran's nuclear program. "In Iran, Russia's long-running diplomacy might enable progress toward goals that the United States could never achieve on its own, given the 25-year hiatus in direct contacts between Tehran and Washington," Gottemoeller, deputy undersecretary of energy for defense nuclear nonproliferation in the administration of former US president Bill Clinton, wrote. ---- Exclude Russia from G8 meeting after nukes deal with Iran: US Senator WASHINGTON (AFP) Feb 27, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050227195150.1gt189ik.html Two top US senators on Sunday called for a tougher stance against Russia, after a landmark nuclear fuel deal between Moscow and Tehran. Influential Senator John McCain, a former Republican presidential candidate, called for Russia's exclusion from a G8 meeting later this year and has also introduced a Senate resolution urging President George W. Bush to take action to suspend Moscow from the exclusive club. His remarks came after this week's meeting between Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Slovakia, where the US leader expressed concern to his Russian counterpart about Moscow's approach to democracy. Washington and its European allies should tell Putin, "'Vladimir, you're not welcome at the next G8 conference' -- at least to start with," McCain told Fox News. "That has some symbology associated about it." "We should be worried about this latest deal between Russia and Iran, because Iran does not need nuclear power, and obviously this is a regime which became much more oppressive and repressive over the last couple of years." The accord Sunday between Iran and Russia on Sunday paves the way for the firing up of the country's first atomic power station, a project the United States alleges is part of a cover for weapons development. "I think this latest step of the Russians vis-a-vis the agreement with the Iranians calls for sterner measures to be taken between ourselves and Russia," McCain said. "It has got to, at some point, begin to harm our relations, because we can't stand by and allow Russia to continue to behave -- it's almost aberrational." McCain said developed countries should also give Russia the cold shoulder for its failure to adhere to democratic principles. "Vladimir Putin seems to me to be acting somewhat like a spoiled child. He tried to interfere in the elections in Ukraine ... He throws people in jail. He now is repressing the press. He is now appointing governors of all the provinces in Russia," the Arizona Republican said. "Every step he takes seems to be headed toward a restoration of the old Russian empire. And this is not good," said McCain. Fellow Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said Washington should "make a full-court press to get Russia to come to realize that a nuclear Iran is not a stabilizing influence; it's a destabilizing influence." Graham, who returned from a trip in Afghanistan and Iraq, told CNN that "every military leader I talked to spoke of efforts by the Iranian government to destabilize Afghanistan and Iraq." "Iran is part of the problem, not the solution. And the Russian government is ignoring reality," he said. "I hope the Russian government will stop this empowering of Iran," Graham said. "It is time for the Russian government to pay a price for empowering the bad guys and slipping back away from democracy. It's time for freedom-loving nations to stand up and say, 'Enough already.'" Asked if Moscow should be kicked out of the G8, he said: "If that would make a difference, put it on the table." "We cannot win this war on terror if people are undercutting us," he said. "And one way to undercut us is to empower Iran. Leading European envoys in the United States, meanwhile, said they disagreed withe the idea of excluding Russia from the G-8 meeting. "Certainly we think Russia should participate. It's going to be in the chair next year" said David Manning, Britain's ambassador to the United States. But Russian participation, he added "is on the basis of the shared commitment to the policies that the G-8 represents," he told CNN television, in comments that were echoed on the same program by French ambassador Jean-David Levitte and German ambassador to the United States Wolfgang Ischinger. Manning added that he was not perturbed by the Russian-Iranian energy agreement. "This is not a new deal," he said. "We don't have a problem with it. "We've known this has been in the pipeline for some time. And what is it implies the Russians will supply the fuel, that the Iranians will use it, and they will do so under full-scope safeguards," he said. "This will be monitored very carefully," said Manning. ---- Iran, Russia sign landmark deal to fire up controversial nuclear plant TEHRAN (AFP) Feb 27, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050227143235.itcdgzgi.html Iran and Russia on Sunday signed a landmark nuclear fuel accord that paves the way for the firing up of the country's first atomic power station, a project the United States alleges is part of a cover for weapons development. Under the deal, which would cap an 800-million-dollar contract to build and bring the Bushehr plant on line, Russia will fuel the reactor on condition that Iran sends back spent fuel, which could potentially be upgraded to weapons use. Iranian media said Russia's top atomic energy official Alexander Rumyantsev and his Iranian counterpart Gholamreza Aghazadeh inked the deal during a tour of the Russian-built power plant at Bushehr in southern Iran. Washington is convinced that Iran is seeking to build atomic weapons -- charges that Tehran denies -- and has been trying to convince Moscow to halt its nuclear cooperation. The condition that spent fuel be returned was built into the deal as a concession to Western concerns. Tehran initially rejected the condition, but eventually relented after two years of negotiations. The dispute over spent fuel had pushed the plant's opening back to January 2006. The deal faced a further snag Saturday when Iran objected to a Russian proposal to further delay firing up the plant's reactor. Russia's ITAR-TASS news agency quoted Rumyantsev as saying the plant is scheduled to go online at the end of 2006, with 100 tonnes of fuel to be delivered about six months before. Aghazadeh told state television that Bushehr was likely to be fully equipped within 10 months, with tests taking place by mid-2006. Russian diplomats say the United States has been lobbying against Moscow's involvement in Iran's nuclear programme "on a daily basis" -- but Russia has stuck by the lucrative contract and an option to build a second reactor at Bushehr along with plants at other locations. They say the huge contract has helped save Russia's atomic energy industry, and emphasise there is no way that Bushehr -- also under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) scrutiny -- could constitute part of a weapons programme. In Washington's tough line on Iran, some in Russia see an unstated aim to thwart Russia's commercial and strategic interests. The United States argues Iran -- lumped into an "axis of evil" -- has no need for nuclear energy because of its massive oil and gas reserves and wants to see Tehran hauled before the UN Security Council for possible sanctions. Tehran counters that it needs to free up fossil fuels for export and meet increased energy demands from a burgeoning population. Iran also intends to produce its own nuclear fuel for future plants -- hoped to produce 7,000 megawatts of electricity by 2020 -- a drive at the centre of the current stand-off with the international community. While Bushehr symbolises Iran's nuclear ambitions, of greater Western concern is its work on the nuclear fuel cycle elsewhere in the country. Britain, France and Germany have been trying to persuade Tehran to permanently stop enriching uranium -- which can be directed to both civil and military uses -- in return for a package of incentives. Enrichment for peaceful purposes is permitted under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and Iran insists it only wants to enrich uranium to levels required for civil purposes. The clerical regime also argues it does not want to be dependent on foreign fuel -- a position likely to be reinforced by the difficulties encountered in negotiating Russian supplies. "Enrichment is not negotiable," nuclear negotiator and top cleric Hassan Rowhani told state media on his return to Tehran from a visit to Paris and Berlin. A two-year probe by the IAEA, the UN body that monitors the NPT, has uncovered suspect activity by Iran, but no conclusive "smoking gun" to prove it has military plans for its programme. According to a report in The Washington Post, associates of disgraced Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan offered to sell Iran the makings of a nuclear weapons programme after a secret meeting in Dubai 18 years ago. The report said while Iranian officials told the IAEA that Tehran turned down more sensitive equipment, evidence suggests that Iran went on to buy much of the equipment and technology outlined in the offer from other sellers at cheaper prices. ---- Russia stipulates fuel return in bid to ease alarm over Iran nuclear deal TEHRAN (AFP) Feb 27, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050227134108.rfgyj4z6.html Russia's deal with Iran to fire up the Islamic republic's controversial nuclear programme stipulates that spent fuel will be returned -- a clause that Moscow says will remove any fears the operation could diverted to military uses. The demand that all spent fuel be rapatriated has been a concession to the United States, which accuses Iran of trying to acquire nuclear weapons and has been lobbying Russia to halt its work on Iran's Bushehr power plant altogether. But Russia has refused to drop the lucrative contract -- valued at 800 million dollars -- and in December 2002 announced that Iran was willing to guarantee that all used fuel would be returned. Iran had initially rejected the demand, but without fuel the plant would have effectively served as a useless concrete hulk -- meaning Tehran had little choice but to bow to Moscow's condition. Spent fuel from the plant could potentially be reprocessed to make plutonium for military uses -- meaning the plant would further add to fears over Iran's parallel uranium enrichment programme. But Russia's Federal Atomic Energy Agency, Rosatom, has consistently argued that the risk of Bushehr's spent fuel eventually ending up in a bomb is minimal. "In the process of the functioning of the VVER-1000 reactor, plutonium does effectively accumulate in the fuel but only in a relatively weak quantity -- less than one percent -- and therefore is practically useless for making a nuclear weapon," a Rosatom representative, Nikolai Shingarev, said recently. "Furthermore, the extration of plutonium is a very complex operation that requires alot of time and enormous expenditure. Theoretically it is possible... but there are easier ways to build a bomb." But Sunday's signing of the fuel deal came after what have been two years of complex negotiations and haggling over issues including a timetable for deliveries, methods of transport and who should pay the bill. Some hardliners in Iran also believe that regardless of the accord, the country should hang on to its spent fuel. But the true focus of international concerns is not Bushehr, but others sites across the country where Iran has been working on mastering the fuel cycle itself -- so as to become independent. These sites are spread around cities in the centre and north: Natanz, Isfahan, Tehran, Arak, Karaj and Kashan. ---- Five facts about Iran-Russia nuclear deal 27 Feb 2005 12:16:42 GMT Source: Reuters http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L27400628.htm TEHRAN, Feb 27 (Reuters) - Iran and Russia signed a nuclear fuel supply deal on Sunday which will allow Tehran to start up its first nuclear power plant in 2006. Here are some facts about the deal. * Under the deal, Russia will supply Iran with enriched uranium for Iran's first nuclear reactor in Bushehr on Iran's southern Gulf coast. * The first fuel is expected to be delivered to Iran from Siberia in mid-2006. Bushehr will be commissioned in late-2006. * To allay concerns of Washington, which is bitterly opposed to the deal, Iran will return spent fuel from the reactor to Russia. Spent nuclear reactor fuel can be reprocessed to make bomb-grade plutonium. Iran denies U.S. charges that it is secretly developing nuclear arms. * Bushehr will have an operating capacity of 1,000 MW. Iran says it wants to generate 7,000 MW of its growing electricity needs from nuclear reactors by 2021. Iran and Russia are currently in talks over the construction of a second reactor at Bushehr. * Construction of Bushehr was begun with the help of German and French scientists by the U.S.-backed Shah before the 1979 Islamic revolution. The plant was badly damaged during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war. The project was later revived with Russian help and has cost about $800 million to build. -------- terrorism Amidst The Threat of ‘Dirty Bob’ Nuclear Expert Urges Tighter Global Security He stressed that it is critical to prepare the public and media for one of these events, "which will happen," by educating them that radiological threat is very different than a nuclear bomb. 27th February 2005 a2mediagroup.com http://www.a2mediagroup.com/?c=50&a=2282&sid=261d324303d5d61e79fbed1ffd4e0816 Siegfried Hecker, one of the world's foremost experts on nuclear weapons, warned that terrorists could steal or purchase sufficient weapons-usable materials to build a crude nuclear weapon and devastate a large city. Speaking at a AAAS lecture, he listed the most likely sources of such nuclear materials as Pakistan, followed by North Korea; highly enriched uranium-fueled research reactors around the world; Russia; Kazakhstan; and Iran. International cooperation, especially with Russia, is required to tighten security of fissile materials around the world to prevent them from getting into the hands of terrorists, said the former director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory. "The likelihood of terrorists getting hold of such materials is not great, but it's not zero," Hecker said in comments after the talk. "And since the consequences are so devastating, each country that possesses fissile materials must do everything to secure them." The highest-probability nuclear threat posed by terrorists is the detonation of a radiological or "dirty bomb," he said. The radioactive materials for creating such a weapon are ubiquitous and are typically used for scientific, medical, agricultural and industrial purposes. But there would be no mushroom cloud—the dispersal would be limited and the radiation might not be lethal on a massive scale. A dirty bomb is "a weapon of mass disruption, not destruction," he said at the February talk organized by the AAAS Center for Science, Technology and Security Policy. Still, he said, it could cause "severe" fear, panic and economic disruption. Even as homeland security officials and scientists work to thwart the terrorists, Hecker said, they could do much to prepare the public and the news media for the possibility of such an attack. Though intelligence experts have warned that terrorists are likely seeking to obtain a nuclear device, such a bomb would be difficult to obtain and difficult to detonate. But a "dirty bomb" is much different. It would typically combine a conventional explosive with readily available radioactive material, with the blast used to disperse that material. While it may not contain enough of a concentrated radiation dose to kill many people or make them sick, it could contaminate an area of perhaps several square blocks of a city. Hecker said the U.S. could counter the threat by doing more to protect the sources and reduce the supply of low-grade radioactive materials around the world. He stressed that it is critical to prepare the public and media for one of these events, "which will happen," by educating them that radiological threat is very different than a nuclear bomb. Hecker explained the evolution of the changing nuclear threat as having begun with the devastating bombing of Japan near the close of World War II. The magnitude of the destruction in Japan showed the world that the use of nuclear weapons could end civilization as we know it. Thus, in the ensuing decades, the U.S. has used its nuclear capabilities as a deterrent in containing the expansion of the former Soviet Union, which had developed its own nuclear program. Since the Soviet collapse, the United States has been working to help secure the materials and the nuclear know-how in chaotic Russia and other states of the former Soviet Union. Today, the goal of such activity is to prevent a nuclear weapon or related materials from falling into the hands of terrorists. He believes that the terrorists who unleashed the havoc of 9/11 would show no restraint should they acquire nuclear weapons or the materials necessary for their manufacture. "The key is to keep weapons-usable materials out of the hands of terrorists," he said. Hecker has long been concerned about the proliferation of nuclear weapons. As the director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory from 1986 to 1997 and now a senior fellow at the lab, he is recognized as one of the world's experts on plutonium. He was the last U.S. scientist able to visit North Korea's nuclear program in 2004. North Korea is one of nine countries — the United States, Russia, Britain, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel are the others — that currently possess, or are suspected of possessing, nuclear weapons. Hecker explained that the proliferation of nuclear materials was a natural consequence of President Dwight D. Eisenhower's Atoms for Peace program, initiated in 1953. Eisenhower saw the potential dangers of nuclear weapons and tried to strike the bargain of having countries forego the development of these weapons in return for help in developing peaceful uses of atomic energy, such as energy production, medicine and research. Although much good has come out of the program, such as having almost 20 percent of the world's electricity provided by clean nuclear power, Hecker said, "the United States and Russia put many nuclear facilities and reactors in places in the world that today we wish we wouldn't have." Though catastrophe and full-blown chaos have largely been avoided following the collapse of the Soviet Union, he said, Russia's large and inadequately secured stock of weapons-usable materials — plutonium and highly enriched uranium — poses a "clear and present danger." But Hecker said that U.S. nonproliferation efforts continue to be focused in making sure that places where nuclear materials exist are well protected and secure. "Dr. Hecker's experience with U.S. nuclear weapons and the U.S. weapons program is invaluable in helping the U.S. address nonproliferation challenges as varied as those presented by the states of the former Soviet Union and North Korea," said physicist Benn Tannenbaum, senior program associate at the AAAS Center for Science, Technology and Security Policy. The Center was created by AAAS in 2004 with a grant from the MacArthur Foundation's Science, Technology and Security Initiative. The center acts as a two-way portal that facilitates communication between academic centers, policy institutes, and policymakers, with a goal of encouraging the integration of science and public policy for enhanced national and international security. ---- The ultimate terrorist weapon is being ignored Paul Carpenter paul.carpenter@mcall.com February 27, 2005 The Morning Call http://www.mcall.com/news/columnists/all-5ultimatefeb27,0,3466987,print.column?coll=all-news-hed A grass fire was sweeping across part of Kadena Air Base and the base firemen were having a deuce of a time because of the thick smoke. The other day, while checking on a traffic mess at Route 22 and Airport Road, I called Bob Ver Steeg in Richland, Wash., to see if he recalled that fire episode the way I did. He did, more or less, and we talked about the day we were riding my Lambretta motor scooter. We had our gas masks with us and decided to help fight the fire. Suddenly, we found ourselves on our fannies, in a big cloud of dust. It seems the fire detonated a mine left over from the Battle of Okinawa, 13 years earlier. Later, they found enough old ordnance to fill two weapons carriers (pickup trucks). That was my first and last brush with conventional ordnance. Ver Steeg and I gladly went back to working on nuclear weapons, where we felt safe. Since then, I have admired people on bomb squads. As I said Friday, it appears Tuesday's traffic mess was caused, at least in part, by the refusal of state police to let a Bethlehem bomb squad handle some grenades, which turned out to be dummies. They waited for a state police squad. While looking into that, I was drawn to a thorny issue. Are bomb squads (state police or whatever) trained to deal with the deadliest of devices? Would they know a nuclear bomb if they saw one? My questions took me to the Hazardous Devices School at the Redstone Arsenal in Alabama, where federal, state and municipal bomb squads are trained. Does the school teach the squads how to recognize nuclear weapons? Redstone spokesman Bob Hunt asked me to to put my questions in writing. ''We train bomb technicians to recognize a wide variety of hazardous devices,'' he said in response to my written question about recognizing nukes. I knew that bomb squads often have radiation detectors, so this was written question No. 5: ''Is there is any training in how to recognize a nuclear device that may not emit enough radiation to be readily detected, such as a plutonium implosion weapon?'' And No. 6: ''What are students [at Redstone] instructed to do if they encounter a nuclear device?'' ''We don't want to give out any information that would compromise operational techniques and procedures,'' Hunt replied to both 5 and 6. No matter, I already had a pretty good idea, from talking to bomb squad people, that they do not have a clue when it comes to nuclear devices. How likely is it that terrorists will try to place a nuclear bomb somewhere in America? As I have said before, a Nagasaki-type bomb would be very sophisticated, but a Hiroshima-type bomb is another matter. If you think I am giving away military secrets, go to any large library and you can find details on the workings of such a weapon. All you need is a neutron generator, a steel tube, a few pounds of cordite, and 123 or so pounds of Uranium-235. (Any nuclear power plant in the world has tons of it.) The Hiroshima bomb was only 28 inches in diameter, but without an airborne bomb casing, you can make it a foot wide and hide it in a closet. I once worked in the most intense security ever known, and I can tell you there is no way to keep such a weapon out if terrorists want it badly enough. Hell, we can't even stop 10,000 illegal aliens from romping across the Mexican border every year. If dummy hand grenades can create hysteria, think what the ultimate terrorist threat could do. The best way to deal with terrorism, as I also have argued before, is to forget draconian security measures and focus instead on making terrorists understand they will not achieve their goals no matter what they do. (Keep in mind that their two main goals are to advance theocracy and to diminish individual freedom.) -------- u.s. nuc facilities -------- new mexico Los Alamos Failed to Retrieve Security ID's February 27, 2005 The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/27/national/27alamos.html ALBUQUERQUE, N.M., Feb. 26 (AP) - Employees who quit their jobs at Los Alamos National Laboratory regularly failed to turn in security badges and complete other measures to ensure they no longer had access to classified information or nuclear material, a report released Friday said. The inspector general of the Department of Energy, which oversees Los Alamos, the nuclear weapons laboratory in northern New Mexico, began investigating last year after concerns were raised that departing employees might be taking home computer disks and other property containing secret information. Ten percent of the 1,668 employees who left between Jan. 1, 2002, and Feb. 25, 2004, did not turn in their badges, the report said. Forty-four of those employees had badges that allowed access to secret information and nuclear material, the report said. Last December, the laboratory changed the way people leave their jobs, which a spokesman said had resulted in nearly complete compliance with security policies. -------- MILITARY -------- africa Thousands Died in Africa Yesterday February 27, 2005 The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/27/opinion/27sun1.html?pagewanted=all&position= When a once-in-a-century natural disaster swept away the lives of more than 100,000 poor Asians last December, the developed world opened its hearts and its checkbooks. Yet when it comes to Africa, where hundreds of thousands of poor men, women and children die needlessly each year from preventable diseases, or unnatural disasters like civil wars, much of the developed world seems to have a heart of stone. • Not every African state is failing. Most are not. But the continent's most troubled regions - including Somalia and Sudan in the east, Congo in the center, Zimbabwe in the south and Ivory Coast, Liberia and Sierra Leone in the west - challenge not only our common humanity, but global security as well. The lethal combination of corrupt or destructive leaders, porous and unmonitored borders and rootless or hopeless young men has made some of these regions incubators of international terrorism and contagious diseases like AIDS. Others are sanctuaries for swindlers and drug traffickers whose victims can be found throughout the world. In many of these places, poverty and unemployment and the desperation they spawn leave young men vulnerable to the lure of terrorist organizations, which, beyond offering two meals a day, also provide a target to vent their anger at rich societies, which they are led to believe view them with condescension and treat them with contempt. Training camps for Islamic extremists are now thought to be sprouting like anthills on the savanna. "America is committed not only to the campaign against terrorism in a military sense, but the campaign against poverty, the campaign against illiteracy and ignorance." Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said that. Well, America launched its war on terror after Sept. 11, but did not bother to look at some of the deeper causes of global instability. This country is going to spend more than $400 billion on the military this year, and another $100 billion or so for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. But that amount is never going to buy Americans peace if the government continues to spend an anemic $16 billion - the Pentagon budget is 25 times that size - in foreign aid that addresses the plight of the poorest of the world's poor. • For decades, most Americans either have preferred not to hear about these problems, or, blanching at the scope of the human tragedy, have thrown up their hands. But in terms of the kind of money the West thinks nothing of spending, on such things as sports and entertainment extravaganzas, not to speak of defense budgets, meeting many of Africa's most urgent needs seems shockingly affordable. What has been missing is the political will. This year, there is a real chance of scrounging up, and then mobilizing, this political will. Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, who has stood resolutely by President Bush at Mr. Blair's own political peril through the war in Iraq, has staked Britain's presidency of the Group of 8 industrial nations this year on tackling poverty in Africa. Mr. Blair wants his ally, Mr. Bush, to stand beside him at the coming G-8 summit meeting at Gleneagles in Scotland this July. After the G-8 meeting there will be a United Nations summit meeting in New York in September, where the world's leaders will examine progress made toward reaching the Millennium Development Goals of cutting global poverty in half by 2015. Chief among those goals was that developed countries like America, Britain and France would work toward giving 0.7 percent of their national incomes for development aid for poor countries. If the progress made so far is any guide, it is going to be a short meeting. While Britain is about halfway to the goal, at 0.34 percent, and France is at 0.41 percent, America remains near rock bottom, at 0.18 percent. Undoubtedly, President Bush will point to his Millennium Challenge Account when he attends the summit meeting. He will be correct in saying that his administration has given more annually in foreign aid than the Clinton administration in sheer dollars. His Millennium Challenge Account was supposed to increase United States assistance to poor countries that are committed to policies promoting development. This is a worthy endeavor, but it has three big problems. • First, neither the administration nor Congress has come anywhere close to financing the program fully. Second, the program, announced back in 2002, has yet to disburse a single dollar. Most important, relying mostly on programs like the Millennium Challenge Account, which tie foreign aid to good governance, condemns millions of Africans who have dreadful governments (Liberia, Congo, Ivory Coast) or no government (Somalia) to die. No donor nation is, or should be, willing to direct money to despotic, thieving or incompetent governments likely to misspend it or divert it to the personal bank accounts of their leaders. Strict international criteria of political accountability, financial transparency and development-friendly social and economic policies need to be established and enforced, not just by outside donors but by prominent and influential African leaders, like South Africa's president, Thabo Mbeki. Help for people living under governments that fail these criteria will have to be channeled mainly through international and nongovernmental organizations. Bypassed governments will not like this, but they cannot be allowed to stand in the way of outside help to the victims of their misrule. It is not the fault of Africa's millions of refugees that warring armies have burned their villages and fields and driven them into unsafe and disease-ridden camps, like those in the Darfur region of Sudan. And no fair-minded person would blame the victims of callous and destructive governments, like Zimbabwe's, for the economic and social misery they create. In the next few months, Mr. Bush could take a giant step towards altering the way the world views America by joining Mr. Blair in pushing for more help in Africa. It's past time; the continent is dying. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, which is anything but, some 1,000 people die every day of preventable diseases like malaria and diarrhea. That's the equivalent of a tsunami every five months, in that one country alone. Throughout the continent of Africa, thousands of people die needlessly every day from diseases like AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. • One hundred years ago, before we had the medical know-how to eradicate these illnesses, this might have been acceptable. But we are the first generation able to afford to end poverty and the diseases it spawns. It's past time we step up to the plate. We are all responsible for choosing to view the tsunami victims in Southeast Asia as more deserving of our help than the malaria victims in Africa. Jeffrey Sachs, the economist who heads the United Nations' Millennium Development Project to end global poverty, rightly takes issue with the press in his book "The End of Poverty": "Every morning," Mr. Sachs writes, "our newspapers could report, 'More than 20,000 people perished yesterday of extreme poverty.' " So, on this page, we'd like to make a first step. Yesterday, more than 20,000 people perished of extreme poverty. -------- iraq Kurds Vow to Retain Militia as Guardians of Autonomy February 27, 2005 By EDWARD WONG The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/27/international/middleeast/27militia.html?pagewanted=all&position= SARAI SUBHAN AGHA, Iraq, Feb. 23 - The camouflage-clad militiamen marched down from the mountains in four columns of hundreds each, stomping their boots in unison. "Keep looking forward!" an officer yelled. "Kurdistan or death!" the soldiers shouted at once, their words thundering over the sound of heels striking the ground. Here at a training camp in the eastern hills of Iraqi Kurdistan, there is little doubt about to whom these soldiers owe their allegiance. Many say their first loyalty lies with a major Kurdish political party. Then they offer it to Kurdistan, the rugged autonomous region in northern Iraq the size of Switzerland. There is little mention of the nation of Iraq or the Iraqi Army. "All of the pesh merga of Kurdistan, we're fighting for Kurdistan," one of the soldiers, Fermen Ibrahim, 25, told a visitor, calling the militia by its Kurdish name, which means "those who face death." As political jockeying rages in Baghdad to determine the shape of the new government - how Islamic it will be, whether it has strong or weak central powers - one of the most troublesome issues emerging is whether political parties, especially those of the Kurds and Shiites, can keep their private armies. Kurdish leaders say they intend to write into the new constitution a system granting considerable powers to individual regions, one that will legitimize their use of the pesh merga. If the Kurds succeed, they will achieve the right of regional powers to set up their own armies, possibly leading to warlord-style fiefs across Iraq. Until their strong showing in the recent national elections, Kurdish leaders appeared to agree, at least in public, with the American goal of dismantling militias. Now they stand in open defiance of it. The pesh merga, with recruits from two Kurdish parties, total about 100,000 soldiers. A source of ethnic pride, they fought tenaciously against Saddam Hussein and are now relied upon by American commanders to battle the Arab-led insurgency in the north. Perhaps most important in the current power vacuum, they provide Kurdish leaders with armed backing in their demands for broad autonomy. "We want to keep our pesh merga because they are a symbol of resistance," said Massoud Barzani, the leader of the Kurdistan Democratic Party and the son of Mustafa Barzani, a revered Kurdish leader who founded the pesh merga in the 1960's. "It's not a matter to be discussed or negotiated." If the Kurds get the constitution they want, the pesh merga would nominally fall under the oversight of the Ministry of Defense in Baghdad, Kurdish officials say, but in reality would be controlled by regional commanders. The two Kurdish parties each have a ministry of pesh merga, which they say they intend to keep. The Kurds also say the pesh merga will maintain all the trappings of a conventional army, with an officers' college, training camps and armor and artillery units all operating independently of the rest of the Iraqi security forces. The major Shiite parties, who have the largest share of seats in the constitutional assembly, may try to block the Kurds on the militia issue to limit the autonomy of the Kurds. But those parties have significant militias that they may seek to keep, or to at least incorporate into the Iraqi security forces as intact units. Their armies generally stay hidden on the streets of Baghdad but have been active in the Shiite heartland of the south, operating checkpoints and patrols and, in some cases, enforcing strict Islamic law, like cracking down on alcohol vendors. The leaders of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, a powerful Shiite party, have repeatedly said that the party's Iranian-trained armed wing, the Badr Organization, at least 15,000 strong, can help provide security in the new Iraq. The former governing Sunni Arabs, a minority now feeling threatened by the other groups, will probably oppose any move by the Kurds and Shiites to legitimize their militias. American commanders publicly say that all armed groups in Iraq must be state sponsored and that militarized units should not be organized by ethnicity or sect. But they privately acknowledge the extreme difficulties of breaking up the militias. Lt. Col. Eric Durr, the head of civil affairs for the 42nd Infantry Division, charged with overseeing eastern Kurdistan, said it was now up to the new Iraqi government to figure out what to do with the militias. "It's really a political issue for the Iraqi government to work out," he said. The Americans are relying on the pesh merga to fight insurgents. Across the north, particularly in the besieged city of Mosul, American commanders have supported Iraqi officials in deploying large units of armed Kurds into the streets. But the pesh merga also exemplify the pitfalls of private armies - in the mid-1990's, the militias of the two Kurdish parties turned their guns on each other in a civil war that left at least 3,000 dead. "What I see happening now in Iraq is the potential drift toward warlordism," said Larry Diamond, a former adviser to the Coalition Provisional Authority, which tried but failed to disband militias before handing sovereignty to the Iraqis last June. "If things go bad," he added, "if the center does not hold, if ethnic and regional divisions are not well and carefully managed by the country's political leaders, particularly at the center, then the existence of all these militias - both those preceding the handover of power and those that have arisen in recent months - could facilitate the descent of the country into some kind of Lebanon-style civil war." The presence of the pesh merga "is bound to strengthen the resolve of Kurdish political leaders not to yield on their demands for far-reaching autonomy," said Mr. Diamond, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. The pesh merga are everywhere in Iraqi Kurdistan - along the highways, atop government buildings, riding in convoys. They wear a hodgepodge of uniforms, from traditional baggy outfits to desert camouflage hand-me-downs from the United States Army. There is one thing that appears to be consistent, though: they think of themselves as Kurds first and Iraqis second. "If I work hard to protect my people and my cities, indirectly I'll serve Iraq," Col. Mehdi Dosky, 44, the commander of the training camp here, said as he sat behind his desk in a dark green Iraqi Army uniform. Two officers on a couch pored over evaluation forms of the trainees. A map on one wall showed the theoretical pan-Kurdish nation that Kurds in the Middle East hope to carve out one day - a huge territory stretching from the Mediterranean to western Iran and taking in large parts of Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran. "We don't think it's a good idea to disband our army," said Colonel Dosky, whose father served as a pesh merga from the militia's first days. "We want to keep our forces and have them protect our region. The Kurds will protect their area, and other people will use their forces to protect their own areas. There are too many ethnic and religious problems right now in Iraq." The American dependence on such proxy armies is clearest in Mosul, where Kurds make up nearly a quarter of the population. In November, Sunni Arab rebels overran police stations and forced thousands of officers to quit, and the Arab governor requested the aid of two Kurdish battalions of the Iraqi National Guard. Brig. Gen. Carter Ham, the head of Task Force Olympia, the American force which until last week was charged with controlling Mosul, used Kurds to guard his headquarters. But the presence of an ethnic or sect-based militia in a diverse city can quickly inflame tensions. Such is the case in Kirkuk, the oil-rich city where Kurds, Arabs and Turkmen uneasily live side by side. At the request of Arabs and Turkmen, the American military asked pesh merga to leave the city after Mr. Hussein fell. Last summer, Kurdish officials said, the Americans allowed 300 pesh merga to return temporarily to fight insurgents. "Always, it's a sensitive issue," said Suphi Sabir, a senior official in the Iraqi Turkmen Front, the most prominent Turkmen party in Kirkuk. "But we won't start a fight over it because the result would be very bad." Warzer Jaff contributed reporting from Mosul, Iraq, for this article. -------- israel / palestine Sharon Says Diplomatic Progress Hinges on Palestinian Action February 27, 2005 By ALAN COWELL The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/27/international/middleeast/27cnd-mideast.html?pagewanted=all&position= JERUSALEM, Feb. 27 - As Israelis buried their dead from a suicide bombing, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon warned Palestinian leaders today that there would be no further moves toward peace unless they "take strong action to eliminate" militant groups behind such attacks. Mr. Sharon also accused Syria of hosting militant Palestinians from the Islamic Jihad group that took responsibility for the Friday bombing of the Stage club on Tel Aviv's palm-lined beachfront. Four Israelis - one of them a 28-year-old woman celebrating her forthcoming wedding - died in the blast and 49 more were injured. Using harsher language than other Israeli officials in the immediate aftermath of the attack, Mr. Sharon warned that "it is clear that if Palestinians do not begin to take vigorous action against terrorism, Israel will be compelled to step up military activity that is designed to protect the lives of Israeli citizens." He did not say where such military action might take place. Islamic Jihad has members in Lebanon and Syria as well as in Palestinians areas. Syria denied knowledge of the attack and said it supported the tentative peace moves between Israelis and Palestinians that Mr. Sharon depicted as suspended. "While the State of Israel is interested in advancing towards a settlement with the Palestinians, there will be no diplomatic progress - no progress - until the Palestinians take strong action to eliminate the terrorist organizations and their infrastructures" in areas they control, he said today. The attack was the first lethal attack inside Israel since November. It broke a truce between Israelis and Palestinians declared on Feb. 8, leaving Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas under strong pressure to demonstrate his ability to rein in militants prepared to sabotage peace efforts with bloody attacks on civilians inside Israel. The Friday night attack came as club-goers formed a line outside the Stage club. According to Israeli press reports, one of the dead, Yael Orbach, 28, had been with her fiancé, Ofir Gonen, handing out wedding invitations to members of Mr. Gonen's military reserve unit who were celebrating a birthday. Ms. Orbach died and Mr. Gonen was wounded when a Palestinian suicide bomber, identified as Abdullah Badran, 21, blew himself up next to the line of Israelis late on Friday night when Tel Aviv's night spots fill with club-goers. At her funeral today in Kfar Saba, her father, Yisrael Orbach, stood over her open grave and vowed personal vengeance for her death if the government failed to exact it. "If they do not avenge the blood of this righteous one, I will avenge her blood," Yisrael Orbach said. His remarks were broadcast on Israel Radio. "Until today there has been nothing like this where someone or a family has avenged the blood of another in this country, as I will avenge the blood of this righteous one." Today senior Israeli officials sharply criticized Syria, which has allowed Islamic Jihad leaders to live in Damascus for many years, although Syria maintains the organization's office there has closed. "Syria has no relation with the Tel Aviv operation, and the office of this movement is closed in Syria," said a statement by the Syrian Foreign Ministry, referring to Islamic Jihad. But Mr. Sharon declared: "The terrorist attack was perpetrated by members of Islamic Jihad. The orders came from Islamic Jihad elements in Syria. Even though we know this for a certainty, the fact is not enough to absolve the Palestinian authority of its responsibility for the departure of the terrorist and of its obligation to act against his partners in the crime." He added, "The immediate test for the Palestinian Authority will be in vigorous action against Islamic Jihad members." At the same time, the attack seemed to have provoked unusual discord within Islamic Jihad. Its military wing took responsibility for the bombing on Saturday while its political leaders in Gaza still insisted today that they were not involved. In the West Bank, the Palestinian prime minister, Ahmed Qurei, said Palestinian authorities would still prefer to maintain the rapprochement sealed when Mr. Sharon and Mr. Abbas met in the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheik on Feb. 8. "If Israel wants to cut off contacts with the Palestinians it will be its own decision and we will not cry," Mr. Qurei told reporters in Ramallah. "But we say that there is an opportunity begun in Sharm el-Sheik and we want to develop this effort." Mr. Sharon's demands leave Mr. Abbas, the Palestinian leader, in a delicate and potentially dangerous position, caught between Israeli demands for action against militant factions and Palestinian demands for tangible evidence that Israel is prepared to make concessions in the interests of peace. According to Israel Radio, Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz said Israel had given the Palestinian authorities a list of suspects, particularly Islamic Jihad members, and expected the Palestinians to arrest them. He also said no Islamic Jihad members would be freed in a planned release of a further 400 Palestinian prisoners. Mr. Mofaz said senior Israeli security officials would visit Washington, Paris and London to explain Israel's insistence on Syrian involvement in the bombing. Other Israelis suggested that the restriction on the planned prisoner release may be more sweeping. Justice Minister Tsipi Livni said the release was being reconsidered following the bombing, according to Israel Radio. Regarded as a pragmatist, Mr. Abbas was elected last month to take over from Yasir Arafat who died in November 2004. Since his election he and Mr. Sharon have conducted a cautious rapprochement, culminating last week in Israel's release of 500 Palestinian prisoners. Mr. Abbas has also sought to persuade some militant Palestinian factions to suspend attacks, but, in a message on Saturday on its Web site, Islamic Jihad accused Israel of violating the truce and threatened further violence. "As long as the other side is not committed, there will be a response from our side," said an Islamic Jihad official identified only as Abu Tarek. Israel has not attacked Syria since October 2003. In that instance, Israeli planes bombed what Israel said was an Islamic Jihad base outside Damascus after a Palestinian suicide bomber from Islamic Jihad killed 21 people. "Action by us against Syria is certainly possible,," Deputy Defense Minister Zeev Boim said on Israel Radio. "We have done it in the past." But he suggested that international pressure on Syria was likely to be more effective. Syria is already under growing international scrutiny following the assassination in Beirut on Feb. 14 of the former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri. The United States is supporting demands for Syria to withdraw its troops from Lebanon. Shimon Peres, Israel's deputy prime minister, indicated that he preferred a diplomatic approach, saying: "Syria is involved in many terrible things and the United States is at the moment leading the initiative against Syria. We should allow the Americans to do this." Additionally, Mr. Abbas is due to travel to a major international conference in London hosted by Prime Minister Tony Blair on March 1, and, after the Tel Aviv bombing, may face questioning of his response to the attack. Syria rejected the Israeli accusations. Today, Agence France-Presse reported, Syria's foreign minister, Farouk al-Sharaa, told reporters during a visit to Cairo, "The Israeli charge is false and not based on any evidence." "Syria reached out for peace and supported the Palestinian people in recovering their rights by peaceful means," he said. ---- Israel claims that Syria was behind Tel Aviv suicide bomb By Donald Macintyre in Tel Aviv 27 February 2005 UK Independent http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=615203 Israel last night accused Syria of being behind the suicide bomb which killed four Israelis outside a Tel Aviv nightclub on Friday night. The Israeli defence minister, Shaul Mofaz, also pointed the finger at Islamic Jihad, the militant group which is based in Syria, and announced that plans to hand over security responsibilities in the West Bank to the Palestinians would be frozen. A statement said: "The defence minister ruled that Israel sees Syria and the Islamic Jihad movement are those standing behind the murderous attack in Tel Aviv." Syria quickly moved to deny the claims. A Syrian Foreign Ministry source said: "Syria has no relation to this operation or any other [operation] and that the [Damascus] office of that group [Islamic Jihad] had been closed." Syria was widely blamed for the car bomb assassination of the former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri earlier this month. Islamic Jihad also reversed earlier denials of involvement by claiming responsibility on a website. "Thank God for the courageous martyr Abdullah Saeed Badran, 21, from Tulkarem who managed to blow himself up at the entrance to the Stage nightclub on the coast of Tel Aviv, killing or wounding more than 50 Zionists," the statement said. Israeli security officials have now said they may resume assassinations of leaders of Islamic Jihad. Palestinian security forces yesterday arrested three suspected militants after President Mahmoud Abbas ordered them to bring to justice the organisers of the suicide bombing. Mr Abbas, who is due to fly to London tomorrow for Tuesday's summit to bolster the Palestinian Authority, held emergency talks with colleagues and security chiefs. The bombing is the most serious challenge so far to the ceasefire called by both sides in the conflict this month. "We will not tolerate this act," Mr Abbas said before a round of meetings in Ramallah. "We will not allow anyone to sabotage the goals and ambitions of our people." Despite the claims made on the Islamic Jihad website, there was still uncertainty about who had recruited Abdullah Badran, the Palestinian university student from the West Bank village of Deir al-Ghusun. Badran blew himself up in a queue of Tel Aviv nightclubbers. As Israeli security chiefs held an emergency meeting last night, Israel stepped up calls for a Palestinian crackdown on militants. But there was no immediate sign of military retaliation, which would effectively end the truce called by the the Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, and Mr Abbas. Earlier yesterday, Israeli forces arrested two of the bomber's brothers and four neighbours, including the preacher at the local mosque. It was not clear if all were suspects, or whether the brothers were taken to provide DNA samples for a positive identification of the bomber. Badran's parents said their son had been a devout Muslim, but had no history of militant activity. There was shock and disbelief among bystanders watching police and rescue workers sifting through the debris and using tow trucks to remove cars wrecked by the blast. Opposite the club, the windows of a busy café had been blown out. A security guard who was outside the club when the blast occurredsaid: "People had the feeling they were safe. They were completely confident because of the calm. But in Israel anything can happen." Tzachi Cohen, on his way to DJ one of last night's sessions at the club, was two blocks away when the blast occurred. He sat on the pavement shaking his head, saying he now distrusted the idea of a truce. "The people who were queuing up probably voted for Sharon because he was going to take care of the violence," he said. Merav Ayush was injured in the blast and taken to hospital. "Suddenly there was this huge explosion and we just ran," she said. "I saw a boy and a girl sitting on the ground. At the entrance to the club there were about 15 people just lying on the floor." The US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, demanded that Palestinian leaders find those responsible and "send a clear message that terror will not be tolerated". "It is essential that Palestinian leaders take immediate, credible steps to find those responsible for this terrorist attack and bring them to justice," she said. Gideon Meir, of the Israeli Foreign Ministry, said: "Words are not enough. We must see action. We must see arrests, collecting illegal weapons from those terrorist organisations. The only language they understand is force." -------- prisoners of war Mossad agent in NZ was involved in botched '98 operation by Yossi Melman HAARETZ International Sun., February 27, 2005 Adar1 18, 5765 http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/545195.html One of the two alleged Mossad agents who served a prison sentence in New Zealand following a botched operation was involved in another failed operation in Cyprus in 1998, according to an article in today's New Zealand Sunday Star Times. The article, published on the first anniversary of the operation in which two agents, Elisha Cara and Uriel Kelman, were each sentenced to six months in jail and a fine of 50,000 New Zealand dollars, states that the failures show "a culture of carelessness," "bad judgment" and "doing favors for friends" in the Mossad. The paper also alleges that, "based on western European intelligence," the failures in both New Zealand and Cyprus were never properly investigated, and that Cara and Kelman, together with accomplices still at large, apparently had managed to obtain New Zealand passports intended for future use by the Mossad. The article, by Nick Hager, who covers the paper's intelligence beat, claims that Cara, 50, who headed the Mossad's Neviot branch - responsible for breaking into buildings, surveillance and bugging - had sent two unsuitable operatives to Cyprus in an intelligence-gathering mission involving Hezbollah in 1998. The two were arrested by Cypriot police and served nine months of a three-year prison term. The paper says that after the failure, Cara was transfered to a position at Mossad headquarters, but moved back up through the ranks thanks to his friendship with a senior Mossad official who posted him to Australia, where he masqueraded as a travel agent. According to the article, Cara's transfer to Australia was a case of negligence and poor judgment, since he was already known to the Australian intelligence community due to intelligence exchanges between Israel and Australia. Cara, who was deported along with Kelman to Israel after serving three months in prison, left the Mossad to take a senior position with the Visa Israel credit card company. The paper states that the senior official is third from the top at Mossad headquarters, and sees himself in line for the position of deputy head. ---- CIA Moves to Second Fiddle in Intelligence Work By Dana Priest Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, February 27, 2005; Page A09 http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A56278-2005Feb26?language=printer The nomination of John D. Negroponte as national director of intelligence this month signaled the end of the CIA's nearly 60-year run as the undisputed center of power and influence in the secret world of intelligence. From its Cold War heyday of spy-vs.-spy confrontation with the Soviet Union, to its rebirth as the lead strike force against al Qaeda's leadership, the CIA earned its standing not from its size, budget or weapons systems, but from the sway its directors held over presidents and the legend of its covert operations overseas. Today, as a result of a new law reorganizing the intelligence community, the CIA no longer has primary standing among the 15 U.S. intelligence agencies. And its last director, cigar-chewing George J. Tenet -- one in a line of larger-than-life leaders with close ties to the Oval Office -- has been replaced by an anti-Tenet figure, Porter J. Goss, a man of few words and low profile who CIA employees say has yet to annunciate his vision for the agency. "It does appear the CIA will not occupy that same premier position it had," said Peter Earnest, executive director of the International Spy Museum and a former CIA spy. "It's the end of a chapter." The CIA has occupied the pinnacle in the intelligence world, in part, because its chief held two titles: CIA director and the broader director of central intelligence. The latter made him responsible for managing efforts of not only the CIA but also the intelligence offices in the Department of Defense and other parts of the federal government. In recent years, it was the director of central intelligence who briefed the president in the morning, and in the afternoon, wearing his second hat as CIA director, he sent spies on missions and executed covert operations. "The face time," said Earnest, allowed the CIA director to understand what the president was most interested in, "to hear the president's own requirements. It was invaluable." Now, Negroponte will oversee the CIA and 14 other agencies that spend an estimated $40 billion a year on intelligence -- a reorganization by Congress largely in response to recommendations by the 9/11 commission, which said lack of coordination among those offices played a role in the U.S. failure to thwart the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Not only will Negroponte replace the CIA director as the most important voice the president hears on intelligence matters each day, but other agencies, notably the Pentagon and the FBI, are seeking to take over some of the CIA's traditional case officer duties. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has tasked the military to send highly classified units into the field to collect human intelligence, using newly earned congressional authority to recruit foreign agents when it is helpful. The FBI wants to replace the CIA's role in recruiting U.S.-based foreign officials to spy for the United States when they return to their homes. It is also trying to mimic the CIA's use of corporate contacts to gain information from overseas business travelers. With the President's Daily Briefing soon to be in Negroponte's hands, intelligence officials said they expect dozens of CIA analysts who produce it to move over to his office. So will the National Intelligence Council, the nation's top intelligence advisory panel, which produces National Intelligence Estimates as well as analysis of long-term trends. The CIA's science and technology branch may lose clout as well, intelligence experts said. Already the major technological capabilities -- namely satellite imagery and electronic espionage -- reside outside the CIA. Experts say Negroponte's deputy-to-be, Air Force Lt. Gen. Michael V. Hayden, wants to keep a major hand in technological issues. Currently, Hayden heads the National Security Agency, which manages electronic espionage. Critics of the CIA's inability to gather more intelligence on al Qaeda -- and of its high-profile, high-stakes failure to accurately assess Iraq's weapons programs before the war -- say these changes are long overdue. "The CIA is no longer the favorite child, which will be good for them," said one congressional official, who is not authorized to be quoted by name. "They will have to play on a level playing field. When you are in charge too long, you tend to ossify, then get comfortable. They need to get uncomfortable." But many CIA veterans, current and retired, say the agency's diminished role comes at a vulnerable time for the institution. Goss and his top aides, former Capitol Hill staffers who once worked at the CIA, have still not settled nerves at the agency after a round of high-profile personnel shuffles that left some employees distrustful of the leadership that took over from Tenet in September. "One has to be concerned about the standing on the CIA," said one senior CIA official with three decades of experience. "I worry about the whole system. It's in risk of losing its elan." The new CIA, predicted CIA officials, will be more narrowly, but intensely, focused on using U.S. spies and foreign agents to collect enemy secrets. In a recent executive order, Bush told Goss to increase the number of U.S. spies by 50 percent over a period of years. Goss gave his plans for achieving that goal to the president last week. CIA officials declined to describe the plans, even in vague terms, because they are classified. Advocates of the reorganization say the new version of the CIA will be able to focus on its core mission. Gathering human intelligence "is simply going to be front and center," said Jamie S. Gorelick, a member of the 9/11 commission, which recommended the legislation. "They were trying to do too many things and weren't doing them well." But, Gorelick said, "I can understand why folks at the CIA are despondent. They don't know what Goss wants them to do." Some intelligence experts worry that the reorganization will leave the CIA dangerously isolated from the heartbeat of U.S. policymaking. "You won't get the cross-fertilization, the healthy interaction between the collectors and the analyzers that you need to do intelligence work well," said Fred Hitz, a former CIA inspector general. "When you isolate yourself, you become detached from the policy issues," a former head of the clandestine service said. "You don't let the air in. The smaller the group that approves a covert action, the greater the propensity for failure." Even the CIA director's role in supervising human intelligence might be challenged by the reorganization, several intelligence officials said. They said Negroponte could decide to appoint his own deputy for human intelligence who would decide whether the CIA or another agency or department would be the most suited to a specific spy operation. "The CIA is a wounded gazelle on the African plain," said another former senior intelligence official, lamenting the encroachment by other agencies onto the CIA's traditional territory. "It's a pile of bleached bones." -------- POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS / JUSTICE -------- drug war Afghans Accuse U.S. of Secret Spraying to Kill Poppies February 27, 2005 By CARLOTTA GALL The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/27/international/asia/27afghan.html?pagewanted=all&position= KANAI, Afghanistan - Abdullah, a black-turbaned shepherd, said he was watching over his sheep one night in early February when he heard a plane pass low overhead three times. By morning his eyes were so swollen he could not open them and the sheep around him were dying in convulsions. Although farmers had noticed a white powder on their crops, they cut grass and clover for their animals and picked spinach to eat anyway. Within hours the animals were severely ill, people here said, and the villagers complained of fevers, skin rashes and bloody diarrhea. The children were particularly affected. A week later, the crops - wheat, vegetables and poppies - were dying, and a dozen dead animals, including newborn lambs, lay tossed in a heap. The incident on Feb. 3 has left the herders of sheep and goats in this remote mountain area in Helmand Province deeply angered and suspicious. They are convinced that someone is surreptitiously spraying their lands or dusting them with chemicals, presumably in a clandestine effort to eradicate Afghanistan's bumper poppy crop, the world's leading source of opium. The incident in Kanai was not the first time that Afghan villagers - or Afghan government officials - had complained of what they suspected was nighttime spraying. In November, villagers in Nimla, in Nangarhar Province, said their fields, too, had been laced with chemicals when a plane passed overhead several times during the night. Afterward, Afghan and foreign officials who investigated returned with samples of tiny gray granules that they said provided evidence that spraying had occurred. Two Western embassies sent samples abroad for analysis but have not yet received the results. At that time, President Hamid Karzai publicly condemned the spraying. Though it was never clear who was responsible, members of his staff said they suspected the United States or Britain, which together have been leading the struggle to rein in Afghan poppy cultivation, which has reached record levels. Both countries finance outside security firms to train Afghan counternarcotics forces. President Karzai said his government was not spraying fields and had no knowledge of such activity, and he called in the American and British ambassadors for an explanation. Then, as now, the American and British Embassies denied any involvement. "There is no credible evidence that aerial spraying has taken place in Helmand," the American Embassy said in a statement this time. "No agency, personnel or contractors associated with the United States government have conducted or been involved in any such activity in Helmand or any other province of Afghanistan." An Afghan government delegation sent to investigate the latest incident said it found no evidence of aerial spraying. Rather, "a naturally occurring disease" had killed the crops and animals, Lt. Gen. Muhammad Daoud, deputy interior minister for counternarcotics, said in a statement. Agriculture Ministry officials said the extremely cold weather could have affected the crops. They added, however, that the ministry lacked the technical capacity to analyze samples for chemicals. But the people in Kanai, neighboring Tanai and at least two other villages are incredulous. For them, there is no doubt that someone sprayed their lands and, despite official denials, they blame the United States, which still controls the skies in Afghanistan. "They are the ones with the planes," said Abdul Ahmad, brother of the shepherd, Abdullah. Between them, the brothers had lost 200 animals from symptoms that suggested poisoning, he said. "They went mad, their eyes went blue and they could not eat," he said of their sheep and goats. "Water was coming from their mouths, they were trying to eat their droppings and they were shivering," he said. The animals appeared completely healthy the day before, he said. "We gave our vote to Karzai so he would bring us help and now he is killing our animals," he said angrily. While the mystery lingers around who may be responsible for a secret aerial eradication campaign here - or even whether one is actually being carried out - there is no doubt that Afghanistan's booming poppy crop has been an intensifying concern to United States, British and other international officials. In November, a United Nations report found that more than 300,000 acres in Afghanistan had been planted with poppies and expressed concern that the country was degenerating into a narcostate. American and other officials said they feared the drug trade had insinuated itself into virtually every corner of the Afghan economy and was financing rebels. Some American officials, particularly those in international narcotics and law enforcement, have for months advocated aerial spraying to gain control of the problem. Diplomats and other foreign officials involved in agriculture programs and counternarcotics efforts here said there was a discussion in 2004 between American officials and other donors over whether to use aerial eradication to stem poppy cultivation, which expanded 64 percent last year. In December, the Bush administration presented to Congress a budget request for $152 million for aerial spraying as part of a $776 million aid package for counternarcotics operations in Afghanistan for 2005. In January, it dropped the budget line for aerial spraying because of President Karzai's clear opposition, an American official in Kabul said. Word of the budget request prompted 31 nonprofit groups, led by CARE International, to sign an open letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Jan. 31 expressing concern over what they considered the excessive emphasis on eradication in the United States administration's counternarcotics strategy in Afghanistan. "Widespread eradication in 2005 could undermine the economy and devastate already poor families without giving rural development projects sufficient time to provide alternative sources of income," the agencies warned. They called for concentration on interdiction of traffickers and support for farmers instead. Yet American officials have not ruled out the possible need for aerial eradication and financing, which was included in a supplemental request in February for $82 billion by the Bush administration for Iraq and Afghanistan, an American counternarcotics official in Kabul said. One option considered by American officials last year was to rent civilian planes and spray the general weed killer Roundup over the provinces of Helmand and Badakhshan, two of the largest producers of poppies in the country, according to one official familiar with the plan. American military officials in Afghanistan and those with the United States Agency for International Development are also against aerial spraying, foreign officials in Kabul say. Development officials argue that spraying will affect all agriculture and especially the poorest farmers; instead, they advocate alternative livelihood programs for farmers to dissuade them from growing poppies. The military fears that spraying will turn the population against the government and the American presence in Afghanistan and increase support for insurgents, who remain active in southern Afghanistan. In fact, the belief that they have been sprayed has angered villagers all the more because the local police came here only 40 days before and destroyed their poppy fields on government orders, a fact that the district police chief, Abdul Hakim Karezwal, confirmed. The farmers said they had instead planted wheat, which was now yellow and rotting along with the clover, spinach and greens they had also planted. Some farmers kept growing small patches of poppies inside high garden walls, but most of the fields in the village showed shoots of young wheat. "Karzai lied to us," one farmer, Ahmadullah, said. "He said, 'We will give you assistance,' and he didn't. So we grew poppy to be able to feed our families. Then the president ordered it destroyed and so we destroyed it. And now he is destroying our wheat. What will be left of our lives? They destroyed everything. We will have to abandon the village." -------- immigration / refugees More Dutch Plan to Emigrate as Muslim Influx Tips Scales February 27, 2005 By MARLISE SIMONS The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/27/international/europe/27dutch.html?pagewanted=all&position= AMSTERDAM - Paul Hiltemann had already noticed a darkening mood in the Netherlands. He runs an agency for people wanting to emigrate and his client list had surged. But he was still taken aback in November when a Dutch filmmaker was shot and his throat was slit, execution style, on an Amsterdam street. In the weeks that followed, Mr. Hiltemann was inundated by e-mail messages and telephone calls. "There was a big panic," he said, "a flood of people saying they wanted to leave the country." Leave this stable and prosperous corner of Europe? Leave this land with its generous social benefits and ample salaries, a place of fine schools, museums, sports grounds and bicycle paths, all set in a lively democracy? The answer, increasingly, is yes. This small nation is a magnet for immigrants, but statistics suggest there is a quickening flight of the white middle class. Dutch people pulling up roots said they felt a general pessimism about their small and crowded country and about the social tensions that had grown along with the waves of newcomers, most of them Muslims."The Dutch are living in a kind of pressure cooker atmosphere," Mr. Hiltemann said. There is more than the concern about the rising complications of absorbing newcomers, now one-tenth of the population, many of them from largely Muslim countries. Many Dutch also seem bewildered that their country, run for decades on a cozy, political consensus, now seems so tense and prickly and bent on confrontation. Those leaving have been mostly lured by large English-speaking nations like Australia, New Zealand and Canada, where they say they hope to feel less constricted. In interviews, emigrants rarely cited a fear of militant Islam as their main reason for packing their bags. But the killing of the filmmaker Theo van Gogh, a fierce critic of fundamentalist Muslims, seems to have been a catalyst. "Our Web site got 13,000 hits in the weeks after the van Gogh killing," said Frans Buysse, who runs an agency that handles paperwork for departing Dutch. "That's four times the normal rate." Mr. van Gogh's killing is the only one the police have attributed to an Islamic militant, but since then they have reported finding death lists by local Islamic militants with the names of six prominent politicians. The effects still reverberate. In a recent opinion poll, 35 percent of the native Dutch questioned had negative views about Islam. There are no precise figures on the numbers now leaving. But Canadian, Australian and New Zealand diplomats here said that while immigration papers were processed in their home capitals, embassy officials here had been swamped by inquiries in recent months. Many who settle abroad may not appear in migration statistics, like the growing contingent of retirees who flock to warmer places. But official statistics show a trend. In 1999, nearly 30,000 native Dutch moved elsewhere, according to the Central Bureau of Statistics. For 2004, the provisional figure is close to 40,000. "It's definitely been picking up in the past five years," said Cor Kooijmans, a demographer at the bureau. Ruud Konings, an accountant, has just sold his comfortable home in the small town of Hilvarenbeek. In March, after a year's worth of paperwork, the family will leave for Australia. The couple said the main reason was their fear for the welfare and security of their two teenage children. "When I grew up, this place was spontaneous and free, but my kids cannot safely cycle home at night," said Mr. Konings, 49. "My son just had his fifth bicycle stolen." At school, his children and their friends feel uneasy, he added. "They're afraid of being roughed up by the gangs of foreign kids." Sandy Sangen has applied to move to Norway with her husband and two school-age children. They want to buy a farm in what she calls "a safer, more peaceful place." Like the Sangens and Koningses, others who are moving speak of their yearning for the open spaces, the clean air, the easygoing civility they feel they have lost. Complaints include overcrowding, endless traffic jams, overregulation. Some cite a rise in antisocial behavior and a worrying new toughness and aggression both in political debates and on the streets. Until the killing of Pim Fortuyn, a populist anti-immigration politician, in 2002 and the more recent slaying of a teacher by a student, this generation of Dutch people could not conceive of such violence in their peaceful country. After Mr. van Gogh's killing, angry demonstrations and fire-bombings of mosques and Muslim schools took place. In revenge, some Christian churches were attacked. Mr. Konings said he and many of his friends sensed more confrontation in the making, perhaps more violence. "I'm a great optimist, but we're now caught in a downward spiral, economically and socially," he said. "We feel we can give our children a better start somewhere else." Marianne and Rene Aukens, from the rural town of Brunssum, had successful careers, he as director of a local bank, she as a personnel manager. But after much thought they have applied to go to New Zealand. "In my lifetime, all the villages around here have merged, almost all the green spaces have been paved over," said Mr. Aukens, 41. "Nature is finished. There's no more silence; you hear traffic everywhere." The saying that the Netherlands is "full up" has become a national mantra. It was used cautiously at first, because it had an overtone of being anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim. But many of those interviewed now state it flatly, like Peter Bles. He makes a long commute to a banking job in Amsterdam, but he and his wife are preparing to move to Australia. "We found people are more polite, less stressed, less aggressive there," Mr. Bles said. "Perhaps stress has a lot to do with the lack of living space. Here we are full up." Space is indeed at a premium here in Europe's most densely populated nation, where 16.3 million people live in an area roughly the size of Maryland. Denmark, which is slightly larger, has 5.5 million people. Dutch demographers say their country has undergone one of Europe's fastest and most far-reaching demographic shifts, with about 10 percent of the population now foreign born, a majority of them Muslims. Blaming immigrants for many ills has become commonplace. Conservative Moroccans and Turks from rural areas are accused of disdaining the liberal Dutch ways and of making little effort to adapt. Immigrant youths now make up half the prison population. More than 40 percent of immigrants receive some form of government assistance, a source of resentment among native Dutch. Immigrants say, though, that they are widely discriminated against. Ms. Konings said the Dutch themselves brought on some of the social frictions. The Dutch "thought that we had to adapt to the immigrants and that we had to give them handouts," she said. "We've been too lenient; now it's difficult to turn the tide." To Mr. Hiltemann, the emigration consultant, what is remarkable is not only the surge of interest among the Dutch in leaving, but also the type of people involved. "They are successful people, I mean, urban professionals, managers, physiotherapists, computer specialists," he said. Five years ago, he said, most of his clients were farmers looking for more land. Mr. Buysse, who employs a staff of eight to process visas, concurred. He said farmers were still emigrating as Europe cut agricultural subsidies. '"What is new," he said, "is that Dutch people who are rich or at least very comfortable are now wanting to leave the country." -------- POLITICS -------- us politics 'Command of Office': The Imperial Presidency February 27, 2005 By JAMES MANN The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/27/books/review/27MANNL.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1109739752-R2+l9+mjq1e63Bl70ZFtHw THE modern American presidency has become a universe unto itself. At an international conference in Chile in November, for example, President Bush was accompanied by 260 staff and security aides, a press corps of 100 and enough planes, cars and communications gear for a third-world army. The powers such traveling parties claim for themselves sometimes preclude the ordinary business American chief executives once used to transact. The government of Chile downgraded a large dinner with Bush in Santiago to a small working session after the Secret Service said it would have to subject the 200 guests, including the leading members of Chilean society, to routine weapons searches. How did our country, founded in republican virtue and mistrust of a king, end up with what looks so much like a royal court? In fact, until relatively recently, presidents used to run the country through their cabinet officers. It was not until 1939 that Congress created the Executive Office of the President, awarding Franklin Roosevelt a grand total of six administrative assistants. (It evidently took a much smaller staff to create the New Deal than to dismantle it.) The Truman administration set up the National Security Council, which became the presidential vehicle for running foreign policy separate from the cabinet departments. The latest innovation is Vice President Cheney's team of foreign policy specialists for various regions of the world, separate from those of the security council. As Stephen Graubard notes: ''The American presidency, as it evolved in the 20th century, bestowed powers on that office never conceived by those who invented it in the 18th.'' ''Command of Office: How War, Secrecy and Deception Transformed the Presidency, From Theodore Roosevelt to George W. Bush,'' seeks to describe how the White House has changed since the early 1900's, both as an institution of government and in the nature of the men who occupy the Oval Office. One difference is that presidents are ever more obsessed with their public image while ever more remote from the public. When Theodore Roosevelt -- the trailblazer for the modern presidency -- was about to be sworn in after the assassination of William McKinley, his first act was to insist that two dozen reporters be admitted to the ceremonies. Franklin Roosevelt not only initiated the famous Fireside Chats, but, as Graubard reports, held an astonishing 337 press conferences in his first term and 374 in his second -- a rate of one to two per week. Today, we have Saturday radio addresses for recorded presidential utterances and far fewer news conferences for the unrehearsed ones. Another relatively recent difference is the new importance of the vice presidency, obvious to anyone watching the current administration. In one sense, though, Dick Cheney is an exception to the modern rule: unlike most vice presidents, he is not running for president. The pioneer, Graubard notes, was Richard M. Nixon, who in 1960 became the first vice president to campaign for the top job (without having already obtained it through the death of a predecessor) since Martin Van Buren in 1837. Five other vice presidents have followed suit. If today's White House operates like a palace, then the vice president usually doubles as crown prince and courtier in chief. The title of this book is misleading. Graubard, the former editor of Daedalus and a professor emeritus at Brown University, touches only briefly on the subjects of war, secrecy and deception; they appear almost as afterthoughts tacked onto a general history of the 20th-century presidents, all 18 chief executives from Roosevelt to Bush, with one chapter on each (yes, including even Warren Harding and Gerald Ford). That's too ambitious a task for a single book. What we get instead is a narrative that seems ponderous but also hurried, with little room for fresh detail or insight. The heroes of Graubard's account are the two Roosevelts, Woodrow Wilson and Harry Truman. Every president since Truman has been inferior, he says: ''One need not be nostalgic for a lost innocence to believe that the last decades have not brought to the White House men of that quality.'' He seems particularly to loathe Dwight D. Eisenhower, ''a five-star general out of his depth in the White House.'' He is nearly as scathing in his criticisms of John Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and both Bushes. Ronald Reagan is characterized as a good actor who was lucky. Graubard's unfocused book contains much information unconnected to the subject of presidential power yet omits some of the essentials. His Truman chapter describes the problems of the family farm but unaccountably doesn't take up the decision to use the atomic bomb at Hiroshima. He covers some of the transitory developments of cold war diplomacy, but his chapter on George H. W. Bush glides over the collapse of the Soviet Union. George W. Bush's pre-emptive war against Iraq represents yet another escalation in presidential arrogation of power. The Constitution, of course, specifically gives Congress the power to declare war. (Those who call for a strict construction of the Constitution rarely dwell on this provision.) Truman dispensed with the requirement at the time of the Korean War, as several presidents did later, asserting the need to halt the advance of Communism (Vietnam) or repel an invasion (Kuwait) or stop civil war and ethnic strife (Somalia, the Balkans). With Iraq, Bush has sent 150,000 American troops into battle halfway around the world, absent an active invasion or conflict. He did not bother to seek a formal declaration of war. After 9/11, and the history described in this book, few Americans questioned his constitutional power to act in this fashion. James Mann's most recent book is ''Rise of the Vulcans: The History of Bush's War Cabinet.'' He is author in residence at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies.