NucNews - March 28, 2005 -------- NUCLEAR Kyoto Goes Nuclear by Gordon Prather, March 28, 2005 Antiwar.com http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=5347 Following Russia's formal ratification of the Kyoto Protocol last November, it went into force on Feb. 16, 2005. The Protocol obligates "industrialized" signatories to reduce by 2012 their emissions of six "greenhouse gases" – primarily carbon dioxide – to 5.2 percent below 1990 levels. The United States is not a signatory. Of course, it's obvious how one reduces greenhouse gases – go nuclear. Nuclear power plants don't emit any greenhouse gases. Perversely, five European Union signatories – including Belgium, with 60 percent of its electricity nuclear – had already decided to phase out nuclear power. Worse still, one of the conditions of EU accession is the closure of all first-generation nuclear power plants. More than 85 percent of Lithuania's electricity is generated by such plants. Ironically, last week, in Paris, the International Atomic Energy Agency sponsored the International Conference on Nuclear Power for the 21st Century. Guess what? Some EU countries – including Germany – are having second thoughts about phasing out nuclear power. For one thing, replacing Germany's nuclear power plants with coal-fired plants would result in an increase of more than 170 million metric tons in carbon dioxide emissions. Finland will begin construction of Olkiluoto-3 later this year, and Electricité de France is scheduled to begin construction in 2007 of a new power plant at Flamanville. Several EU accession states are determined to retain the nuclear option. Even in Poland, where nuclear development was halted by parliamentary decision in 1990, the Council of Ministers recently approved a draft energy policy that explicitly includes nuclear power. Of course, one of the weird things about the Kyoto protocol is that developing countries like India and China, whose greenhouse gas emissions have been rapidly increasing since 1990, are not really covered. India depends upon domestically mined coal for more than half its energy needs, and is the world's third-largest producer after China and the United States. India imports 70 percent of its oil and half its natural gas. India's natural gas demand will almost double by 2015. Therefore, India announced plans to expand its nuclear generating capacity ten-fold by 2022, and hundred-fold by mid-century. However, India is not a signatory to the Treaty on Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons. So, at the urging of the United States, the Nuclear Suppliers Group is refusing to allow Russia to supply India any more such things as nuclear power plants unless India subjects its entire nuclear infrastructure – including its nuclear weapons program – to the IAEA Safeguards regime. Hence, India is developing an indigenous nuclear power plant production capability, based upon the liquid-metal fast-breeder reactor, which breeds plutonium fuel from a natural uranium blanket. But what about China – also considered a developing country? China burns about 1.5 billion tons of coal per year. China is the second-largest importer of oil, consuming 120 million tons in 2004, up by more than 33 percent from 2003. China currently imports 58 percent of its oil from the Middle East, a figure expected to reach 70 percent by 2015. China already has a 50 percent stake in the development of the Yahavaran oil field in Iran. The Chinese National Petrochemical Corporation has acquired the rights to explore for natural gas in Saudi Arabia's al-Khali basin. Nevertheless, China plans to raise its total installed nuclear electricity generating capacity from the current 6.5 gigawatts to 36 gigawatts by 2020. The Russian Federation plans to raise its nuclear generating capacity from the current 22 gigawatts to 40-45 gigawatts by 2020. And, of course, Russia and China plan to build a half-dozen gigawatt plants in Iran in the next few years – all subject to the IAEA Safeguards regime, of course. In Paris last week, U.S. Ambassador Constance Morella told conferees that nuclear energy was "clean" and "reliable" and necessary in order for the world to have a "secure energy supply." Mohammad Saeidi, a vice president of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, delivered more or less the same message to the conferees. Oil and natural gas "are limited and belong to all subsequent generations" and "unrestrained use of this source of energy is not prudent," he said. Iran's goal, Saeidi added, is nothing less than "self-sufficiency in all aspects of the peaceful use of nuclear energy." Saeidi called the research into and the production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes an "inalienable right" of signatories to the Nonproliferation Treaty – "without discrimination." The Brits, French, and Germans – acting as agents for the EU – have already agreed to that. The question is, can they get George Bush to agree? -------- accidents Storage of Nuclear Spent Fuel Criticized Science Academy Study Points to Risk of Attack By Shankar Vedantam Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, March 28, 2005; Page A01 http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A5408-2005Mar27?language=printer A classified report by nuclear experts assembled by the National Academy of Sciences has challenged the decision by federal regulators to allow commercial nuclear facilities to store large quantities of radioactive spent fuel in pools of water. The report concluded that the government does not fully understand the risks that a terrorist attack could pose to the pools and ought to expedite the removal of the fuel to dry storage casks that are more resilient to attack. The Bush administration has long defended the safety of the pools, and the nuclear industry has warned that moving large amounts of fuel to dry storage would be unnecessary and very expensive. The report was requested by Congress after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, as homeland security officials sought to understand the potential consequences of a Sept. 11-scale attack on a nuclear facility. Because the report is classified, its contents were not made public when it was delivered to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) last summer. Even a stripped-down, declassified version has remained under wraps since November because the commission says it contains sensitive information. However, the commission made excerpts of the report public when Chairman Nils Diaz sent a letter to Congress on March 14 rebutting some of the academy's concerns. His letter also suggested that the academy had largely backed the government's views about the safety of existing fuel storage systems. E. William Colglazier, executive officer of the academy, said the letter was misleading and warned that the public needs to learn about the report's findings. "There are substantive disagreements between our committee's views and the NRC," he said in an interview. "If someone only reads the NRC report, they would not get a full picture of what we had to say." Although the commission said it is keeping the report under wraps for security reasons, some officials who have seen the document suggest that the NRC is merely suppressing embarrassing criticism. "At the same time that the NRC is saying that the National Academy's study is classified and not releasable to the public, it has somehow managed to send a detailed rebuttal of the report's conclusions to Congress in unclassified form," said Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), who has seen the report. "I am concerned that the totality of the Commission's actions reflect a systemic effort to withhold important information from . . . the public, rather than a genuine effort to be protective of national security," Markey said in a March 21 letter to the commission's inspector general. NRC spokesman Eliot Brenner countered that the commission is "a very open agency" and that regulators are working with the academy to make the report public. "Our core concern is making sure that information that could reasonably be expected to be available to a terrorist is not publicly available," he said. "We are continuing to work with them on finding the right balance." The report was solicited by Congress to study how best to store spent nuclear fuel -- tons of rods containing radioactive byproducts of nuclear fission reactions are produced each year by the nation's 103 electricity-generating nuclear reactors. Spent fuel rods generate intense heat and dangerous long-term radiation that must be contained. Most of the spent rods are stored in large swimming-pool-like structures called spent fuel pools, said David Lochbaum, a nuclear safety engineer at the science and advocacy group Union of Concerned Scientists, who has worked at several plants. The pools are about 45 feet deep and 40 feet square and are filled with about 100,000 gallons of circulating water to remove heat and serve as a radiation shield, he said. After cooling for about five years, the rods can be moved to dry storage -- heavy casks of lead and steel. But the casks are expensive, and commercial reactors have elected to leave the rods in the pools until the pools fill up. Lochbaum said some pools hold 800 to 1,000 tons of rods. In the event of a terrorist strike, Lochbaum said, the dry casks would be much safer, because explosions could drain the pools and set off fire and radiation hazards. The nuclear industry wants the fuel moved to a storage site in Nevada, but that project has long been plagued by delays and opposition. Steven Kraft, director of waste management at the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry group, said studies had shown that the pools are as safe as the dry casks -- the same position adopted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Kraft said that the risk of catastrophic attacks is minuscule and that modeling analyses have shown that even plane crashes are unlikely to affect the pools' integrity. And even if they did cause damage, he added, there would not be catastrophic consequences because of safety systems already in place. "If the pool is safe and the casks are safe and they both meet the requirements, there is no justification for going through what is a huge amount of expense and worker exposure" to move the rods to dry storage, he said. In his letter to Congress, Diaz said the academy's recommendation to move fuel to dry storage was based on "scenarios that were unreasonable." But Arjun Makhijani, a nuclear engineer with the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, a nonprofit research and advocacy organization that supports underground dry storage of the rods, said the commission had been lax. "There is no question that any terrorist who wants to know about spent fuel has plenty of information already," he said of the withheld report. "Publication of a report on security will not help terrorists. The only thing it is hindering is discussion of public safety." Diaz's letter to Congress shows that the academy recommended that the government conduct additional analyses to evaluate "the vulnerabilities and consequences" to storage pools of "attacks using large aircraft or large explosives." The academy also called for a review and upgrade of security measures to prevent theft of spent fuel rods by insiders and an assessment of security by "an independent organization." The commission letter defended measures it has in place and said that "the likelihood an adversary could steal spent fuel . . . is extremely low." The letter said the additional analysis demanded by the academy study was "more than is needed" and rejected the call for an independent security analysis, saying the commission's own assessments were "sound and realistic." To keep the report secret, the federal agency used a classification called "Safeguards Information" that it applies to data that are unclassified but reveal sensitive details about nuclear facilities and security procedures. Brenner, the spokesman, emphasized that the academy's report and the commission's response had been seen by the Department of Homeland Security and members of Congress charged with oversight. "The full report is there with those with the appropriate clearances," he said. The academy's Colglazier said the science organization had produced many classified reports but had never encountered such hurdles in creating a public version. "We don't want to provide information in our report that could be used by terrorists to exploit vulnerabilities," he said. "But we also want the public and decision makers to know what things need to be addressed." The scientist also rejected Brenner's reassurance that the classified report had been seen by relevant decision makers. Governors of states with nuclear plants need to see the report, he said, and the public had an important role as well. "The way our political system works, when politicians hear from their constituents, they are motivated to take action that they don't when the public is unaware," he said. -------- depleted uranium Troops 'face uranium danger' 28 March 2005 Australia Daily Telegraph http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story.jsp?sectionid=1274&storyid=2876640 AUSTRALIAN troops being sent to Iraq in May could be at risk of contracting cancer or conceiving deformed children, doctors said today. The Medical Association for Prevention of War (MAPW) has written to Defence Minister Robert Hill advising him against deploying troops to the Al Muthanna province in southern Iraq. Association vice president Dr Gillian Deakin said research teams had found depleted uranium wherever the US attacked Iraqi tanks using weapons tipped with the toxic nuclear waste. "United Nations statistics for southern Iraq where depleted uranium was used heavily in 1991 reveal a seven-fold increase in cancer rates between 1989 and 1994," he said. "Congenital deformities of types virtually never seen in other circumstances are occurring in newborns in Iraq in areas where depleted uranium is present." There is no proof that depleted uranium - nuclear waste recycled to make new bombs - causes the cancers and deformities. However, MAPW said alarm was growing among the international medical community over its possible effects on human health. "The South Australians sensibly refused to have it stored in concrete in remote parts of their state, yet our government is willing to risk exposing our troops to it," Dr Deakin said. "MAPW calls on the Government to refuse the participation of Australian troops in any military activity where depleted uranium might be used or in any location where depleted uranium has been used in the past." Four hundred and fifty Australian soldiers will leave Australia in stages by sea and air for southern Iraq between mid-April and mid-May. Comment was being sought from Senator Hill and the Australian Defence Force today. -------- europe Chirac seeks deal with Japan to break deadlock on nuclear project Mon Mar 28, 2005 3:36 AM ET Science - AFP http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050328/sc_afp/scienceenergyeuiterjapanfrance_050328083619 TOKYO, (AFP) - French President Jacques Chirac said that the European Union hoped for an agreement soon to let Japan take part in a revolutionary nuclear project as both parties agreed to step up dialogue. Talks have been deadlocked for months on where to build the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), with the European Union threatening to go it alone if Japan does not drop its bid. "France along with Europe hope for Japan's participation as part of the international cooperation on ITER," Chirac said on a visit to Tokyo. "I have no doubt that an agreement on this issue can be found quickly between the European Union and Japan," he told a seminar on sustainable development organized by the Nikkei financial press group. Speaking at the same event, Taizo Nishimuro, chairman of electronics giant Toshiba, said he heard a deal could be reached in April. "I understand that Japan and France will work together to come to a conclusion in a meeting next month," Nishimuro said. "I know Japanese engineers who can speak the best French are those in the field of nuclear science. They have full understanding of the goings on in France," he said. ITER, which would emulate the sun's nuclear fusion, is designed to one day generate inexhaustible supplies of electricity, but is not expected to be operational before 2050. The United States and South Korea support Japan's offer to build ITER in Rokkasho-mura, a northern Japanese village near the Pacific Ocean, while China and Russia back the EU bid for the southern French town of Cadarache. European Union leaders at a March 23 meeting in Brussels said they would go ahead with construction in Cadarache and gave Japan until July to agree. Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, after talks Sunday with Chirac, said Japan "has no intention to withdraw its bid to invite ITER." A Japanese foreign ministry official said Koizumi and Chirac agreed in principle for an EU delegation to visit Japan before April 18, when the Europeans will hold a new crucial meeting on ITER in Brussels. "Japan and France have had fruitful cooperation for more than a quarter century on the peaceful use of nuclear energy. We want this cooperation to continue, including through the ITER program," Chirac said in an interview with the Tokyo Shimbun newspaper published Monday. Chirac said without further detail that Tokyo had made "constructive proposals" which would designate a sharing of responsibilities between the country which hosts the ITER reactor and the other. Satoru Ohtake, chief of the Office of Fusion Energy, which handles the ITER issue at the Japanese science and technology ministry, said he did not believe Koizumi and Chirac came "to a new, fresh conclusion per se." "They have agreed to continue our discussions in search for an answer. They reiterated that they will take the path that we have been taking," Ohtake told AFP. "We are still negotiating the issue and we want to come to a conclusion that is mutually beneficial," he said. "What the summit did was to reconfirm the method that we have been taking and to continue the ongoing dialogue." -------- india India has no intention to join arms race: Mukherjee Monday March 28, 2005 News International, Pakistan http://jang.com.pk/thenews/mar2005-daily/28-03-2005/main/main4.htm NEW DELHI: Indian Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee on Sunday claimed New Delhi is interested in procuring various equipments, including sophisticated military aircraft for defence preparedness. "One thing I would like to emphasise is that we have no intention of joining the arms race," Mukherjee told the reporters in Kolkata. About US offer to sell sophisticated F-16 aircraft to India, he said India would consider the offer to procure the equipment keeping in view the requirements of the three services for defence preparedness. "This is the first time we have received an offer from the US," Mukherjee told reporters. "Naturally, when the offer is there, it will have to be actively considered by the government of India keeping in view the requirements of our armed forces." "Though earlier we used to have sometimes some equipment of high technology, never before an offer of such sophisticated equipment, including planes and others were made which have been made now." India has in the past relied heavily on French and Russian fighters but is now seeking to diversify. ---- Global nuclear policy irks India Singh was speaking ahead of a nuclear proliferation conference BBC Monday, 28 March, 2005 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4387055.stm India has criticised the international community for failing to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. Foreign Minister Natwar Singh said much of the proliferation tended to emanate from its South Asian neighbourhood. India has long criticised the United States for overlooking Pakistan's alleged involvement in spreading nuclear technology. Mr Singh's comments came three days after the US said it would sell F-16 jets to India's nuclear rival Pakistan. Washington has also offered India combat planes, an offer Delhi said it would consider. Disgraced scientist But ahead of an international conference on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Mr Singh said the world's leading nuclear powers had not been serious in its efforts. "Unfortunately, even today, we see the same inconsistencies in approach with selective focus on the recipients of such clandestine proliferation but not enough attention on the sources of supply," Mr Singh said. Pakistan's disgraced nuclear scientist, AQ Khan, is believed to have supplied nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea. Last week Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf said Islamabad was considering sending nuclear parts to a UN watchdog to help it investigate whether Iran was developing atomic weapons. The US on Friday said it was offering combat planes to both India and Pakistan. The two rivals, who went nuclear in 1998, have fought three wars since independence in 1947. India warned that the decision to sell F-16s to Pakistan risked creating an arms race. But on Monday, President Musharraf applauded the US decision: "This will make a strategic difference. This will tremendously increase our defence capability and the strategy of defensive deterrence." Policy change The US said it was also allowing US defence companies to bid for a large Indian order for combat aircraft and said it was also considering offering India technology for civilian nuclear energy. "This is the first time we have received an offer from USA," Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee said. "Naturally, when the offer is there, it will have to be actively considered by the government of India keeping in view the requirements of our armed forces." Media reports said both the F-16 and the multi-role F-18 combat aircraft were on offer. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said America was looking to "solidify and extend relations" with both India and Pakistan at a time when Washington enjoyed good relations with both countries. The decision to sell warplanes to Pakistan also marks a change in US policy, which blocked the sale of F-16s in 1990 over Pakistan's nuclear weapons programme. The revived sale will form part of a five-year, $3bn assistance programme. ---- India accuses nuclear superpowers of turning blind eye to nuke bazaar NEW DELHI (AFP) Mar 28, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050328074457.zv4zk1yh.html Indian Foreign Minister Natwar Singh on Monday accused the world's superpowers of turning a blind eye to nuclear commerce in South Asia, saying it was having an "adverse impact" on his country's security and on global peace. Singh's comments come ahead of a May conference in New York called to review the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which bans the transfer of nuclear weapons and the technology to make them. Singh did not name rival Pakistan but made it clear that recent disclosures of proliferation from the neighbouring country was one of the reasons India is staying away from the nuclear treaty. "The infirmities of the non-proliferation order have imposed costs on India and have had adverse impact on our security, as much of the clandestine proliferation which is today the focus of attention emanates from our neighbourhood," said Singh. "The response of the international community over the years has been, from our point of view, inadequate at best or permissive at worst, leading to the present adverse situation," he told a two-day conference on "Emerging Nuclear Proliferation Challenges." "Even today we see the same inconsistencies in approach with selective focus on the recipients of such clandestine proliferation but not enough attention on the sources of supply. "India has an abiding interest in non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction not just for its own security but for peace and security of the world at large." Pakistan has been caught up in a row over nuclear proliferation since February 2004, when its disgraced nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan confessed to passing atomic technology to North Korea, Libya and Iran. Khan is under virtual house arrest but Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf pardoned him and has refused to let foreign countries or the International Atomic Energy Agency question him. Since 1968 some 188 nations have put their names to the NPT. Signatories include the five main nuclear powers -- Britain, France, China, Russia and the United States -- but not emerging nuclear states India and Pakistan or suspected nuclear state Israel. Pakistan conducted nuclear tests in May 1998 after rival India conducted similar detonations. Both countries have active missile programmes. Pakistan and India have a bitter history of confrontation, mainly over the Muslim-majority state of Kashmir. But they have been engaged in a peace dialogue since January last year. Singh said India was acting responsibly. "India may not be a party to the NPT but our conduct has always been consistent with the key provisions of the treaty," he said in reply to questions on New Delhi's stand on the pact. India says the treaty imposes stricter conditions on fledgling nuclear states than on established nuclear powers. "Our behaviour is in sharp contrast to the poor record of some of the nuclear weapon states who have been active collaborators, or silent spectators, to continuing clandestine and illegal proliferation, including export of nuclear weapons or technology," Singh said. India also refuses to endorse the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty but since 1998 has imposed a moratorium on further testing. "We are fulfilling all the commitments that go in being a responsible nuclear power acting with utmost restraint," said Singh. "Our unilateral moratorium on nuclear tests continues to remain in place." -------- iran 20 NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS TO BE BUILT IN IRAN 2005-03-28 13:41 (RIA Novosti) http://en.rian.ru/rian/index.cfm?prd_id=160&msg_id=5479000&startrow=1&date=2005-03-28&do_alert=0 TEHRAN, March 28 - The Iranian Parliament ratified a bill concerning the construction of new nuclear power plants in Iran with total output of 20,000 megawatts. "Iranian Majlis has ratified the proposal of the parliamentary energy commission on the construction of 20 new nuclear power plants with the total output of 20,000 megawatts," Kamal Daneshyar, the head of the Majlis energy commission told journalists on Monday. According to him, "the introduction of nuclear power plants, which will be conducted in the course of the next ten years, will substitute for the lack of the electric energy in the country." The MP didn't specify the location of the new construction sites. Currently Russian specialists complete the construction of the first unit of the nuclear power plant in Bushehr - the northern part of the Iranian shore on the Persian Gulf. The launch of the unit is scheduled for late 2005 with the commissioning in 2006. Documents concerning the return of the spent nuclear fuel from the Bushehr power plant and conditions for its deliveries were signed in the course of the recent visit of Alexander Rumyantsev, the head of the Russian Federal Atomic Energy Agency, to Iran in march this year. This visit relieved the remaining obstacles concerning the construction of the facility in Bushehr, which was conducted in full compliance with international standards and under the IAEA supervision. -------- treaties India Accuses World Powers of Slackening of Nuclear Nonproliferation Regime By Rajesh Mahapatra Associated Press Writer Published: Mar 28, 2005 http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBY2WKJU6E.html NEW DELHI (AP) - India on Monday accused the world's leading nuclear powers of failing to prevent the spread of atomic weapons and demanded they tighten global nonproliferation rules. External Affairs Minister Natwar Singh said the leading powers must also agree to "irreversible and verifiable cuts in their nuclear arsenal" if they want to be serious about nonproliferation. Singh's comments came ahead of an international conference on the 1968 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, scheduled to be held in New York in May. India, which became a nuclear power in 1998, has not signed the treaty because it says the pact seeks to restrict nuclear weapons to a few countries rather than eliminate them completely. Still, Singh said, India's conduct has always been consistent with the key provisions. Singh also said some of the nuclear weapon states "have been active collaborators in, or silent spectators to, continuing clandestine and illegal proliferation, including export, of nuclear weapon components and technologies." He didn't name the countries, but New Delhi has long accused the United States of overlooking Indian archrival Pakistan's involvement in the nuclear programs of countries like Iran and North Korea. Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of Pakistan's nuclear program, is being investigated for allegedly exporting nuclear technology. Pakistan, which became a nuclear power the same year as India, denies it had any knowledge of Khan's actions, and remains a key ally of the United States in its fight against terrorism. Singh accused nuclear weapon states of a discriminatory approach to enforcing the treaty. "Even today we see the same inconsistencies, with selective focus on the recipients of such clandestine proliferation but not enough attention on the sources of supply," he said. He criticized the United States and Russia for refusing to cut their nuclear stockpiles even after the end of the Cold War. "Such an attitude feeds and strengthens the belief that nuclear weapons are a currency of power," he said. Singh said New Delhi would be willing to join global nonproliferation efforts if all nuclear weapon states cut their arsenals, lower the alert status of their strategic weapons, and boost cooperation in nuclear technologies for economic development, especially in the energy sector. The treaty recognizes only five nuclear weapon states - the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China. The treaty, which has been signed by 185 countries, doesn't recognize India, Pakistan, Israel or North Korea as nuclear weapon states. ---- Saving Nonproliferation By Jimmy Carter Monday, March 28, 2005 Washington Post; Page A17 Renewal talks for the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) are scheduled for May, yet the United States and other nuclear powers seem indifferent to its fate. This is remarkable, considering the addition of Iran and North Korea as states that either possess or seek nuclear weapons programs. A recent United Nations report warned starkly: "We are approaching a point at which the erosion of the non-proliferation regime could become irreversible and result in a cascade of proliferation." A group of "Middle States" has a simple goal: "To exert leverage on the nuclear powers to take some minimum steps to save the non-proliferation treaty in 2005." Last year this coalition of nuclear-capable states -- including Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa, Sweden and eight NATO members -- voted for a new agenda resolution calling for implementing NPT commitments already made. Tragically, the United States, Britain and France voted against this resolution. So far the preparatory committee for the forthcoming NPT talks has failed even to achieve an agenda because of the deep divisions between nuclear powers that refuse to meet their own disarmament commitments and the nonnuclear movement, whose demands include honoring these pledges and considering the Israeli arsenal. Until recently all American presidents since Dwight Eisenhower had striven to restrict and reduce nuclear arsenals -- some more than others. So far as I know, there are no present efforts by any of the nuclear powers to accomplish these crucial goals. The United States is the major culprit in this erosion of the NPT. While claiming to be protecting the world from proliferation threats in Iraq, Libya, Iran and North Korea, American leaders not only have abandoned existing treaty restraints but also have asserted plans to test and develop new weapons, including anti-ballistic missiles, the earth-penetrating "bunker buster" and perhaps some new "small" bombs. They also have abandoned past pledges and now threaten first use of nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states. Some corrective actions are obvious: • The United States needs to address remaining nuclear issues with Russia, demanding the same standards of transparency and verification of past arms control agreements and dismantling and disposal of decommissioned weapons. With massive arsenals still on hair-trigger alert status, a global holocaust is just as possible now, through mistakes or misjudgments, as it was during the depths of the Cold War. We could address perhaps the world's greatest proliferation threat by fully securing Russia's stockpiles. • While all nuclear weapons states should agree to non-first use, the United States, as the sole superpower, should take the lead on this issue. • NATO needs to de-emphasize the role of its nuclear weapons and consider an end to their deployment in Western Europe. Despite its eastward expansion, NATO is keeping the same stockpiles and policies as when the Iron Curtain divided the continent. • The comprehensive test ban treaty should be honored, but the United States is moving in the opposite direction. The administration's 2005 budget refers for the first time to a list of test scenarios, and other nations are waiting to take the same action. • The United States should support a fissile materials treaty to prevent the creation and transport of highly enriched uranium and plutonium. • Curtail U.S. development of the infeasible missile defense shield, which is wasting huge resources, while breaking our commitment to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty without a working substitute. • Act on nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, an increasing source of instability in that region. Iran has repeatedly hidden its intentions to enrich uranium while claiming that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. This explanation has been given before, by India, Pakistan and North Korea, and has led to weapons programs in all three states. Iran must be called to account and held to its promises under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. At the same time, we fail to acknowledge how Israel's nuclear status entices Iran, Syria, Egypt and other states to join the community of nuclear weapons states. These are vital questions, and the world will know the answers during the NPT conference in May. Former president Carter is founder of the Carter Center in Atlanta. -------- u.s. nuc waste Yucca Mountain Woes Giving Push to Alternate Plans for Nuclear Waste Storage March 28, 2005 — By Erica Warner, Associated Press http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=7416 WASHINGTON — As problems mount with the government's plan to open a national nuclear waste dump in Nevada, lawmakers and industry officials are increasingly pushing for a Plan B. After the most recent setback for Yucca Mountain -- a revelation last week that government workers on the planned dump may have falsified documents -- a key House Republican urged the Energy Department to look at temporary waste storage solutions. And Senate Energy Committee Chairman Pete Domenici, R-N.M., is promoting talk of alternatives to Yucca Mountain, while nuclear utilities are already looking into other options. Many have begun building onsite storage for spent fuel and moving forward with plans for a private waste dump in Utah. They also are pursuing lawsuits against the government, seeking reimbursement for the cost of temporary waste storage. While the Energy Department remains committed to Yucca Mountain, there's a growing consensus that the dump -- scheduled until recently to open in 2010 but now delayed indefinitely -- can no longer be considered the only answer for disposing of the nation's nuclear waste. "What matters is getting rid of the fuel," said attorney Jerry Stouck, who represents nuclear utilities in lawsuits against the government. "I don't think Yucca Mountain is so important as a solution." Yucca Mountain, approved by Congress in 2002, is planned as a repository for 77,000 tons of defense waste and used reactor fuel from commercial power plants. The material is supposed to be buried for at least 10,000 years beneath the desert 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. But the project has suffered serious setbacks, including funding problems and an appeals court decision last summer that's forcing a rewrite of radiation exposure limits for the site. Some 55,000 tons of commercial reactor fuel and 16,000 tons of high-level defense waste are already waiting at sites in 39 states. The government, which originally promised nuclear utilities it would begin accepting their spent fuel in 1998, is facing billions of dollars in lawsuits for failing to make good on that pledge. That mounting liability prompted Rep. David Hobson, R-Ohio, last week to urge the Energy Department official in charge of Yucca -- Theodore Garrish -- to start looking at alternatives. Hobson, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee panel that oversees the project, proposed an interim, aboveground storage facility at the Nevada Test Site or elsewhere to accept waste for up to 500 years, giving scientists time to develop new disposal solutions. "It doesn't take brain science to think that we could save money in the long run to get this stuff out of where it is and live up to an obligation, a contractual obligation," Hobson told Garrish at a hearing. He also suggested another look at reprocessing used reactor fuel. Garrish said the Energy Department remained "100 percent committed" to Yucca, but said he understood Hobson's complaints. Hobson's ideas aren't new. The Energy Department pursued interim "monitored retrievable storage" facilities in the late 1980s and early 1990s before abandoning the idea. The Bush administration has also proposed reviving reprocessing, which the United States abandoned in the 1970s over fears the resulting plutonium could be seized by terrorists or a rogue state. Yucca Mountain's chronic delays are forcing the ideas to the surface again, even from supporters. "There has been a sea change in the way the nuclear community looks at Yucca Mountain," said Marnie Funk, spokeswoman for Domenici, the Energy Committee chairman who is a Yucca backer but nonetheless is open to such discussions. "People are no longer saying Yucca Mountain has to be finished in order for the nuclear industry to have a revival in this country. You can still have a nuclear renaissance without Yucca Mountain, but that would mean at some point other options have to be discussed." The Justice Department settled a suit with Chicago-based electric utility Exelon Corp. last August for a sum that could rise to $600 million if Yucca Mountain doesn't open until 2015. Other suits are moving forward, including one by the Sacramento Municipal Utility District that began this week in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Damages against the government are estimated at $2 billion to $3 billion if Yucca Mountain opens in 2010, 12 years after the government's contractual obligation to start storing the nation's nuclear waste, Garrish told lawmakers. Damages could be $1 billion a year after that, meaning the project's annual liability costs would nearly match its projected budget needs. The Energy Department has estimated the total cost of the project at $58 billion, but critics say it could rise much higher. In recognition of the delays, President Bush's 2006 budget request for the project was $651 million, about half what the Energy Department originally envisioned. Meanwhile, a group of eight utility companies is moving forward with plans for a private, aboveground dump on an Indian reservation in Utah. That won approval in February from a licensing board and is awaiting final Nuclear Regulatory Commission approval. Utah's congressional delegation opposes the project just as strenuously as Nevada lawmakers -- including Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid -- oppose Yucca Mountain. Now, many Utah officials say they're beginning to agree with Nevadans, who favor leaving the waste permanently at utility sites. The nuclear industry and the Energy Department oppose that idea. "Pretty much the whole Utah delegation voted to do Yucca Mountain, and the premise there was we want that finished so it's not stuck in Utah," said Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah. "But since that vote the world has changed a lot. It just sees to me that the transition has been such that it now becomes reasonable to say not Utah, not Nevada, nowhere." ---- Nuke Plants Use Dry Casks for Spent Fuel By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Published: March 28, 2005 Filed at 6:53 p.m. ET http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Nuclear-Waste.html? WASHINGTON (AP) -- About 40 percent of the nation's nuclear power plants have begun moving spent fuel out of cooling pools and into massive dry casks, embracing a storage approach that a National Academy of Sciences panel said offers safety advantages. The nation's 64 active nuclear power plants, which together house 103 reactors, all now store nuclear waste in pools of water after it is removed from reactors. Eventually, the spent fuel is supposed to be shipped to a national nuclear waste dump planned for Yucca Mountain in Nevada. As Yucca Mountain has been delayed, utilities are increasingly moving some of the waste from pools to huge metal or metal-and-concrete casks. That method is now employed at about 25 active U.S. nuclear power plants, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry trade group. NEI spokesman Steve Kerekes said Monday that both storage methods are safe -- contrary to the findings of the National Academy of Sciences panel, which told the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that the vulnerability of spent nuclear fuel pools to terrorist attacks needs urgent new study. The Academy panel also said that in some cases, the NRC might find it prudent to move spent fuel from cooling pools to dry cask storage more quickly. Agreeing with industry, the NRC said either form of storage ``provides reasonable assurance that public health and safety, the environment and the common defense and security will be adequately protected.'' The NRC also said the additional analyses recommended by the Academy panel, including studies of possible attacks by large aircraft or explosives, were ``more than is needed.'' Watchdog groups contend the casks are safer than the pools, especially when the pools reach capacity. But the dry casks are more expensive -- a cost that would be born by the power plant owners and the government, which is being sued by utilities for failing to make good on a promise to accept their nuclear waste starting in 1998. The report by a 13-member National Academy panel of nuclear scientists and power plant experts was delivered to the NRC last summer. It remains classified but portions were released to lawmakers this month as part of a report Congress requested from the NRC. The Academy's executive officer, E. William Colglazier, criticized the NRC report and an accompanying letter by commission Chairman Nils Diaz as misleading and incomplete. Colglazier also said the NRC was delaying attempts by the Academy to release a declassified, public version of the panel's study as required by law. ``In our feeling it all could have been avoided if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission had approved a release of a public version of our report in a more timely manner,'' Colglazier said Monday. NRC spokeswoman Sue Gagner said the agency was working with the Academy on releasing a public report that doesn't contain information of use to terrorists. She wouldn't comment on Colglazier's criticism of the NRC letter and report beyond saying, ``Our letter made the points as we see them.'' Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., accused the NRC of trying to withhold information from the public by failing to approve a declassified report, and asked the agency's inspector general to investigate the issue. On the Net: National Academy of Sciences: http://www4.nationalacademies.org/nas/nashome.nsf Nuclear Regulatory Commission: http://www.nrc.gov/ Nuclear Energy Institute: http -------- MILITARY -------- arms A 'warehouse of evil' March 28, 2005 Washington Times Editorial By S. Rob Sobhani http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20050328-122030-4218r.htm The recent arrest of 18 people planning to smuggle Soviet-made grenade launchers, shoulder-fired missiles and other Russian military weapons into the United States is a disturbing national-security problem connecting unresolved conflicts in the former Soviet Union to our homeland security. According to various news reports, the participants in this dangerous scheme included both Georgians and Armenians, citizens of two former Soviet republics with continuous ethnic and territorial conflicts. Georgia is embroiled in a conflict to protect its territorial integrity from Russian-backed separatists in Abkhazia and Ossetia. Armenia, on the other hand, is engaged in a 15-year conflict with neighboring Azerbaijan over the territory of Nagorno-Karabagh. While continued ethnic conflict in the territory of Georgia should be of concern to Washington, the more important and worrisome connection is the involvement of Armenians and that country's continued occupation of Azerbaijan. Left unchecked, the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan presents an immediate danger to America's energy and homeland security. Soviet dictator Josef Stalin decided to play the ethnic card to consolidate power by pitting one group against the other and imposing artificial boundaries within the Soviet empire. The lingering war between Azerbaijan and Armenia over the territory of Nagorno-Karabagh is a tragic result of this ethnic gerrymandering. In 1988, the ArmeniansofNagorno-Karabagh declared their "independence" and unification with Armenia. With substantial support from Russia, Armenia started a full-fledged military campaign in 1991. The ensuing war led to the occupation of 20 percent of Azerbaijan's territory by Armenia and forced about a million Azerbaijanis into the status of refugee or internally displaced person. Despite a Russian-brokered cease-fire in 1994, Moscow has transferred $1 billion in illegal arms to its historic ally, Armenia, between 1994 and 1997. And although the government of Armenia is cooperating with U.S. law-enforcement agencies, it now appears that some Armenians are turning their country into a "warehouse of evil" and are trying to sell these Soviet missiles and other armaments to Al Qaeda terrorists for use against the United States. The FBI has expressed serious concern over shoulder-fired missiles that pose a major security threat to American airlines. Ironically, Congress has singled out Armenia for special favor and Azerbaijan for special disfavor. Between 1992 and 2003, Armenia received $1.336 billion in assistance from the U.S. government. Azerbaijan, however, received only $335 million during this same period. Despite its unjust treatment by the U.S. Congress, Azerbaijan has remained a steadfast ally of the United States. When tragedy struck America on Sept. 11, 2001, Azerbaijan offered immediate and unconditional support.Today, its troops are working side-by-side with U.S. forces in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq. Furthermore, Azerbaijan has stood beside the United States on a major foreign-policy priority of Washington -- the uninterrupted exploration, development and transportation of Caspian Sea oil to international markets. The anchor of this policy has been the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline running from Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan, to the Turkish port of Ceyhan on the Mediterranean. On May 25, this historic pipeline will become operational. Crude oil from the Caspian Sea -- home to 10 percent of the world's remaining crude-oil reserves -- will be on its way to the East Coast of the United States. Clearly, the resolution of this conflict must be of utmost importance to President Bush, because it does indeed affect our national security. According to the State Department's 2005 fact sheet, the United States does not recognize Nagorno-Karabagh as an independent country. Washington supports the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. With this in mind, the Bush administration should take a more robust approach to a swift resolution of the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict in a fair and balanced manner. The presidents of both Azerbaijan and Armenia have expressed strong support for a peaceful resolution of their conflict and Washington should seize on this goodwill. A summit at the White House hosted by President Bush could serve as a catalyst to end this festering regional conflict with its direct threat to American security. There is international consensus on the broad outlines of a solution. Armenians must withdraw from all occupied territories. Azerbaijan should regain full sovereignty over Nagorno-Karabagh. The rights of Armenians to live in peace within the territory of Nagorno-Karabagh must be secured and guaranteed, as must the right of Azerbaijanis to return to their ancient homeland if they so desire. The introduction of NATO peacekeepers into the conflict zone would be a first step towards a permanent solution, thus keeping the region from manipulation by criminal elements whose goal is to harm America. When Afghanistan became a "warehouse of evil" for criminals like Osama bin Laden, Americans paid a heavy price on September 11. We cannot afford another region of the world to fall prey to criminal elements. The United States must act now before it is too late. S. Rob Sobhani is president of Caspian Energy Consulting and a member of the Committee on the Present Danger. -------- business Contracts Awarded Washington Technology Monday, March 28, 2005; Page E04 http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A5709-2005Mar27?language=printer Anteon International Corp. of Fairfax won a $117 million, five-year contract from the Army to support the service's Medical Communications for Combat Casualty Care program, which maintains medical records and supports patient tracking for deployed forces, permitting medics to access the system via handheld devices. Artel Inc. of Reston won a $12.5 million, four-year contract from the Defense Information Systems Agency to provide satellite services, including 224 megahertz of bandwidth from Intelsat's IS 706 spacecraft, to the U.S. Central Command for Operation Iraqi Freedom. CACI International Inc. of Arlington won a $20.4 million, three-year contract from the Navy to provide information technology support, including help with new human resources applications and training of users, to the Military Sealift Command. Centurum Inc. of Arlington won a six-year, $46.7 million contract renewal from the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center in Charleston, S.C., to provide technical services to its information warfare exploitation systems engineering division. General Dynamics Corp. of Falls Church won a $95 million, four-year contract from the Navy to provide integration and design agent services for a system that receives and translates information from air, surface and subsurface sensors to give commanders an integrated view of the battlefield. Team Logistics Joint Venture of Fairfax won a $12.3 million contract from the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division for maintenance planning and design interface technical/management support services for the Naval Air Systems Command and the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division. IBM Business Consulting Services of Fairfax won a $7.6 million contract from the Defense Logistics Agency for common food management system and integration services for the agency. Biohabitats Inc. of Timonium won a $4.8 million contract from the General Services Administration for environmental services. Tidewater Inc. of Columbia won a $10 million contract from the General Services Administration for environmental services. Cultural Site Research and Management of Baltimore won a $2.5 million contract from the General Services Administration for environmental services. CGI-AMS of Fairfax won a $2.7 million information technology contract from the Treasury Department for filing and payment compliance. D. Wheatley Enterprises Inc. of Aberdeen won a $1.4 million contract from the Army for chemical weapons and equipment. Research and Engineering Development Inc. of Lexington Park won a $5.1 million contract from the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division to provide technical support for the Naval Air Systems Command, Human Systems Engineering Division. Exxon Mobil Fuels Marketing Co. of Fairfax won a $887.3 million contract from the Defense Energy Support Center to provide JP-8 aviation turbine fuel . Native American Industrial Distributors Inc. of Upper Marlboro won a $3 million contract from the Army for coordination of program management for the National Museum of the Army. PAW Associates Inc. of Washington won a $750 million contract from the General Services Administration for management, organizational and business improvement services. Northrop Grumman Systems Corp., Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems of Linthicum Heights won a $4.5 million contract from the Air Force for research and development of laboratory demonstration applications for airborne electronic attacks. Willcor Inc. of Clinton won a $2.7 million contract from the General Services Administration for management, organizational and business improvement services. General Dynamics Corp. of Fairfax won a $27.8 million contract from the Naval Sea Systems Commands for research and development assistance in developing and maintaining architecture and requirements. McNeil Technologies Inc. of Springfield won an $11.8 million contract from the Drug Enforcement Administration for translation and transcription services for the San Diego field division. Marine Hydraulics International Inc. of Norfolk won a $3 million contract from the Navy for maintenance and repair of the U.S.S. Hue City. Staff writer Judith Mbuya contributed to this report. -------- iraq Pentagon begins to see Iraq momentum shift March 28, 2005 By Rowan Scarborough THE WASHINGTON TIMES http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050328-125258-8373r.htm In the privacy of their E-ring offices, senior Pentagon officials have begun to entertain thoughts that were unimaginable a year ago: Iraq is turning the corner. Military officials and analysts say the clearing out of enemy-infested Fallujah in November, the Jan. 30 elections and the increasing willingness of Iraqis to fight and die for a democratic country are contributing to the momentum. "This is still a tough fight. We don't want anyone to think that it is not," said retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, a military analyst who strongly supports Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. "But the momentum is in our direction." A military officer said big problems remain. Sunnis remain reluctant to join the Iraqi security forces. The Marines need more armored vehicles to fight in the Al Anbar province, one of the deadliest sectors. And the Baghdad command inside the green zone has been spotty on providing actionable intelligence. A military source in Iraq declined to give raw number of attacks, but said, "There has been a decided downward trend in the number and lethality of attacks since the January 30 elections." A Pentagon official said the more that intelligence agencies analyze the insurgency, the clearer it becomes that a large part is criminal, not nationalistic. Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein released tens of thousands of hardened criminals, including murderers, before the March 2003 invasion, meaning that as the ex-convicts are recaptured, insurgent leaders might have an increasingly smaller pool from which to recruit attackers. "We have always realized there was a criminal element in the insurgency that wasn't driven by devotion to Saddam. The numbers may be higher than we first estimated," the official said. An analysis by Reuters shows that U.S. combat deaths in March so far have averaged barely one per day, the lowest figure since February 2004. All told, 1,520 U.S. personnel have died in Iraq, including 1,164 killed in action. "They're clearly going after Iraqi security forces more," Army Gen. George Casey, the top commander in Iraq, said earlier this month. "That's kind of a steady thing. And the attacks against coalition actually have dropped off." The favorable trends do not mean that insurgents cannot pull off spectacularly deadly attacks on U.S. and Iraqi forces. On Thursday, 11 Iraqi policemen were killed by a single suicide bomber, most likely a terrorist in the employ of Jordanian-born Abu Musab Zarqawi. But Iraqis continue to sign up. After an even bloodier attack in January against Iraqis in line to apply for police jobs, a still-longer line formed the next day at the same spot, said a U.S. Army officer in Iraq. And last week, merchants and residents on one of Baghdad's main streets joined the fight by using their own guns to kill three terrorists, who were firing on passers-by. Maj. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, who commands the Army's 1st Cavalry Division and just returned from a year-plus tour overseeing Baghdad, is telling audiences that Osama bin Laden made a crucial mistake when he publicly encouraged Zarqawi. It meant that the Saudi bin Laden was telling the Jordanian Zarqawi to slaughter Iraqis. "Zarqawi is weaker," Gen. McInerney said. "The Iraqi people defied him and went out and voted. He is spending more time killing Iraqis than he is Americans. He's losing support among the Iraqi people." Lt. Col. James Hutton, Gen. Chiarelli's spokesman, said another promising development is the proliferation of Iraqi newspapers and radio and TV stations that avoid the anti-U.S. propaganda viewed on Al Jazeera. "The Iraqi media is really thirsty for facts out on the street," said Col. Hutton, who made it a point to offer a weekly briefing to the Iraqi press that sometimes featured Gen. Chiarelli. "They want to expose corruption." Gen. Chiarelli is also touting the carrot and stick. Attacks in the Shi'ite Baghdad slum Sadr City fell to nearly zero after Army units crushed insurgents and then quickly put hundreds of dwellers to work building basic comforts of home: water, sewer and electric service. ------- un Brazil bids for permanent seat on Security Council By Raymond Colitt in São Paulo Published: March 28 2005 18:34 Financial Times http://news.ft.com/cms/s/97d4a3f8-9fae-11d9-b355-00000e2511c8.html Brazilian diplomats are stepping up efforts to win support for a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council, following growing international backing for Japan. Brasília says recent US and French support for Japan's permanent membership on the Security Council was a promising sign for its own bid. “It means they are backing the ‘group of four',” says a foreign ministry spokesman, referring to Japan, Germany, Brazil and India, who back each other's candidacies. Brazil also believes backing Japan indicates the US and France support proposal “A” for adding six new permanent members and three non-permanent members to the Security Council. Last week Kofi Annan, UN secretary-general, offered this proposal and an alternative that called for eight new, semi-permanent members. The group of four now intends to launch a joint “diplomatic offensive” to secure support for the proposal before the September deadline suggested by Mr Annan, according to a foreign ministry official in Brasília. Since coming to power in 2003, the administration of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has pursued a more assertive foreign policy in part to boost its security council candidacy. Last week Donald Rumsfeld, US defence secretary, told Brazilians what they wanted to hear. “We are very grateful to Brazil. It is a welcome contribution to stability in our hemisphere,” Mr Rumsfeld said, referring to Brazil's peacekeeping efforts in Haiti. “Brazil can be proud of the leadership it is exercising in the region and parts of the world.” But in spite of the praise, some observers say the US is unlikely to back Brazil's bid. “I don't see that happening. I don't think the US will support anybody else besides Japan,” says Rubens Barbosa, a former Brazilian ambassador to Washington. Indeed, several analysts argue Brazil's new appetite for international leadership has yet to be put to a test. “I think Brazil is not ready yet for a seat on the security council and the costs it implies,” says José Botafogo Gonçalves, head of Cebri, an international relations think-tank in Rio de Janeiro. Traditionally more inward-looking, Brazil has only begun to seek a larger role in the international arena, with the very recent conquest of economic and political stability at home. -------- POLITICS -------- us politicis Howard Dean Still Selling Out the Antiwar Movement by Joshua Frank, March 28, 2005 Antiwar.com http://www.antiwar.com/orig/jfrank.php?articleid=5349 It was just over two years ago that I learned a little-known "antiwar" Democrat from Vermont was planning to run for president. At a rally on the eve of Bush's Iraq invasion, a fellow protester handed me a leaflet touting the now infamous Howard Dean, hoping that the propaganda would entice me to support his forthcoming candidacy. Of course, I was intrigued. Few other Democrats were speaking out against the imminent war on Iraq. Luckily, I ended up not taking the bait. Nevertheless, many other activists unabashedly latched onto the Dean campaign in hopes he would represent their interests in Washington. Luckily for Howard, they all had credit cards and Internet access. But as the story goes, Dean was embarrassingly sacked during the primaries and his followers were told to traverse the pro-war Kerry trail instead. Howard Dean isn't dead yet, however, as he has safely landed himself a lofty position within the establishment as chair of the Democratic National Committee. Unfortunately, Dean's nomination means little to the peace movement, as his antiwar convictions have vanished. The second anniversary of the Iraq war came and past, yet the most popular "antiwar" Democrat remains speechless. Dean has said nothing about Bush's potential forays in Iran and Syria. He has not muttered a single word about ending the U.S. occupation of Iraq. Should we be surprised? Nope. Howard Dean's "antiwar" convictions haven't vanished – they never existed to begin with. Looking back into the dirty Dean files, we find that the good doctor has had a long pro-war history. He praised the first Gulf War, NATO's intervention in Bosnia, Bill Clinton's bombing of Sudan and Iraq. He even went so far as to write President Clinton a love letter praising his foreign policy in 1995 as the U.S. waged a brutal air attack on Serbia, bringing death and destruction upon civilians and the infrastructure that provided their only life support. As Dean told to President Clinton: "I think your policy up to this date has been absolutely correcy. … Since it is clearly no longer possible to take action in conjunction with NATO and the United Nations, I have reluctantly concluded that we must take unilateral action." According to most postwar accounts, U.S. air bombardment left the Serbian military relatively unscathed, while ethnic cleansing and violence increased drastically. Nonetheless, Governor Dean supported Clinton's deadly policy without a wince of shame. Candidate Dean was no different. Despite voicing his opposition to Bush's war when he entered the race for the White House, he never wholeheartedly opposed overthrowing Iraqi president Saddam Hussein. In September 2002, Dean had announced that if Saddam failed to comply with the demands of the United Nations, the U.S. reserved the right to "go into Iraq." Dean claimed he would gladly endorse a multilateral effort to destroy Saddam's regime. In fact, Dean wasn't even opposed to a unilateral effort lacking the support of the UN, NATO, or the European Union (see Part Two forthcoming). On NBC's Meet the Press in July 2003, Dean told Tim Russert that the United States must increase its pressure on Saudi Arabia and Iran. "We have to be very, very careful of Iran" because President Bush "is too beholden to the Saudis and the Iranians," he explained. But later in the broadcast, he conceded, "I support the president's War on Terrorism." Dean even went so far as to tell Russert: "I believe that we need a very substantial increase in troops. They don't all have to be American troops. My guess would be that we would need at least 30,000 and 40,000 additional troops." In a New York primary debate two months later, Dean elaborated: "We need more troops. They're going to be foreign troops [in Iraq], not more American troops, as they should have been in the first place. Ours need to come home." Dean, it seems, would have had the disorder in Iraq go on at all costs, though he wasn't quite sure whose soldiers should do the occupying. When Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich grilled Dean during that same debate about Bush's $87 billion Iraq package, Dean claimed that he would support it since "we have no choice … we have to support our troops." So do we support our troops by bringing them home, or by financing the occupation? The self-proclaimed antiwar candidate never clarified. War Opposition a Political Move On April 9, 2003, Howard Dean all but endorsed George W. Bush's preemptive (preventive) war doctrine. Though Dean didn't join in the hawks' celebration of Bush's "liberation of Iraq" that day, he stressed the necessity of pressuring Iran and North Korea, saying he would not rule out the use of military force to do so. As Glen Johnson of the Boston Globe quoted Dean as saying on April 10, 2003, "Under no circumstances can we permit North Korea to have a nuclear program. … Nor, under any circumstances, can we allow Iran to have nuclear weapons." By conceding that effective containment of such rogue states may necessitate the use of force, Dean endorsed a preemptive creed that has had the effect of isolating the United States from the international community. It goes without saying that by embracing the doctrine, Dean's foreign policy vision would not have reversed this trend. Despite the similarities between Dean and Bush on preemption, many antiwar liberals eagerly embraced Dean's nuanced position against the Iraq war. As he told National Public Radio political correspondent Mara Liasson, "There are two groups of people who support me because of the war. … One are the people who always oppose every war, and in the end … I probably won't get all of those people." The other group, Dean said, were constituents who supported his Iraq position because he spoke out early and "represented the facts." But this so-called "representation of the facts" demands closer examination, as it contradicts Dean's "antiwar" label. According to Dean, had Bush produced accurate data proving that Saddam harbored weapons of mass destruction, Dean would have supported the unilateral invasion of Iraq. As Ron Brownstein reported in The Los Angeles Times on Jan. 31, 2003, Dean said, "[I]f Bush presents what he considered to be persuasive evidence that Iraq still had weapons of mass destruction, he would support military action, even without UN authorization." However, Dean failed to note that the UN Charter forbids member countries from attacking another country except in self-defense. Just one month later, Dean alienated his antiwar base, admitting in a Feb. 20 Salon.com interview: "[I]f the UN in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice." Dean, had he taken a legitimate antiwar position, would have argued that when the U.S. puts itself above international law, as it did by disregarding the UN Charter, it further encourages other nations to do the same. As Dean initially articulated his muddled position on Iraq, Danny Sebright, one of the premier architects of Bush's Afghanistan conflict, played puppeteer behind the theatrical curtain. According to Sean Donahue, the Project Director of the Corporations and Militarism Project of the Massachusetts Anti-Corporate Clearinghouse, Sebright constructed and wrote Dean's early statements on war. At that time, Sebright worked under Donald Rumsfeld at the Pentagon as the director of the Executive Secretariat for Enduring Freedom. As Donahue wrote in an Oct. 30, 2003 article on CounterPunch: "When Sebright left the Pentagon in February of 2002, he went to work for his old boss, former Secretary of Defense William Cohen, at the Cohen Group, a Washington-based consulting company. The firm uses its political connections to help companies obtain contracts with the Pentagon and with foreign governments. While it is discreet about its clientele, the Cohen Group does list some of its successes on its Web site – a list that includes helping to negotiate arms sales to Latin American and Eastern European countries, and Advis[ing] and assist[ing] [a] U.S. company in working with U.S. government officials and the Coalition Provisional Authority in securing major contracts related to Iraq reconstruction." The fact that a close Dean advisor worked for a consulting firm involved in pitching contracts for reconstruction projects in Iraq raises questions about the true motives of Dean's support for the president's $87 billion Iraqi reconstruction program. Dean's choice of Sebright as an advisor shows how little difference there actually was between Dean and the Bush administration on the issue of the Iraq war. Based on the statements made by Dean after announcing his campaign in the summer of 2003, it appears that he only opposed the war in Iraq because he didn't believe the Bush administration had proven that Iraq posed an "imminent threat" to the United States. Certainly, there are many reasons he should have raised opposition to the Iraq war. However, by failing to do so, it became quite clear that Dean was not an "antiwar" candidate. The fact is, Dean proved he was just another politician from the Democratic mainstream whose position on Iraq was not grounded on a philosophical aversion to war. On the contrary, Howard Dean's opposition was political in nature. -------- ACTIVISTS Thousands rally against Musharraf in conservative northwest 3/28/2005 10:40 AM (AP) http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-03-28-musharraf_x.htm PESHAWAR, Pakistan — Thousands of opposition activists rallied Monday in this city in northwestern Pakistan, chanting "Death to dictatorship!" in the latest demonstration against President Gen. Pervez Musharraf's grip on power. The supporters of a coalition of radical Islamic groups staged the demonstration along a main street in Peshawar, the capital of Pakistan's conservative North West Frontier Province, which the six-party alliance also rules. The grouping — United Action Forum — kicked up a campaign of countrywide protests against Musharraf days after he went back on a promise to become a civilian head of state and leave his army job by the end of 2004. Many chanted "No to Musharraf's rule!" and "God is great!" as they carried the white flags of the anti-American coalition. Some of the demonstrators burned an effigy of Musharraf, who seized power in a bloodless coup in 1999. "We will sit in peace only when Musharraf's rule and military's interference in politics is ended," the alliance's leader Qazi Hussain Ahmed said at the rally. "Musharraf is not acceptable to us either as the president or army chief. He is an American agent. He is working for American interests," he said amid chants of "America's friend is a traitor." Musharraf has allied Pakistan with the U.S.-led war against terrorism, a decision that angered Islamic groups, which accuse him of undermining the country's sovereignty and ruling as a dictator. The alliance made unexpected gains in parliamentary polls in 2002 mainly on a platform of opposition to Musharraf, and support for the Taliban militia in neighboring Afghanistan. A U.S.-led coalition ousted the Taliban from power in late 2001 for harboring al-Qaeda. Musharraf promised to step down as chief of the army after striking a surprise deal with the alliance to get its support in Parliament for passing measures that gave him sweeping powers, including the authority to dismiss the legislature and the prime minister. But Musharraf reneged on his pledge, saying his stay as army chief will ensure stability in government policies, including the war against terrorism. Recent demonstrations against Musharraf, which have been held in various cities, are unlikely to force him to change his mind. On Friday, more than 10,000 people attended the coalition's rally in the southwestern city of Quetta. Witnesses estimated that more than 20,000 people were at the protest in Peshawar.