NucNews - May 25, 2005



-------- NUCLEAR 


-------- africa

Is South Africa playing with nuclear fire?

May 25 2005 at 06:38PM
By Wendell Roelf, Independent Online South Africa

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=qw1117031761254B213

In the high-stakes nuclear game, will a radioactive waste management policy be foisted on an unsuspecting public or will "transparency, consultation and stakeholder participation" be a reality?

A draft policy containing those word remains ungazetted while government commits itself to developing prototype pebble bed nuclear reactors for commercial use.

"The draft policy appears to be following a 'design, announce, defend' approach with respect to all radioactive waste," said Nik Wullschleger, an independent scientist and geologist.

Wullschleger said given the complex scientific nature of radioactive waste management, there had been "insufficient time" for capacity building, effective public participation and proper comment.

He said the public participation process was "seriously flawed" and made a mockery of a ministerial foreword to the draft legislation which stated that among the policy's "great achievements is its participatory process".

By Wednesday afternoon government had not commented, despite a list of questions e-mailed to the nuclear chief director, Tseliso Maqubela, and ministerial spokesperson Yvonne Msolo last week.

The radioactive waste management policy, released for public comment in 2003, is government's attempt at addressing shortcomings in managing nuclear waste.

The comment period was initially only a month and the policy was only available in English.

Despite operating the Koeberg nuclear reactor on the Cape West coast, and another nuclear facility at Pelindaba near Pretoria, the country does not have a regulatory framework for radioactive waste management.

High-level waste at both facilities is stored on-site because it was too dangerous to move, while medium to low-level waste is buried at the Vaalputs site in the Northern Cape.

South Africa might build 20 pebble bed modular reactors (PBMRs) to meet future electricity demand, with each plant producing up to 32 tons of high-level waste a year, including 1,5 tons of uranium.

If only five reactors were built, each operating for its entire 40-year lifespan, space would have to be found to store a massive 6 400 tons of radioactive waste.

Earthlife Africa's Sibusiso Mimi said a "policy is simply an idea of a plan".

He used the United States - a nuclear giant - to illustrate that proposals to store high-level waste remained unresolved after years of controversial debate.

In the USA, the proposed Yucca Mountain high-level waste storage facility remained unbuilt, with investigations into suitable sites costing hundreds of millions of dollars.

"It is totally foolhardy to continue to produce highly toxic waste with no real plan of what to do with it," said Mimi.

Critiquing the draft legislation, Wullschleger recommended that polluters carry the full cost for the entire hazardous life-span of the waste, "including 'grave-side' maintenance and monitoring".

Wullschleger said the Best Available Technology not Entailing Excessive Cost (BATNEEC) principle could be abused by profit-motivated generators and operators, such as Eskom.

He said in accordance with the precautionary principle, BATNEEC should be replaced with the Best Practicable Environmental Option, as described by the National Environmental Management Act of 1998.

Wullschleger also raised concern over the proposed National Radioactive Waste Management Agency, saying a potential conflict of interest existed because the agency was a "wholly-owned subsidiary" of the South African Nuclear Energy Corporation (Necsa).

Necsa was the promoter of nuclear technology and would now be charged with the management of radioactive waste.

While government appeared to favour deep geological disposal of radioactive waste, Wullschleger said "retrievability" of containers, when considering public safety or a possible containment breach, should be ensured at all costs. Especially because the hazardous life-span of radioactive waste, such as spent fuel, plutonium or uranium, could be millions of years.

In its submission, the City of Cape Town suggested that the draft radioactive waste strategy be revised to include a framework timetable, budget and deadline for the establishment of a final repository for high-level nuclear waste.

This timetable would consider the "true costs" of nuclear power, the city said.

Cape Town wanted the costs of providing financial guarantees and security against potential nuclear accidents to be assessed relative to the population potentially affected in a worst-case scenario.

"Although unlikely, a severe accident could have far-reaching and long-term impacts on the entire city population and economy of the Western Cape. To put some perspective on the magnitude, the R3,5-billion guarantee for Koeberg would provide just over R1 000 per person (for compensation) for the 3,2 million population of Cape Town."

The city warned that if the full life-cycle financial and environmental risks and costs are not taken into consideration, current electricity consumers may not have paid the full costs of electricity.

"And the outstanding costs may be held over for future generations to bear."

The city has already submitted an appeal to Environment Minister Marthinus van Schalkwyk, against the record of decision authorising the pilot PBMR at Koeberg.

The PBMR authorisation included the condition that the national policy on radioactive waste must be in place before commencement of construction of the prototype nuclear reactor. - Sapa



-------- canada

Canada: Future nuclear waste disposal woes
 
canada.com
Wednesday, May 25, 2005

http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/toronto/story.html?id=b197c447-9d94-4235-8244-8bc85bf094b6

TORONTO -- Ontario's energy minister says the hardest part about dealing with Canada's nuclear waste is yet to come.

Dwight Duncan says the major challenge will be choosing a site to handle spent nuclear fuel from Canada's nuclear reactors.

It's been a controversial topic for years.

An interim report by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization outlines a $24-billion process to bury Canada's spent nuclear fuel.

The group wants to bury it deep underground.

But it will be years before the organization, which reports to the federal government, starts looking for such a site.

The report says the organization will look for a community that's willing to host such a site.

The report says selection of a site will focus on Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan, since that's where most spent nuclear fuel is produced. 



<a name="du"></a>

-------- depleted uranium

New Australian Documentary on the horrifying effects of DU

Australian Coalition for Economic Justice
May 2005 
Article nr. 12027 sent on 25-may-2005 02:37 ECT	

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m12027&l=i&size=1&hd=0

The World premiere of new Australian documentary on Depleted Uranium (DU) weaponry and its horrifying effects on "Coalition of the willing" soldiers and civilians will be held in Brisbane at a date and venue now under negotiation. Details will be available on our website at http://www.acej.org.au

The documentary by David Bradbury: Blowin' in the Wind, was two years in the making and took him around the world. It was inspired by the Australian Coalition for Economic Justice (ACEJ) 2003 sponsored tour by former US Army physicist Dr Doug Rokke. He features in the film, which has important messages for Australians.

After former US Army physicist Dr Doug Rokke's visit to Australia in 2003 a new organisation was formed to continue creating awareness of the horrific effects of depleted uranium (DU) ammunition on soldiers and innocent civilians alike. It is called Depleted Uranium Silent Killer (DUSK).

DUSK is on the campaign trail again and will launch a new documentary highlighting how DU could affect the lives of Australians living near places like Shoalwater Bay Military Training Area in Central Queensland and at Lancelin Western Australia, 130 km north of Perth.

Perth is now a major R&R city for U.S. troops. Will they be kicked out of there as they have been in other places around the world?

Not only are locals likely to be affected by radiation from DU practice shelling but also our own soldiers and their families, not to mention the endangered dugongs at Shoalwater Bay.

The Federal Department of Environment and Heritage website describes Shoalwater Bay 454 500ha military training area as "a significant habitat for the threatened dugong, and several species of marine turtle. Five nationally threatened plant species also occur in this area.

Abundant species of migratory birds were also recorded by the department on the tidal mudflats during the summer of 1991-1992 including the lesser golden plover (pluvialis fulva), and other bird species.

It is listed as a Commonwealth Heritage Place.

According to an article in The Australian April 20 more than 17,000 Australian and US troops will take part in the major military exercise in central coastal Queensland. A defence spokesman said navy, army, air force, marines and special forces personnel would combine for exercise Talisman Sabre 2005 in Shoalwater Bay.

"More than 6000 Australian Defence Force (ADF) and 11,000 US troops would take part," he said. Land forces will train primarily in the Shoalwater Bay area..

Maritime forces will exercise off Queensland's coast in the Coral Sea, while Australian and US fighter jets and transport aircraft will operate from the RAAF Base Amberley, in the state's south-east, and Townsville, in the north.

"Talisman Sabre merges past combined training exercises, Tandem Thrust and Crocodile," he said. "It will help improve ADF/US combat readiness and interoperability."

Just how closely and for how long will our troops be "merged" with US troops?

The residents at Lancelin WA are very unhappy since the arrival of American war ships using the firing range nearby at all hours of the day and night. This relaxed W.A. coastal town is part of the Coral Coast and is promoted as being "perfect for tourists who are interested in adrenaline sports. Recognised worldwide as an excellent venue for windsurfing and sandboarding on the amazingly large, white sandhills. Offshore islands and reefs are great for fishing and diving."



-------- europe

Armenia to build new depot for nuclear waste

YEREVAN (AFP) May 25, 2005

http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050525173904.h2y7ire9.html

The Armenian parliament on Wednesday approved the construction of a new storage site for nuclear waste from the Metsamor power station, which will be operational for 50 years.

The waste depot will be built in three stages, starting in 2007, and cost about 10 million euros (12.6 million dollars), according to the Armenian energy minister, Armen Movsissian.

The first waste storage site, built in 2000 by the French company Framatome, is full.

Armenia has rejected calls from the European Union to close its only nuclear power plant, which supplies 40 percent of the country's energy needs.

The Metsamor plant built in 1977 had to be shut down in 1988 when an earthquake devastated Armenia. The plant was reopened in 1995.



-------- india 

India, Russia to enhance cooperation in nuclear energy, oil sector

Moscow, May 25, 2005 (ANI)

http://www.hindustantimes.com/wfsf/high/2005/05.25/multimedia/high1376078.txt

India and Russia reiterated their commitment to enhance cooperation in energy sector-nuclear power and production.

The matter came up for discussion during a one-hour long meeting between visiting President APJ Abdul Kalam and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin in Moscow.

Russia is helping to build two thousand  megawatt reactors at Kudankulam in southern India, but New Delhi wants four more at the plant.

Putin said the first nuclear reactor produced at the Izhora plant in St. Petersburg was handed over to India on January 15. 

Kalam said India would invest more in Russia's vast oil resources.

Moscow and New Delhi have a long history of cooperation in energy, industrial and military fields. 



-------- iran

PBS Frontline/World: Nuclear Iran

Paul Kenyon
PBS Frontline/World Reporter
Wednesday, May 25, 2005; 11:00 AM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/05/19/DI2005051900767_pf.html

As international tensions mount, PBS's newsmagazine travels deep into Iran in search of answers to one of the world's most pressing security questions: Are the Iranians secretly pursuing a nuclear bomb? With exclusive access to a U.N. inspection team on a tour of Iran's most sensitive nuclear sites, PBS Frontline/World and BBC reporter Paul Kenyon sheds new light on the state of Iran's nuclear weapons program and the growing suspicions of inspectors.

Find out more about "Going Nuclear" on PBS (check local listings): PBS Frontline/World.

PBS Frontline/World reporter Paul Kenyon was online to discuss his report on Iran's nuclear program.

A transcript follows.

____________________

Alexandria, Va.: The U.S. argues that Iran doesn't need Nuclear Energy, that they have enough oil to produce electrical energy, etc. without going nuclear. What is wrong with a country conserving their resources for the future?

Paul Kenyon: I agree that this has been a U.S. position....but there are two reasons Iran might want nuclear energy too...one is that its in the middle of a population explosion, the other more important one is a strategic argument. It says its oil will fail in 30 years or so and its preparing for that....and yes, what is wrong with that. problem is that in the context of the rest of its behaviour, it doesn't feel quite so innocent....perhaps.

_______________________

Paris, France: Hello Paul, A few years a go the international community declared war against Saddam Hussein. Now organizations say Iran wants to develop nuclear arms. What is the credibility of these accusations? We are in the logic of the new war against Iran, but we don't have confirmation of a nuclear program for producing nuclear arms. Thank you.

Paul Kenyon: Hi, there is no smoking gun, as was the case with Iran. The U.S. government is far more hawkish than Europe on this....they say there is no doubt that Iran has a programme for weapons. In fact, under the Non Proliferation treaty....Iran has the right to nuclear power...and the U.S. and U.K. have an obligation to help it. And at the moment all the evidence we have is that it is engaged in nuclear energy. Problem is though, as scientists will tell you.....the same equipment is used for energy and weapons.....so how do we know they haven't crossed the line. All we know is that their pattern of behaviour has been deception.....and that makes America say ..hey, must be weapons. I ask though whether America is setting a good example by updating and modernising its nuclear arsenal....and making bunker busters.....doesn't that set the wrong example: nukes are important to the most powerful country in the world...

_______________________

San Francisco, Calif.: Some of your video from Iran looks like it was filmed off of a TV monitor. Not very clear images, but they obviously did the trick. In your story you say you dubbed your videotapes in your hotel room. Is that how you copied them --photographing off your hotel TV? If so, that's clever. How did you manage to get the other video out of Iran, if they confiscated most of your tapes at the airport?

Paul Kenyon: Well...good question..two days before we left, I started getting very uncomfortable, as I knew we had been spotted at a number of nuclear sites. So, back at the hotel we rigged up the TV set with a lead into the beta cam and played the pix through there. We then recorded them on a mini DVD which the researcher had brought out with him...made three copies and gave one to the cameraman who was leaving a day before us. It was just an experiment really to see what happened as he left the country. He said it was ridiculous to be so concerned about it, because we had permission from the vice president to do our filming. Anyway, he just walked through the airport without a problem....I think they had a note of our flight but not his. A case of cock up by the security services there.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Exactly what will happen if it is found that Iran does have nuclear weapons, or the components for a nuclear weapon? Will we be invading Iran as well? Or will it be a situation the U.N. will handle?

Paul Kenyon: It would be a situation the U.N. would handle. But from Iran's perspective, once you have nuclear weapons, the precedent is that the rest of the world leaves you alone. Look at Pakistan which always said it was merely developing nuclear energy....there were warnings from the U.N. about taking their programme any further. When in 1998 Pakistan announced it has the bomb....there were some angry words from the world community but that quickly subsided, and Pakistan was welcomed into the nuclear club.....has Iran been watching and thinking they would like the same? I don't think the U.S. would invade because Iran is three times larger than Iraq and has a strong organised military and a missile system that could hit Israel. Israel on the other hand, did take action against Iraq unilaterally in 1981 I think...in the Osirack raid. On that occasion they became impatient with world diplomacy, and, believing that Iraq had a weapons programme, they bombed it themselves. Who knows if they would do the same again. Realistically it will be the U.N. and sanctions though, particularly in the short term.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: It seems that Iran has very little to lose by developing nuclear weapons and a lot to gain. They would be the only Middle East country other than Israel to possess nuclear weapons and could prevent an invasion by the U.S., which many suspect is already in the planning stages. Why should they negotiate?

Paul Kenyon: I agree..that is a good thumbnail analysis. The history of these developments is that world threats stop once you have a nuclear weapon. America currently has nuclear weapons pointing at Iran, you could understand the Iranians wanting to defend themselves particularly as their neighbour has been invaded and two decades ago they had an American puppet leader. I think the debate about how the world could live with a nuclear Iran is a good one. There is no evidence I know of to show that Iran is expansionist, but of course it sponsors Hezbollah which is of some concern. There is good reason for them to negotiate though....they have already been offered membership of the world trade organisation....and if you think about it, if U.S. offered to drop sanctions.....Iran would probably take it. That would be worth more to them in the short term than the amount they have spent on nuke energy programme.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: From what you learned, is the Iranian nuclear capability too spread out or hidden for the Israelis to destroy it if they attempted to?

Paul Kenyon: I think that's a good point. The sites I went to are as follows:

Natanz is in the middle of the mountains, buried under metres of earth and steel. It is strategically placed well away from all other sites. The other, Esfahan is close to one of the prettiest and most historic cities in Iran, and again buried....some of it under mountains. The other, Kalaye, is in Tehran itself. I've spoken to several nuclear experts who say there is no scientific reason to place each site so far from the next...they would normally be close together....they have been set out like this purely to make attack more difficult.

_______________________

Detroit, Mich.: From what you saw, do you think a military option (e.g., pinpoint bombing) to take out the critical nuclear sites is possible?

Paul Kenyon: Am I talking to Don Rumsfeld ?

Well, two of the sites were buried underground specifically to make them more difficult to attack, and the other is in Tehran. However, hiding them, doesn't necessarily demonstrate guilt. It is a useful insurance policy when U.S. and Israeli foreign policy are so unpredictable....even if they really are nuclear energy sites, they know that U.S. and Israel will worry enough to consider attacking anyway....and I think they are probably correct...some hawks in the U.S. are seriously talking about it. Is it possible? well, I would think the U.S. bunker busters would probably do it...but the consequences would be unimaginable...

_______________________

North Carolina: One of the principle arguments against Iran having nuclear technology is that they may supply a nuclear device to terrorists that may be used against either the U.S. or Israel. But given the fact that Iran has had chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction for over 15 years and have not, as of yet, provided terrorists with a chemical or biological weapon of some form to be used against Israel or the U.S., how legitimate is this concern that they will do so once they have nuclear technology? I'm sure they are well aware and fearful of the consequences should they act overtly using a WMD in any form.

Paul Kenyon: What can I say.... I agree with your analysis. If Iran supplied nuclear technology to Hezbollah it would be traced back to them swiftly and Iran knows that would be suicide. I think the U.S. media have hyped up the Iran suspicions far more than in Europe.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Is it possible that Iran's aggressive behavior towards the U.S. is a result of its government and people reacting to "too much" U.S. influence in that country and in the region? Looking at Iranian history and their revolution, much of their anti-U.S. sentiment was driven by an animosity to U.S "imperialism" and oil interests in the region; could their current aggressive style be understood in a similar manner?

Paul Kenyon: I think you are right. Although, the people I met randomly on the street were almost universally against the idea of Iran having nuclear weapons. When the security services were absent, people would whisper things like "oh, we would love to come and live in the U.S. or the U.K."...even some of those shouting "death to America" at the revolution celebrations came over and said something like that. I think it is a case of the government pushing in one direction and the people pushing a different way...but silently because of the obvious threat to them if they spoke out. Also, tragically, one educated man on the street said to me "please tell the U.S. to bomb us soon, we need to get rid of this regime, and there's no other way".

_______________________

Ann Arbor, Mich.: Looks like Iran will not give up their program. What are the prospects for a military conflict with the United States?

Paul Kenyon: I'm sure Iran will not cease its programme permanently, you are right. But has the U.S. really got the stomach for a conflict with a country three times larger than Iran with a population of 70 million, and with missiles big enough to attack Israel. It just wouldn't make sense. But then, that hasn't stopped them before. I also donut think the U.K. would back it this time...public opinion here wouldn't allow it and Blair is already electorally wounded after Iraq.

_______________________

Los Angeles, Calif.: So Mr. Kenyon,

Why are you as concerned about all those nuclear weapons in the Negev desert of Israel? I don't see you scouring Israel to look into them. Are you aware of Scott Ritter's article about the coming U.S. attack on Iran which would be right in accordance with what JINSA/PNAC operative Richard Perle said yesterday. He called for an invasion of Iran.

Paul Kenyon: We don't need to look for them in the Negev desert, because we already know that Israel, with U.S. financial help, has nuclear weapons. One of my colleagues made an hour long programme for the BBC only two years ago which identified Israeli workers at some of their weapons plants. We did Iran because of the uncertainty. Perle's invasion of Iran is seriously ill-conceived...Iran is three times larger than Iraq, it has seventy million people, it has a strong and organised army, and the U.K. would not support the US in such an act. Air strikes would be met with Iranian aggression against Israeli interests. I just can't see it....but then I couldn't have forecast Osirack.

_______________________

Lyme, Conn.: What are the Iranian government's goals in developing its military abilities? Are they frightened that Iraq may rise against them again? If they are not expansionist in terms of seeking to conquer other countries, do they believe they have duty to promote Shia Islam to other countries? What does the Iranian government want from the rest of the world?

Paul Kenyon: I believe the Iranian government wants to sit at the top table. As I've said before, Pakistan gained its position through a weapons programme disguised as one for energy, so there is a precedent. I really don't think there is a history of Iran being expansionist...but there is the Hezbollah issue of course.

_______________________

Baltimore, Md.: In the early/mid 80's, when Israel discovered that Hussein was attempting to undertake a nuclear program, they nipped it in the bud with a strategic bombing of the facility. Whether by Israel or even the United States, now that we are in the region, why not follow the same course with Iran?

Paul Kenyon: Because Iran does now have a missile called a Shahab three, which I am told could possibly travel to the edges of Israel with a conventional warhead. Also, what about evidence....? There is no evidence Iran is doing anything it shouldn't...just a suspicious pattern of behaviour, but if we start going around using "suspicion" as a justification for attack, imagine the world situation then. it is worth noting of course that the U.S. doesn't use aggressive language towards North Korea now it has announced it has a weapon. Instead, its engaged in diplomacy, whereas it is not talking to Iran at all...only the U.K., France and Germany are.

_______________________

Pauling, N.Y.: I wonder if you saw many/any Russians around the nuclear sites? I understand that they are fairly active in helping the Iranians.

Paul Kenyon: I didn't see any, but they have been active in helping out at a nuclear reactor in a place called Bushre. However, they did this because it can only be used for power.....it does not enrich uranium there. the Russians helped build it (as the Germans did before the revolution) with a view to selling Iran ready-enriched uranium....which in effect reduces the risk of Iran making weapons.

_______________________

Los Angeles, Calif.: Thank you for your reply, Mr. Kenyon. Sorry if I have been somewhat abrupt in my additional replies, but I am British as well as American and am sick and tired of seeing British and American soldiers die and get horribly wounded in Iraq for Mr. Pearled's agenda. Please get a copy of James Bamford's excellent new book ('A Pretext for War') which just came out in paperback (see the 'A Clean Break' agenda which is discussed by Mr. Bamford on pages 261-269 and on page 321 as well).

Paul Kenyon: Will do, thanks for that.

_______________________

Baton Rouge, La.: Wouldn't one of the other dangers to having Iran produce nuclear weapons is that they can then become the distributor of said weapons to other points of the globe? That's the crux of the controversy with the Pakistani nuclear weapons chief who leaked his knowledge to Iran for its program development. If they develop the program and produce a nuclear weapon, their bargaining power for entry into the WTO just goes way up.

Paul Kenyon: Yes I agree.... and the Khan network is a scary example. let's remember that we still don't know precisely who he sold to apart from Libya north Korea and Iran....but we were shown hard drives with the information for a whole nuclear programme....and the U.N. is concerned that now its out there in electronic form, we cant put the genie back in the bottle....that's more worrying than Iran in many respects.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Is there a cultural bias or a racist dimension to the nuclear non-proliferation issue?

Paul Kenyon: How do you mean?

_______________________

Munich, Germany: One of the most incriminating facts about Iran's nuclear program is the cooperation and assistance given to Iran by Dr. Abdul Khan, the man formerly in charge of the Pakistani nuclear weapons development.

In your travels in Iran and elsewhere, did you hear any accounts of efforts by Iran to obtain nuclear secrets through deceitful means?

Paul Kenyon: Iran admitted to us, via a former diplomat, that it bought the bulk of its programme from an "underground network" but kept denying it was khan. However there is ample evidence it was part of khan's network. In fact I think the deal they did was in Malaysia but involved an arm of the khan network.

_______________________

Philadelphia, Pa.: Do you consider it a mistake for the U.S. to indicate it may make pre-emptive strikes on sites developing nuclear weapons? Does this increase the danger that a country, such as Iran, may decide it is going to be struck and therefore they have a right to make a preemptive strike themselves, say on Israel?

Paul Kenyon: It's possible but unlikely because Iran would prefer to play the whole thing diplomatically. For a country saying it is not interested in nuclear weapons to launch what would be seen as a pre-emptive strike against Israel would lose it the support it has from many countries away from Europe and the U.S....problem is we always think through that prism: U.S. and U.K. interests...however....even South Africa is sympathetic to the plight of Iran at the moment, as are several other neutral countries.

_______________________

Paul Kenyon: That's it thanks....


----

Iran's Nuclear Program

May 25, 2005 NY Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/25/opinion/l25iran.html?pagewanted=print

To the Editor:

"Letting Nukes Happen" (editorial, May 16) claims, without empirical substantiation, that Iran, along with North Korea, is step by step developing its capability to build nuclear weapons.

The government of the Islamic Republic of Iran has flatly denied such allegations. These allegations have been adopted as facts by much of the American news media, which often do not mention that Iran has submitted its nuclear facilities to extensive inspections by the United Nations atomic energy agency.

The agency has repeatedly stated, in its reports on Iran, that there is no evidence that Iran is diverting its peaceful nuclear program for illicit military purposes.

Morteza Ramandi
Press Secretary, Iranian Mission
to the United Nations
New York, May 16, 2005

----

Iran and Europeans give themselves breathing space in nuclear talks

GENEVA (AFP) May 25, 2005

http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050525192402.tg9gqpq2.html

The European Union and Iran gave themselves breathing space in their talks on Tehran's controversial nuclear programme on Wednesday by agreeing to return to the table in August -- after Iran's presidential elections next month.

Following a three-hour meeting in Geneva with Iran's chief negotiator Hassan Rowhani, the foreign ministers of Britain, France and Germany, representing the 25-member EU, pledged to come up with concrete proposals on cooperation by the end of July.

Those proposals will emerge after a new president is elected in Iran on June 17.

European capitals are hoping that Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who is regarded as a pragmatist, will win the election, analysts said, allowing the Europeans to strike a deal with Iran on the nuclear issue.

The EU proposals are expected to focus on cooperation with Iran over civilian nuclear power, as well as commercial and political ties.

Iran in turn pledged to continue a freeze on its uranium enrichment programme, going back on threats to resume it that had raised fears the talks would collapse.

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw read a joint statement to reporters, laying out an offer to table detailed proposals by August and reminding Iran of the need to stick to an accord struck in Paris last November.

Iran had agreed in Paris to suspend uranium enrichment in order to avoid suspicions that it was developing nuclear weapons, while the EU said it would refrain from referring Iran to the UN Security Council.

The step could lead to international sanctions, something favoured by the United States.

Besides offering to help Iran's civilian nuclear programme, the EU also reiterated that it would back Iran's efforts to join the World Trade Organisation, which have been blocked by Washington.

Uranium enrichment is the key obstacle between the two sides, since the process offers the potential to make nuclear weapons as well as to boost fuel for a civilian power reactor.

Iran's chief negotiator Hassan Rowhani reiterated that Iran would "abide by its commitments and insists on its full rights within the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)".

While prohibiting the expansion of nuclear weapons capability to new countries, like Iran, the NPT outlines a country's right to nuclear power for civilian use.

French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier said the future European proposals would "notably deal with the establishment of a nculear programme in Iran that is exclusively destined for civilian use".

But Barnier ruled out the likelihood of a deal that would include uranium conversion, one of the key capabilities of the nuclear plant in Isfahan that Iran wants to reopen.

Conversion is an initial stage in the nuclear fuel treatment cycle which is a precursor to enrichment.

"There is no concrete proposal on the table at this stage," said German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer.

"We have our different positions and it is not easy to narrow them," he added.

An Iranian diplomat told AFP that Iran had managed to convince the EU-3 to make its "detailed" proposals earlier, in late July or August, instead of in September.

A spokeswoman for EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, who also took part in the meeting, said talks would not resume until Tehran responded to the EU proposals.

"The afternoon was hard and we have to expect tough negotiations," said spokeswoman Christina Gallach.

----

Europeans Open Talks With Iran on Nuclear Program

By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 25, 2005; A21

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/24/AR2005052401365_pf.html

European officials who met with Iranian negotiators yesterday to discuss the country's nuclear program went further than the Bush administration had wanted by leaving open the possibility that Tehran could conduct preliminary work with uranium in the future, said diplomats from several countries involved in the talks in Brussels.

But the uranium work could come only as part of a final agreement, and for now Iran was urged to maintain a freeze of its nuclear program while negotiations continue, they said.

It is unclear whether Iran will comply with the request, which will be the subject of a high-level meeting among the Europeans and Iranians today in Geneva. The Europeans have made it clear that if Iran resumes conversion work now, it will spell the end of their negotiations and could lead to action by the U.N. Security Council -- something the Bush administration has been pushing for and the Iranians hope to avoid.

Iran has frozen its nuclear program over the past six months as part of a deal it entered into with France, Britain and Germany in November. But Iranian officials say they are frustrated with the pace of negotiations that have not delivered on economic incentives for Tehran.

As a result, Iran has said it plans to resume uranium conversion, the preliminary step in a lengthy process to produce fuel for nuclear energy. But that process can also produce weapons-grade uranium.

To alleviate that concern, Iran offered to convert the material to fuel rods and keep them under international seal, according to a letter an Iranian official sent European foreign ministers on Saturday. It has also floated an alternate idea to ship the material to Russia for enrichment there. The material would then be used exclusively for fueling a Russian-built power reactor inside Iran.

In a meeting last week, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told Jack Straw, her British counterpart, that the United States is opposed to any agreement that would allow Iran to continue converting uranium, U.S. officials said.

The Europeans, who have been negotiating with Iran but consulting Washington, went halfway. At a breakfast yesterday in Brussels, officials from the three European countries told Undersecretary of State R. Nicholas Burns they need to be more flexible if they hope to achieve a final agreement with Iran, said two officials who had been briefed on the meeting.

The European position took the Bush administration by surprise, a U.S. official said, and suggested that Washington and its European allies may not be as closely aligned on a strategy for Iran as their public statements have suggested in recent weeks.

"We're not interested in this kind of an arrangement," a senior Bush administration official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity. The official stressed that the White House expected the Europeans to work toward a total cessation and dismantlement of Iran's nuclear program, including the uranium-conversion facility in the town of Isfahan.

"We felt assured that conversion would not be on the table now or in the future," said another U.S. official who, like others involved, would discuss the private negotiations only if not identified.

One European official said the message given later yesterday to the Iranians was that any conversion work at this time would be unacceptable. "But that clearly leaves a door open for it in the future and the Iranians understood that," the official said.

The Iranians did not comment directly on the discussions and focused on the higher-level meeting set for today in Geneva with their national security council chief, Hassan Rouhani, and the foreign ministers of France, Britain and Germany.

"I think these talks are more difficult and complicated than ever. There is no guarantee of reaching an agreement," Hossein Mousavian, an Iranian negotiator, told reporters in Brussels.

Last month, the negotiations hit a crisis point, leaving the Bush administration feeling it was closer than it has been in two years to getting the Iran issue moved to the U.N. Security Council, which has the authority to impose sanctions. In a strongly worded letter to Iran, European officials said they would support a Security Council referral if Tehran made good on threats to restart the Isfahan facility.

In a reply sent Saturday to the foreign ministers of France, Britain and Germany, Rouhani confirmed that Iran is contemplating resuming operations at the Isfahan plant. A copy of the letter was made available to The Washington Post.

Rouhani wrote that Iran wants to avert a breakdown in talks and move quickly toward an agreement with Europe that would respect Iran's rights to nuclear fuel and lead to better relations.

He outlined seven immediate steps Iran has offered to take to quell suspicions about the nuclear program it built in secret over 18 years. Among them: stationing of inspectors at nuclear sites, forgoing the sensitive process of plutonium separation, and converting all current uranium into fuel rods for safe storage.

Iran says its program is solely for nuclear energy. But the scale and covert nature of the effort have led to suspicions that Tehran intended to use the program as a cover for atomic weapons. A two-year investigation by U.N. inspectors has turned up no proof of that.

----

Rice cool to reports of nuclear compromise with Iran

WASHINGTON (AFP) May 25, 2005

http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050525193538.si8nkt19.html

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reacted coolly Wednesday to reports of a possible compromise on Iran's nuclear program, insisting that Tehran must completely halt its suspect activities.

In an interview with AFP as European and Iranian negotiators held crucial talks in Geneva, Rice also left up in the air a US promise to lift objections to Tehran's applying for membership in the World Trade Organization.

"This is to support the (nuclear) negotiations, so we're going to see how the negotiations are going and we'll see whether the time is right," the chief US diplomat said.

Rice spoke as her counterparts from Britain, France and Germany met the top Iranian negotiator in Geneva in a final bid to stop Iran pressing ahead with activities that Washington fears could lead to a nuclear bomb.

Reports have circulated the Europeans were discussing a compromise with the Islamic Republic to allow it to go ahead with some nuclear activities, which the Iranians say are for strictly peaceful purposes.

But Rice insisted that an agreement struck in Paris last November to suspend work towards the enrichment of uranium "has to be observed and observed fully by the Iranians."

"This agreement has to end up, wherever the negotiations and issues end up, in somehow a cessation of these activities, one that is a permanent cessation," she said.

"It also has to end up not leaving the Iranians with the sensitive technologies and activities associated with the nuclear fuel cycle."

The so-called EU-3 have been trying to wean Iran off its suspected nuclear weapons ambitions with economic and security incentives in an initiative now supported by a once-skeptical United States.

Iran's Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi said Wednesday his country would discuss a plan under which it would resume preliminary conversion of uranium but move the ultra-sensitive process of enrichment to Russia.

Asked about the prospect, Rice said, "I'm not going to comment on proposals that are flying around, I don't want to get into speculations."

But she added, "We are in very close consultation and discussion with our European colleagues at several levels, and I think it would be a very good thing if the Iranians at this point continue the negotiations on the deal that is before them."

The United States has backed the European talks by offering to lift its objections to Iran's application for WTO membership and eventually helping it obtain spare parts for its airplanes.

But the Americans have made no secret of their desire to take Iran before the UN Security Council for possible sanctions if the European negotiations fail to rein in its nuclear program.

On another topic, Rice said Lebanon's upcoming parliamentary elections would not be perfect but were shaping up as a "good step forward" after the pullout of Syrian troops.

She called the Syrian withdrawal a "very good thing" but added the jury was out whether Damascus had also called back all of its intelligence officers. She pledged vigilance to make sure Syria did not interfere in Lebanese affairs.

With the militant group Hezbollah looking set to play a political role in Lebanon, Rice reiterated the US position that it was a terrorist organization but left the door open for the future.

"In all these circumstances, when the political context changes, I think you have to wait and see what will happen to the balance of forces in this region and how various people will react, how individuals will react."

Referring to Hezbollah and the Islamic group Hamas, which is expected to run in the next Palestinian electons, she said, "We're in the beginning of a process here. ... Let's take things one step at a time."

As Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas started a round of talks in Washington, Rice praised his performance in office so far and reaffirmed the US commitment to creating a "contiguous" Palestinian state.

She played down reported Israeli complaints that Abbas was not doing enough to rein in militant Islamic groups.

"He has done some very good things," Rice said. "I think there is no doubt that this is a different Palestinian leadership than we've had in the past. He is a committed person."



-------- japan

Japan: Renewed Calls for a Moratorium on Rokkasho 

From: Citizens' Nuclear Information Center <cnic@nifty.com>
Date: Wed May 25, 2005 11:30am

Media Release - 25 May 2005

Japanese Government should heed growing calls for a moratorium on the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant

Calls are growing for a moratorium on the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant, currently undergoing uranium trials in Aomori Prefecture (1).

Yesterday (Tuesday May 24th), during the closing stages of the Non Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, an "appeal to Japan for leadership toward strengthening of the non-proliferation regime" was handed to the Japanese delegation to the United Nations in New York. The appeal, signed by 150 academics, politicians and leaders in the peace movement from around the world, calls for an indefinite postponement of the operation of the Rokkasho plutonium reprocessing plant. Later in the same day a press conference was held in the United Nations building by the International Network of Engineers and Scientists Against Proliferation, Physicians for Social Responsibility (US) and Peace Boat (Japan).

This appeal follows a similar appeal (2) on 5 May 2005, also at the NPT Review Conference, by 27 eminent scientists, former policy makers and analysts, including four Nobel Physics prize winners and two former Secretaries of Defense. Their declaration was released by the Union of Concerned Scientists, which warned, "Japan's plan to separate and stockpile up to 8 metric tons of plutonium annually - the equivalent of 1,000 nuclear bombs each year - calls into question Japan's commitment to strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty".

The idea for a moratorium on uranium enrichment and reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel was initially proposed by people such as IAEA Director, Mohamed ElBaradei, and a high-level panel established by UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan. Since then, however, calls have been growing for the moratorium to be applied to the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant.

Japanese people signing this latest appeal include academics such as Shoji Sawada (also a Hibakusha), Mitsuhei Murata, Mitsuo Okamoto, Manabu Hattori, Hideo Tsuchiyama and Masao Kunihiro, politicians such as Hitoshi Motojima and world famous musician Ryuichi Sakamoto.

Hideyuki Ban of the Tokyo based Citizens' Nuclear Information Center also signed the appeal. He said today, "The Japanese Government has tried to dismiss calls for a moratorium on Rokkasho, but it can be seen from the growing number of people signing statements in support of such a moratorium that this is an issue that won't go away."

"This appeal supports the appeal by leading scientists and policy analysts made earlier in the NPT Review Conference. These are people who know perfectly well the significance of Rokkasho for nuclear proliferation. Also the general public is much more aware now that the only sure way to prevent further proliferation of nuclear weapons is to cut off the supply of bomb making materials. The Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant will vastly increase the supply of plutonium, one of the key bomb making materials, so it is just what we don't need."

The appeal states, "Additional production and accumulation of weapons-usable materials by Japan would further complicate proliferation concerns in the Northeast Asia region. If the plant is started now this would present an excuse called 'the Japanese example' to those countries seeking to acquire nuclear weapons (materials)."

Mr Ban questioned the government's need for more plutonium, saying, "Given that Japan already has over 40 tons of plutonium stockpiled and that there is no clear plan to use this plutonium, inevitably people begin to wonder what it is really for. On 1 December 1997, Japan stated that its nuclear fuel cycle is based on 'the principle of no surplus plutonium'. However, this huge stockpile will only increase if the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant is started up."

"The government's claim that it will use the plutonium in MOX fuel (3) doesn't make economic sense. Uranium fuel is much cheaper and the government has admitted that it is cheaper to dispose of spent nuclear fuel directly, rather than extract the plutonium through reprocessing."

"After nearly a month of negotiations in New York, very little progress has been made. Meanwhile, the threat of more states breaking out from the treaty and developing nuclear weapons is increasing. A bold decision by the Japanese government to suspend its plan to open Rokkasho could breathe new life into the NPT."

"The world is looking to Japan, which more than any country knows the dangers of nuclear weapons, to show leadership. For the sake of the NPT, and also for its own sake, Japan should heed the calls for a moratorium on the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant."

Contacts: Hideyuki Ban, CNIC Co-Director Philip White, International Liaison Officer 81-3-5330-9520

Notes and References 1. The Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant commenced uranium trials (running depleted uranium through the whole plant) on 21 December 2004. Trials using spent nuclear fuel are scheduled to commence in December 2005 and the plant is due to commence operations in May 2007.

2. The declaration is entitled "A Call on Japan to Strengthen the NPT by Indefinitely Postponing Operation of the Rokkasho Spent Fuel Reprocessing Plant" and was originally released by the Union of Concerned Scientists at the NPT Review Conference on May 5th, 2005. See the following link for UCS's press release and the full declaration: http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release.cfm?newsID=481

3. 'MOX fuel' refers to nuclear reactor fuel made from a mixed oxide of plutonium and uranium.

Full text of the appeal: An appeal to Japan for leadership toward strengthening of the non-proliferation regime - Call for an indefinite postponement of the operation of the Rokkasho plutonium reprocessing plant May 24, 2005

The 2005 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference is nearing its end. The member states must make utmost efforts to make the conference a successful one in order to reduce the nuclear threats now facing the world. While it is vital for the nuclear-weapon states to take concrete measures towards irreversible disarmament, the halt of the proliferation of the materials usable for nuclear weapons -- highly enriched uranium and plutonium -- is also an integral part of the objectives of the NPT.

At the opening of the NPT Review Conference, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan stressed the nuclear threat and warned as follows: "The regime will not be sustainable if scores more States develop the most sensitive phases of the fuel cycle" (uranium enrichment and reprocessing) and those states "are equipped with the technology to produce nuclear weapons on short notice - and, of course, each individual State which does this only will leave others to feel that they must do the same. This would increase all the risks - of nuclear accident, of trafficking, of terrorist use, and of use by states themselves."

Thus, efforts to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons materials and technology are important in order also to secure progress toward nuclear abolition.

A statement released at the beginning of the NPT Review Conference by the Union of Concerned Scientists, signed by 27 US experts including four Nobel laureates, says "At a time when the non-proliferation regime is facing its greatest challenge, Japan should not proceed with its current plans for the start-up of the Rokkasho reprocessing plant. "

If operated, the Rokkasho plant would be the only commercial-scale plutonium production plant in a country without nuclear weapons. Planned to start its active testing using spent nuclear fuel in December of this year and to go into commercial operation in 2007, it could separate approximately 8 metric tons of plutonium per year, enough to make 1000 nuclear bombs. To underscore how absolutely unnecessary this production would be, Japan already has more than 40 tons of plutonium stockpiled in Japan and in Europe, enough to make 5000 bombs.

Additional production and accumulation of weapons-usable materials by Japan would further complicate proliferation concerns in the Northeast Asia region. If the plant is started now this would present an excuse called "the Japanese example" to those countries seeking to acquire nuclear weapons (materials). Thus, the start up of Rokkasho and implementation of an uneconomical program to use the separated plutonium as a fuel in commercial nuclear power reactors presents a global proliferation risk that simply cannot be ignored by NPT signatories.

With the closing of the NPT Review Conference at hand, we call on the government of Japan, which well knows the tragedy that could be caused by the use of nuclear weapons, to lead the world toward the disarmament and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. A critical step towards this goal would be for Japan to take the courageous decision to indefinitely postpone the operation of the Rokkasho reprocessing plant.

Citizens' Nuclear Information Center
3F Kotobuki Bdg, 1-58-15, Higashi-Nakano, Nakano-ku, Tokyo
164-0003
Phone: 81-3-5330-9520
Fax: 81-3-5330-9530
http://cnic.jp/english/



-------- pakistan

The successes and failures of Pakistan's nukes 

(M B Naqvi)
The News International (Pakistan)
May 25, 2005

http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/may2005-daily/25-05-2005/oped/o6.htm

M B Naqvi

The writer is a well-known journalist and freelance columnist.

From the start Pakistan's nuclear programme was military-oriented and India-specific. The initial proposition was that Pakistan was a weaker rival of India and had business to transact with India that could require application of military force. The ambivalent nature of India-Pakistan relations is known, with its three wars and three semi-wars. Pakistan was decisively defeated in 1971 and concluded thereafter that there is no future in conventional wars with India because it is richer and can always outspend Pakistan. Pakistan therefore decided to go nuclear to offset India's advantages.

When exactly Pakistan started its nuclear programme does not signify; it was sometime in 1970s. Pakistan succeeded in the middle of the 1980s in enriching uranium. That key success led to other successes and soon Pakistan was able to fabricate nuclear weapons, admitting only its major components in 1990. But it was able in 1986 to threaten India with a nuclear riposte to the likely extension of India's exercise Brass Tacks into a thrust into Sindh, as was feared.

Once Pakistan became nuclear-capable, it decided to twist the Indian lion's tail in Kashmir, fearing no military response from it. It chose an undercover semi-war with India in Kashmir. Events in India-administered Kashmir late in the 1980s gave Pakistan an opportunity: it metamorphosed Kashmiris' non-violent secular political protest agitation -- against India's manipulation of elections in Kashmir -- and captured the movement's leadership, converting it into an Islamic jihad. It did so through jihadis, most of them veterans of Afghanistan's anti-Soviet war and many of whom had doubled as Taliban. This led to many consequences.

India chose to suppress the jihad by inflicting horrible human rights violations on Kashmiris. The Indians need to be blamed for these gross human rights violations. But Pakistan also shares some responsibility. Why? Because it did not think its options through. It should have foreseen what the Indian reaction would be. And whether the pressure Pakistan was putting on it was enough to make India cry "uncle." In the event, Indians fought on -- i.e., to kill as many Kashmiris as possible. The result is that Kashmiris have lost something like 80- to 85,000 lives and many more limbs. Loss of property is astronomical in purely Kashmiri terms. Despite these sacrifices the Kashmiris are not an inch nearer their azadi. The outlook is more Indian atrocities, if jihad continues.

True, India might continue to inflict human rights violations even after Pakistan has stopped sending militants from outside. So long as there is an armed insurgency in Kashmir, the Kashmiri freedom fighters are offering India its chance: in a violent conflict, India would crush the puny violence by Kashmiris with its far greater violence-making machine. Adopting violent insurgency is a foolish game for Kashmiris.

Remember Pakistan's military thinkers, who controlled the nuclear programme throughout, wove strange strategic doctrines in the hubris created by nuclear weapons. On the one hand, they dreamed dreams of federating Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan in order to confront India with this strategic depth. How unrealistic this foolish project was should be clear. On the other hand, a theory was evolved that keeping Indians engaged in a proxy war in the Kashmir Valley would free Pakistan from the worry of an Indian attack. So long as India was kept on the hop, Pakistan was safe. In retrospect, this can be seen as foolish ratiocination.

In 2002, the Indians called Pakistan's bluff. They brought forward their troops on the Pakistan border in staggering numbers. They made as if they would invade. The threat was credible for both friend and foe. The rest of the world thought that thanks to balance of power, Pakistan would be obliged to use its nuclear option first. A nuclear war will result. The rest of the world was not prepared to accept it. Everyone advised the two to make up.

Pakistanis too saw that the Indians meant business. Pakistan made a U-turn in the Kashmir policies by promising no more infiltration from this side. That firm promise by Pakistan's president resolved the crisis and Indian troops began withdrawing by October 2002. Normalcy took some time to return. India later offered negotiations and the hand of friendship (April 2003). How genuine it was, or is, is hard to say. Anyhow, the long stalled Composite Dialogue, first agreed in 1997, was resumed. Although it has gone nowhere for over a year, it has not finally broken down. The talks are going on and more are scheduled.

Dispassionate assessment of the true utility of Pakistani nukes is urgent. There are two clear negative entries in the national ledger. One, nukes were of no use to Pakistan vis-‡-vis Kashmir and it had to promise it will not longer send jihadis. The promise was repeated several times to Indians and Americans. The second context was the 2002 war crisis. India was ready to attack if Pakistan had it not made those promises about Kashmir. That is to say, India was taking the risk of a war despite the presence of Pakistan's nuclear deterrent, probably not less effective than India's own. One calls for taking purposeful note of the mere fact that Indians made a credible move to attack Pakistan, ignoring the presence of the Pakistani nuclear deterrent. That simply shows that this Nuclear Deterrent did not deter India threatening war.

Why does one make such a sweeping claim? Because Pakistani nuclear devices were sold as giving Pakistan an impregnable defence against India; it was argued that given the nukes' presence, no one would dare attack. The fact that India dared makes those nukes less credible than they were thought to be. It is being argued that India did not finally attack because of those nukes. But that is a non sequitur and takes us nowhere. The decisive moment was when the Pakistan president made the premise of virtually ending the jihad in Kashmir. Obviously, nukes were no help to Musharraf; if the notional benefit of the nukes had to be sacrificed to keep peace, the nukes' value gets heavily diluted. The nukes are no longer vital for Pakistan's security because (a) Pakistan could not win Kashmir through the proxy war; and (b) these nukes could not defend Pakistan against India's threatened attack without Pakistan making vital political concessions.

Let's note that no outsider loves Pakistan because of these nukes. No outsider appears to dread Pakistan's nukes, not even India. No outsider is prepared to do as Pakistan wishes him to do because it has nukes. It is true the same is true of India. But India is out of context here.

There is another negative aspect of the nukes: there is Dr A. Q. Khan's underground bazaar of nuclear contraband. The story has not ended. The rest of the world is still interested. They all think that Pakistan is vulnerable to various threats from inside. They believe that there are anti-Musharraf and anti-Pakistan elements inside who can get hold of these weapons. They feel that extremist forces can, in conceivable eventualities, get control of these weapons. Pakistan is more vulnerable because of these nukes. Conceivable threats of external intervention exist.

Pakistanis have paid through their nose for these nukes. Pakistan's economy has been put under a pressure that it cannot really bear. The kind of inflationary pressures and the growth of poverty that has taken place are due to Islamabad not being able to invest enough in the social sectors. The economic price of the nukes is lost opportunities.

Email: mbnaqvi@cyber.net.pk



-------- space

Russia has no plans for nuclear weapons in space: top commander

MOSCOW (AFP) May 25, 2005

http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050525131538.5grq2oc9.html

Russia has no intention of putting nuclear weapons into space, a top Russian military commander was quoted by Interfax as saying on Wednesday.

"Russia doesn't plan to do that -- I can say that categorically," General Vladimir Popovkin, head of Russia's military space command, said in response to a question about the possibility of Russia putting nuclear weapons into orbit.

"I hope that humanity has enough sense not to put such awful weapons into space," Popovkin told reporters.

"Controlling weapons on earth is one thing, but in space it's more difficult -- there are meteor showers, sunbursts -- it's very dangerous."

The agency provided no further details on the context of Popovkin's comments.

His remarks however came a week after the US daily The New York Times reported that the US Air Force was seeking a national security directive from President George W. Bush that could lead to fielding offensive and defensive space weapons.

A new US presidential directive to replace a 1996 policy that emphasized a more pacific use of space was expected within weeks, the report said, quoting an unidentified senior US administration official.

A US Air Force spokeswoman, Karen Finn, was quoted in the report as saying that "the focus of the process is not putting weapons in space... The focus is having free access in space."

----

Space Preservation Act of 2005 (Introduced in House)

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:HR2420:

SEC. 6. SPACE-BASED NONWEAPONS ACTIVITIES. Nothing in this Act may be construed as prohibiting the use of funds for--

(1) space exploration;

(2) space research and development;

(3) testing, manufacturing, or production that is not related to space-based weapons or systems; or

(4) civil, commercial, or defense activities (including communications, navigation, surveillance, reconnaissance, early warning, or remote sensing) that are not related to space-based weapons or systems.

Mr. KUCINICH (for himself, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California, Mr. TIERNEY, Mr. HOLT, Mr. FATTAH, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. MICHAUD, Mr. RAHALL, Mr. SERRANO, Ms. LEE, Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. HINCHEY, Ms. MCKINNEY, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. STARK, Mr. OWENS, Mr. HONDA, Ms. WATERS, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. JACKSON of Illinois, Ms. WATSON, Mr. FILNER, Ms. BALDWIN, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. MEEKS of New York, and Mr. MCDERMOTT) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Science, and in addition to the Committees on Armed Services and International Relations, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned



-------- transportation

Private Fuel Storage transport scheme

Public Citizen, May 25, 2005

http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/nuclear_waste/hi-level/fuel/

Private Fuel Storage (PFS), a consortium of 8 commercial nuclear utilities, is proposing to transport 44,000 tons of high-level radioactive waste ("spent fuel") across the country to an interim storage facility on the Skull Valley Goshute Reservation in Utah.  The project, however, is not a "solution" to the nuclear waste problem.  Motivated by the need for a publicly presentable "waste solution," the nuclear industry is yet again gambling with public health and safety.  Click to read the numerous problems with this "temporary" waste storage proposal.

PFS is not only unnecessary and irresponsible; it is also unethical. The project has raised serious environmental justice concerns. Native American communities have been a particular target of high-level radioactive waste storage, and the validity of the PFS lease itself is questionable. Public Citizen urges member utilities to immediately withdraw from the PFS consortium so as not to be implicated in such a dangerously flawed program.



-------- treaties

U.S. Brochure Drops Arms - Control Deals

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
May 25, 2005
Filed at 7:46 a.m. ET

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-UN-Nuclear-Treaty.html?pagewanted=print

UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- With a few keystrokes, an official U.S. brochure eliminated some historic arms-control deals, angered the champions of disarmament, and showed again that in the paper deluge of a global conference, what's left out can be as telling as what's put in.

In this case, the publication's ''rewriting of history,'' as one critic put it, also illustrates in black and white a dispute that has helped bog down the 188-nation conference reviewing the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

The monthlong conference entered its final three days on Wednesday with uncertain prospects for producing any major agreements to tighten controls on the spread of atomic arms, or to speed nuclear disarmament.

The brochure, slickly produced by the State Department and distributed to hundreds of delegates, lists milestones in arms control since the 1980s, while touting reductions in the U.S. nuclear arsenal. But the timeline omits a pivotal agreement, the 1996 treaty to ban nuclear tests, a pact negotiated by the Clinton administration and ratified by 121 nations but now rejected under President Bush.

Further along, the brochure skips over the year 2000 entirely, a snub of the treaty review conference that year, when the United States and other nuclear-weapons states committed to ''13 practical steps'' to achieve nuclear disarmament -- including activating the test-ban treaty, negotiating a pact to ban production of bomb material, and ''unequivocally undertaking'' to totally eliminate their arsenals.

Bush administration officials now suggest the 2000 commitments are outdated. Other delegations reject that, however, demanding a reaffirmation of the goals in a final document at the current conference.

Few expect that, and they cite the blank spots in the brochure as another piece of evidence.

''Official disdain for these agreements seems to have turned into denial that they existed,'' said Joseph Cirincione, an arms-control specialist with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace who accused the State Department of rewriting history.

''Does this mean that, because we have a change of administration, we are not accountable to other countries?'' asked another disarmament advocate, Jonathan Granoff of the Global Security Institute.

Asked why the 1996 treaty and the 2000 U.S. commitments -- along with similar commitments in 1995 -- didn't make the 40-entry list of ''progress in arms control,'' U.S. delegation spokesman Richard Grenell said simply, ''We highlighted certain items, and it wasn't an exhaustive list.''

By contrast, an official U.N. chronology has several entries on the test ban, and prominently notes the 1995 and 2000 agreements.

Under the 1970 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, reviewed every five years for ways to strengthen implementation, nations without nuclear weapons commit to not pursuing them in exchange for a pledge by five weapons states -- the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China -- to move toward disarmament. The nonweapons states, meanwhile, are guaranteed access to peaceful nuclear technology.

The United States has sought to have the conference focus on the Iranian and North Korean nuclear programs.

In Geneva on Wednesday, European diplomats resume negotiations with Tehran in an effort to get the Iranians to roll back their uranium-enrichment program, which can produce both fuel for nuclear energy and material for bombs. The Iranians cite the treaty guarantee on peaceful technology in justifying the program, but Washington contends they have plans to make weapons.

North Korea was the first ''defector'' from the treaty, having announced its withdrawal in 2003 and now claiming to have built nuclear weapons. This was done without consequences under the treaty, and many here would like to make it harder to exit the nuclear pact, and to threaten sanctions against those who do.

Many nonweapons states, however, want an additional focus on the nuclear powers, complaining they are moving too slowly on their disarmament obligations. They cite in particular Bush administration talk of ''modernizing'' the U.S. nuclear arsenal and rejection of the test-ban treaty.

Washington still adheres to a unilateral moratorium on testing, but treaty advocates say a formal outlawing of testing is needed to stop development of new nuclear arms.

Visiting the troubled conference on Tuesday, a U.S. negotiator of the test-ban treaty told reporters the 1996 pact is a ''litmus test.''

''If countries that promised never to have nuclear weapons now see weapons states holding open the option to test, some of them think, `Why should we give up nuclear weapons?''' said former Ambassador Thomas Graham.



-------- u.s. nuc facilities



-------- california

Cancer: where’s the outrage?

Nuclear, chemical and asbestos wastes at Hunters Point and elsewhere make cancer No. 1 killer

by Janette D. Sherman, M.D., 5/25/05 San Francisco Bay View

http://www.sfbayview.com/052505/outrage052505.shtml

“Cancer Tops Heart Disease as No. 1 Killer,” screamed the article, but it was buried on page A-12 of the Jan. 20, 2005, Washington Post. Seems that for the first time in our history, all of us younger than 85 will die of cancer before any other cause.

This is awful! Why aren’t we up in arms; marching in the streets, yelling at Congress and the nation’s “health” agencies? Is it because we are inundated with ads on television touting the latest treatments, showing a smiling women who took “Drug X” so that she could go to her daughter’s wedding or the smiling man playing with his grandchild after taking “Drug Y”?

What’s wrong with us? Why aren’t we outraged? Why are we accepting this cancer epidemic as something natural?

We don’t know all of the causes of cancer, but we know enough of them to do something about them. Why aren’t we? When we see changes in cancer incidence, either for the worse or for the better, why don’t we seize on that information and do something with it?

In 1986 women in San Francisco and Philadelphia had comparable death rates for breast cancer, which stood at 140 per 100,000. By 1995 the death rate for women in Philadelphia was 160 per 100,000 compared to 100 per 100,000 for women in San Francisco.

One plausible explanation is that the Rancho Seco nuclear reactor in Sacramento was closed permanently in 1989, thus ending nuclear isotope contamination of a major source of drinking water and food supply for the Bay area. While the breast cancer rate for much of San Francisco declined, the cancer rate for Hunters Point residents did not decline.

Several reasons come to mind. One, Hunters Point was a major ship building area with tons of asbestos, toxic chemicals and nuclear contamination from ships used in the nuclear tests conducted in the Pacific Ocean’s Marshall Islands. Located at Hunters Point as well are the PG&E power plant and a sewage treatment plant, each polluting the community. The high rainfall and fog that gives the city its character helps to precipitate pollutants that don’t fall on drier areas.

I worked at Hunters Point in the 1950s and saw first hand the dust and asbestos particles kicked up by the ship repair operations. My work was at the U.S. Naval Radiation Defense Laboratory, located at Hunters Point and operational from 1946 until 1969.

The “Rad Lab” did research on the effects of nuclear radiation and thermal burns, burns being one of the most damaging and unspoken effects of an atomic bomb. It was grizzly work involving hundreds of rat experiments.

That experience made me aware of the extreme hazards of nuclear radiation and increased my desire to go to medical school. In the 1980s I returned to San Francisco as a physician to examine workers who had been exposed to asbestos at the Hunters Point Shipyard.

Asbestos causes not only lung cancer and mesothelioma, but also cancers of the gastrointestinal tract, a suffocating fibrotic lung disease and malignancies associated with immune dysfunction, including leukemia, lymphoma, sarcoma and myeloma. Mesothelioma is a rare cancer, but in the course of two days I examined three former Hunters Point Shipyard workers with the disease, more than most physicians see in a lifetime of practice.

Subsequently, I testified at trial on the workers’ behalf. I cited an article in a British Medical Journal upon which I relied for my opinion that asbestos causes cancer. The defense attorney challenged me saying that no one in the U.S. could be expected to keep up with science published overseas. When I pointed out that the journal had “New York Public Library – Harlem Branch” stamped in the upper corner, he asked no more questions.

Linked to the Hunters Point asbestos pollution is the small town of Libby, Montana. In June 2000 I met with people from that small town of 3,000 residents. Some 55-plus asbestos victims and their families came to my talk. Several people remarked that they found it significant that although the meeting had been well publicized, not one person from the medical community, the town government, nor anyone from EPA or ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry), then working in Libby, came to the meeting.

At the meeting, W.R. Grace employee Les Skramstad was among the most articulate as to the impact of asbestos upon himself, his family and the community and how the information had been covered up, even in 2000. I stayed that night in Libby with a woman whose husband had died of asbestosis. We were joined the next morning by two neighbors whose husbands had died from asbestos related cancers.

Troubling too were the multiple people who reported that doctors hired by the company kept vital medical information from the workers, thus workers continued to be exposed to asbestos after there was clear evidence of ongoing harm.

For William M. Corcoran, indicted vice president of public and regulatory affairs for W.R. Grace Co., to say, “The science did not evolve quickly enough” is either wishful thinking or the ultimate in spin. Asbestos has been known to be hazardous since at least 1898, and by 1935 the asbestos link to cancer was established in the scientific literature.

There were even more scientific papers linking asbestos to fibrotic lung disease, a particular hazard for shipyard workers. Asbestos was used in large quantities for fireproofing on ships. Pipes were “lagged” (wrapped) with asbestos paper and asbestos “mud” was packed into crevices. It was very dusty work as was evident at Hunters Point.

The U.S. EPA is addressing the Libby asbestos problem, although years late. The EPA “knew more than 15 years ago that the asbestos fibers were killing people in the small Montana town of Libby but ‘dropped the ball,’” EPA toxicologist Christopher Weis said. “The agency’s headquarters was aware of the situation but never passed the information along to the regional office in Denver” (Washington Post, Jan. 1, 2000, page A-5).

Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, himself a cancer patient, introduced a bill to create a $140 billion trust fund for those with asbestos related diseases that were occupationally exposed. Such a trust fund was discussed prior to 1982 by members of the advisory group to EPA’s Toxic Substance Control Act, of which I was a member, and was rejected then as being inadequate to cover the many people made ill by asbestos.

Asbestos contaminates not only the workers who mine, manufacture, install and demolish asbestos-containing products, but also the many people who process and use the products, as well as residents who live in proximity to these operations, which includes Hunters Point.

Unfortunately, the bill before the U.S. Congress does not include those exposed to asbestos in their communities, even if they live next to a facility where asbestos products are manufactured or used, such as a shipyard. Staff members of California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, cosponsor of the bill, say that non-occupationally exposed persons can file under the catchall provision of the bill for “exceptional medical claims.” But it is not clear if the administrator of the Trust Fund or the judiciary will consider those claims.

Even those exposed occupationally to asbestos have to document their exposure and then fulfill specific medical criteria, which is difficult if companies have gone out of business or declared bankruptcy.

The only people included in the asbestos bill specifically for environmental exposure are those from Libby, Montana, who were exposed to “take home” asbestos. While this may be justice for Libby asbestos victims, it lets W.R. Grace and EPA off the hook and does nothing for others exposed elsewhere to environmentally spread asbestos such as the people of Hunters Point.

What will it take for us to express our outrage when our next family member, friend or neighbor is diagnosed with cancer? What will it take to stop polluting and clean up our communities?

How much more asbestos, PCBs, solvents, nuclear wastes, power plant emissions will we tolerate before we do something? Clearly, governmental agencies are failing to protect the health of the public.

The level of illness in Hunters Point and Libby, Montana, as well as other communities is not just a public health problem, it is a civil rights problem. How much longer will we stand for it?

Why do we allow our federal government to spend $200 trillion to wage war in Iraq yet grant Halliburton/ Kellogg Brown and Root $72 million in bonuses and not clean up the nuclear, chemical and asbestos wastes at Hunters Point and other communities polluted by past activities. How did we allow cancer to become the No. 1 killer without noticing it?

Janette D. Sherman, M.D., is an internist and toxicologist and the author of “Life’s Delicate Balance: Causes and Prevention of Breast Cancer,” which is available through her website, http://www.janettesherman.com or by emailing Dr. Sherman at toxdoc.js@verizon.net.



-------- connecticut

Connecticut sub base a 'minefield' of pollution

Associated Press
May 25, 2005

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/local/state/hc-25130205.apds.m0663.bc-ct--basemay25,0,7394005.story?coll=hc-headlines-local-wire

GROTON, Conn. -- For decades, the land around the U.S. Navy's 575-acre submarine base was a dumping ground for whatever it needed to dispose: sulfuric acid, torpedo fuel, waste oil and incinerator ash.

Now the Pentagon wants to close its oldest sub base, leaving a huge swath of land that contains dozens of acres of polluted soil and groundwater, an Associated Press review of more than 1,000 pages of military and state and federal environmental documents found.

Even some areas that have been cleaned could pose health risks to construction workers and future residents if the base were to disappear, the documents show.

And while the Navy pledges $23.9 million toward cleaning the base it opened in 1868, they said Wednesday that cleanup will only be to industrial standards. State officials fear the money won't be nearly enough to make the land fit for waterfront homes, condominiums or recreational facilities.

"That's not a redevelopment opportunity, that's a minefield of contamination," said Gina McCarthy, commissioner of the state Department of Environmental Protection. "And that's our dilemma."

The military has a history of shutting down bases and leaving behind contaminated land. Thirty-four military bases closed since 1988 are on the federal government's Superfund list of worst toxic waste sites, and none is completely cleaned.

The Navy has already spent $57.6 million cleaning the Groton base, which also is a Superfund site. Officials have sealed landfills, cleaned acres of wetlands and hauled away tons of contaminated soil.

Some areas, such as a 14,000-gallon battery acid tank buried during World War II, have been cleaned so well they meet residential standards, the records show.

But others have been treated with a combination of cleanup and land-use restrictions that presume the land will never be used for residential development. A massive landfill in the northeast corner of the base, for instance, was capped in 1997 after the Navy decided excavation was too expensive, Navy environmental reports show.

Today, much of the landfill - containing battery acid and incinerator ash - is paved over, digging is prohibited and access to the site is restricted.

It's that disparity that has state officials wondering what type of cleanup $23 million will buy along the base's riverfront. Potentially the most valuable land on the base, it also is the most polluted.

Navy environmental contractors noted in a 2001 report that elevated levels of cancer-causing chemicals were detected near a solvent-storage building and warned that pregnant women and small children were at risk for lead exposure in the area.

Similar problems have been noted across the waterfront, but because the area is paved and heavily developed, the Navy said the pollution poses no immediate health threats.

The waterfront cleanup is scheduled to begin in 2008, but the Navy has told the Environmental Protection Agency that, because of national security concerns, it will try to avoid full-scale excavation and consider spot-cleaning the area, containing the contamination and restricting access.

"That can be a very low-cost venture," McCarthy said, "but it doesn't mean you can ever redevelop that property."

Like many reports, the recommendations are rooted in the assumption that the sub base would remain in Groton.

"The lower sub base is a high-security area," the Navy reported to the EPA in 2001. "The area is covered with pavement or buildings and there are no short-term or long-term plans to convert this area to any other use."

Pentagon environmental reports only add uncertainty to the cost of cleaning the base.

Officials predicted in 1995 that the base would be cleaned by 2008 at a cost of $119 million. A decade later, three new pollution sites have been identified and the Pentagon believes the cleanup will extend into 2020. Yet the cost estimate has dropped to $80 million.

Navy spokeswoman Lt. Christine Ventresca would not say whether cleanup costs would rise if the base were to close, and open polluted restricted areas to the public. Those decisions, she said, would be made when a new plan for the base is considered.

While elected leaders have vowed to fight the base closure, which officials estimate could cost Connecticut 31,500 jobs and $2 billion a year in personal income, Groton officials have already starting thinking about what might replace it.

"A lot of people I know are working on this right now under the radar," said Paulann H. Sheets, a Groton town councilor and environmental attorney who believes it should be kept an industrial district. "I know we'll hear proposals for a waterfront district: parks, hotel, entertainment, condos, retail district and housing."

State officials said Tuesday that the Navy will let them onto the base this week to make their own cleanup estimate.

Officials hope that estimate persuades the Pentagon that keeping the base open makes more sense than cleaning and closing it. If not, they said, it will at least make it clear they don't expect to sit by as the Navy sails away from 575 acres of polluted land.


Associated Press writer Lolita Baldor contributed to this report from Washington.


-------- ohio

Davis-Besse receives favorable report
Enough progress made for oversight panel to be phased out by July 1

By TOM HENRY
TOLEDO BLADE STAFF WRITER
Article published Wednesday, May 25, 2005

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050525/NEWS17/505250382

PORT CLINTON - The Nuclear Regulatory Commission last night discussed its plans for phasing out the special oversight panel it has had in place for intense scrutiny of Davis-Besse the last three years.

The panel - a rarity in the nuclear industry - was formed April 29, 2002, seven weeks after the NRC learned on March 6, 2002, about the near rupture of Davis-Besse's reactor head.

Shortly after its formation, the panel worked with a number of other NRC officials to understand the significance of FirstEnergy Corp.'s uncontrolled acid leak inside Davis-Besse's radioactive containment area - how it had nearly burned a hole through the reactor's massive steel lid and had put northern Ohio on the brink of experiencing the nation's first major nuclear accident since the 1979 partial meltdown of Three Mile Island's Unit 2 reactor near Harrisburg, Pa.

Many of those same federal regulators learned how records they had received from FirstEnergy Corp. about the plant's status prior to the 2002 shutdown were inaccurate or incomplete - and how a buildup of radioactive steam from a rupture in containment might have led to a disaster, given longstanding flaws in Davis-Besse's emergency core cooling system.

Last night's final oversight panel meeting, held at the Ohio National Guard's Camp Perry clubhouse, was a mix of emotions.

About 125 people in the audience, many of them plant employees, applauded as NRC officials joined FirstEnergy Corp. executives and Ottawa County officials in what was perhaps the most upbeat message since the beleaguered plant was allowed to go back online March 8, 2004.

The overriding theme: strong, consistent progress.

There's been enough of it, NRC officials said, for the oversight panel to disband by July 1, thereby ending another chapter in Davis-Besse's darkest era and moving the 28-year-old plant one step closer to normalcy.

Sort of. Although the oversight panel is winding down, NRC officials said Davis-Besse will continue to be atypical, in that it will be subjected to some inspections above and beyond the normal for an indefinite period.

Among other things, the NRC will continue to analyze the significance of backlogged work and FirstEnergy's continuing efforts to boost morale and improve Davis-Besse's workplace atmosphere, said Steve Reynolds, the outgoing oversight panel's chairman.

Barring unforeseen circumstances, Davis-Besse will return to a more-normalized process in which the public will be invited to hear about the plant's status at annual meetings. The next such annual meeting is to occur in early 2006, officials said.

Contact Tom Henry at:
thenry@theblade.com
or 419-724-6079.



-------- utah

Federal Board Rejects Utah's Appeal of Nuclear Dump on Reservation

May 25, 2005 — By Chris Clark, Associated Press

http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=7805
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Utah-Nuclear-Waste.html?pagewanted=print

SALT LAKE CITY — A federal licensing board on Tuesday rejected Utah's appeal to thwart the stockpiling of spent nuclear fuel rods at an American Indian reservation.

The state had argued in April that radiation could escape from waste casks if an outer protective shield was breached, even if the interior canister holding the fuel rods remained fully intact.

But lawyers for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Utah's argument was too late and lacked scientific merit, advising the three-member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to reject it.

Although turning aside the state's argument, the board suggested the NRC study whether radioactive waste could leak from a cask that was damaged but not breached.

The ruling clears the way for the NRC to approve the project, which would create a temporary waste dump for spent rods on the reservation pending the opening of a national repository at Nevada's Yucca Mountain. It was not immediately clear when the commission would issue its final decision.

The Goshute Indian tribe has sought the waste station at its reservation in Skull Valley, about 45 miles southwest of Salt Lake City, hoping to earn as much as $3 million. The tribe is teaming with Private Fuel Storage to build the station, which would store more than 40,000 tons of nuclear waste.

The state had previously argued that the proposed waste station's proximity to an Air Force base increased the risk of a fighter jet crashing into the spent fuel rods. The licensing board dismissed that scenario as unlikely.

The state also contended that rods could end up permanently in Utah because the Energy Department isn't obligated to transport them to Nevada, but the board rejected that argument in February.

Gov. Jon Huntsman's legal counsel, Mike Lee, said the governor was disappointed with Tuesday's ruling but "remains firm in his resolve to fight this battle at every possible front."

He said the state is pursuing various options, including appeals in the courts and with the NRC, the Bureau of Land Management and the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

PFS spokeswoman Sue Martin said the company was pleased the process was moving forward.

"All of these challenges and the additional hearings and things like that that have gone on for the last eight years is evidence of how rigorous this process is," she said.

The issue has wound its way through the courts since Skull Valley Band Tribal Chairman Leon Bear signed a lease in 1997 allowing PFS to store the fuel on Goshute land.

The planned underground nuclear dump at Yucca Mountain has also endured a string of problems. The Energy Department recently abandoned a 2010 completion date and did not set a new one. 


----

Agency rejects latest appeal of Skull Valley nuke storage
Safety board: A consortium could be a step closer to building the facility, but other avenues are available to the state

05/25/2005 12:59:37 AM
By Robert Gehrke
The Salt Lake Tribune

http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_2756249
	
WASHINGTON - The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board on Tuesday rejected Utah's latest appeal seeking to prevent Private Fuel Storage's plans to store 44,000 tons of nuclear waste on the Skull Valley Goshute Indian reservation.

   The board's decision means PFS is inching closer to getting its license to build an interim spent fuel-rod storage site 45 miles southwest of Salt Lake City. PFS officials have said they could be operating by 2007.

   The state still has other avenues of administrative appeal, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs has yet to sign off on the deal.

   The state also is asking the Interior Department to throw out the Skull Valley Band's contract with PFS, and to deny PFS a right-of-way for a rail line to the reservation to move the waste. Another angle of attack is U.S. Rep. Rob Bishop's proposal in a Defense Department bill that would create a wilderness area to block the rail line.

   Should PFS continue to prevail with the federal agencies, Utah can take the issue to a federal appeals court, said assistant Utah Attorney General Denise Chancellor.

   Reaching that point "could be a month, it could be four months" she said.

   Nevertheless, PFS views the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's decision as a victory.

   “We're very pleased that the process is moving forward,” said Sue Martin, spokeswoman for PFS, the group of electric companies proposing the facility. “It has been moving forward. It's just been at a glacial pace.”

   The state had asked the licensing board to reverse a Feb. 24 ruling in favor of PFS, arguing that the board underestimated the risk and consequences of an F-16 fighter jet smashing into the waste dump while training at the nearby Air Force range.

   “Given the result we reach today, nothing said herein alters the status quo, under which the commission has been, and continues to be, vested by NRC regulations with the authority to issue the requested license,” the three-judge panel wrote.

   In one part of the ruling, the judges were unanimous in rejecting the Utah attorneys' contention that the board should consider what harm might occur if one of the casks is damaged internally by an airplane crash.

   However, the panel did suggest that the commission direct NRC staff to conduct “diminished shielding” studies to determine whether radiation might escape from a cask that is damaged but not breached and decide if those studies warrant further research.

   In the second part of the ruling, Judge Peter Lam dissented from the other two judges, arguing against the board's determination that the risk of an F-16 crash was so remote - less than one in 1 million per year - that it should not prevent the licensing from proceeding.

   Lam argued the determination was based on inadequate F-16 crash data.

   Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, expressed frustration, but no surprise. "I still think these are very legitimate concerns and I think it's very disappointing that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approached this the way it has."

   Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch expressed optimism. “PFS will never, in my opinion, overcome all the administrative, legal and economic hurdles," he said.

   Meantime, Utah's delegation was alarmed by language in an Energy Department budget bill that seeks to create an interim nuclear storage site by next year to house the waste until a permanent repository in Yucca Mountain, Nev., is built.

   A committee report accompanying the bill recommends interim storage in Nevada, if existing law can be changed, or at Energy Department sites in South Carolina, Washington, Idaho or Nevada. However, it also leaves open the option of a “non-federal” storage site.

   “I am very nervous about the interim storage issue that is in this bill,” said Matheson. “I'm nervous about its effect on validating or enhancing the viability of Private Fuel Storage.”

   Bishop asked the chairman of the subcommittee that drafted the bill for assurances the storage wouldn't take place at a site not run by the Energy Department.

   “I do not see any reason the [Energy] secretary would consider a private site or a site on federal land or an Indian reservation for interim storage,” Rep. David Hobson, R-Ohio, replied.


    Tribune reporter Patty Henetz contributed to this story. 

Recent Coverage
# Feds will weigh risks of Goshute waste site, (4/13/05)

# Bishop will revive bill to block N-waste, (4/13/05)

# Wait on N-waste plan, panel is asked, (3/18/05)

# Bush asked to fight Goshute plan, (3/18/05)

# Nuke battle: Utahns reload, (3/9/05)

# Huntsman to D.C.: Utah is no nuclear waste dump, (2/28/05)

# Utah loses key battle over N-waste, (2/26/05)

# Guv insists N-dump battle not over, (2/25/05)

# Moving N-waste no easy, or fast, task, (2/05/05)



-------- us nuc waste

House OKs temporary nuclear-waste storage

ASSOCIATED PRESS
May 25, 2005

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050524-114242-2117r.htm

    The House voted yesterday to begin temporary storage of commercial nuclear waste at one or more federal facilities, fearing further delays in a proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear-waste repository in Nevada.

    The directive was included in a $29.7 billion measure funding the Energy Department and came over the objections of lawmakers from Washington and South Carolina, two states where the waste from commercial power reactors might be located.

    An attempt by Rep. Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts Democrat, to strip the bill of $10 million for the interim-storage program failed 312-110. Just one Republican and the House's one independent joined 108 Democrats in voting for the fund-stripping amendment, with 89 Democrats and 223 Republicans voting against it.

    The House last night passed the overall Energy Department spending measure by a 416-13 vote.

    While the legislation leaves it up to the Energy Department to select one or more interim-storage sites, a report accompanying the bill suggested the department's Savannah River weapons facility in South Carolina, the Hanford complex in Washington state and a facility in Idaho as potential locations.

    It also said the department should consider other federal sites, including closed defense bases for temporary storage. It calls on the energy secretary to produce a plan for interim storage four months after the bill becomes law and begin accepting waste before the end of next year.

    The legislation has not yet passed the Senate.

    Washington and South Carolina lawmakers said that if their states are targeted, they feared the interim facilities could end up as permanent waste repositories. They worried that establishing interim waste dumps might reduce pressure to open Yucca Mountain.

    "The state of Washington does not want to become ... a nuclear-waste dump more than we are already," said Rep. Jay Inslee, Washington Democrat. "Interim, in geologic time, could mean several lifetimes."

    The interim-storage proposal comes as concerns continue about delays in opening the proposed Yucca Mountain project in Nevada, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

    Last year, a federal court questioned its proposed radiation-protection plans. More recently, concerns surfaced over charges that government workers on the project falsified data.

    The bill provides $661 million for continued development of the Yucca facility, which must still get a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Rep. David L. Hobson, Ohio Republican and chairman of the Appropriations energy subcommittee, said that he strongly supports development of the Yucca facility, but that interim storage is needed because of the delays.

    He said the government faces an estimated $500 million in additional liability costs for every year the government fails to accept waste. By law, the Energy Department was supposed to begin taking commercial used reactor fuel in 1998.

    More than 50,000 tons of nuclear waste is now kept at reactors in 31 states.

    The spending bill also contains $4.7 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers, most of it devoted to waterways, dams and flood-control projects. That is $414 million more than requested by President Bush, but $294 million less than current funding. 



-------- MILITARY 



-------- arms 

U.S. WEAPONS AT WAR 2005:
PROMOTING FREEDOM OR FUELING CONFLICT?
U.S. Military Aid and Arms Transfers Since September 11

A World Policy Institute Special Report
by Frida Berrigan and William D. Hartung, with Leslie Heffel
June 2005 (posted online 5/25/05)
ARMS TRADE RESOURCE CENTER

http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/wawjune2005.html

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This report is part of a continuing series of issue briefs on contemporary security issues being published by the World Policy Institute’s Program on Collective Security and Preventive Diplomacy. This report was researched and written by Frida Berrigan and William D. Hartung, respectively Senior Research Associate and Director of the Institute’s Arms Trade Resource Center.

The Institute would like to thank the following foundations and individuals whose support made this report possible: David Brown, Colombe Foundation, Deer Creek Foundation, Kligerman Foundation, Stewart R. Mott Fund, Ploughshares Fund, Proteus Fund, Rockefeller Brother Fund, Rockefeller Family Fund, Samuel Rubin Foundation, Secure World Foundation, Strachan Donnelley Trust, Town Creek Foundation and Mary Van Evera.

The authors would like to thank Michelle Ciarrocca and Lesley Heffel for research assistance, and Matt Schroeder and Rachel Stohl for their comments on early drafts.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Perhaps no single policy is more at odds with President Bush’s pledge to "end tyranny in our world" than the United States’ role as the world’s leading arms exporting nation. Although arms sales are often justified on the basis of their purported benefits, from securing access to overseas military facilities to rewarding coalition allies in conflicts such as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, these alleged benefits often come at a high price. All too often, U.S. arms transfers end up fueling conflict, arming human rights abusers, or falling into the hands of U.S. adversaries. As in the case of recent decisions to provide new F-16 fighter planes to Pakistan, while pledging comparable high-tech military hardware to its rival India, U.S. arms sometimes go to both sides in long brewing conflicts, ratcheting up tensions and giving both sides better firepower with which to threaten each other. Far from serving as a force for security and stability, U.S. weapons sales frequently serve to empower unstable, undemocratic regimes to the detriment of U.S. and global security.

Among the key findings of this report are the following:

In 2003, the last year for which full information is available, the United States transferred weaponry to 18 of the 25 countries involved in active conflicts. From Angola, Chad and Ethiopia, to Colombia, Pakistan and the Philippines, transfers through the two largest U.S. arms sales programs (Foreign Military Sales and Commercial Sales) to these conflict nations totaled nearly $1 billion in 2003, with the vast bulk of the dollar volume going to Israel ($845.6 million).

In 2003, more than half of the top 25 recipients of U.S. arms transfers in the developing world (13 of 25) were defined as undemocratic by the U.S. State Department’s Human Rights Report: in the sense that "citizens do not have the right to change their own government" or that right was seriously abridged. These 13 nations received over $2.7 billion in U.S. arms transfers under the Foreign Military Sales and Commercial Sales programs in 2003, with the top recipients including Saudi Arabia ($1.1 billion), Egypt ($1.0 billion), Kuwait ($153 million), the United Arab Emirates ($110 million) and Uzbekistan ($33 million).

When countries designated by the State Department’s Human Rights Report to have poor human rights records or serious patterns of abuse are factored in, 20 of the top 25 U.S. arms clients in the developing world in 2003-- a full 80%-- were either undemocratic regimes or governments with records of major human rights abuses.

The largest U.S. military aid program, Foreign Military Financing (FMF), increased by 68% between 2001 and 2003, from $3.5 billion to nearly $6 billion. These years coincided with the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks and the run-up to the U.S. intervention in Iraq. The biggest increases in dollar terms went to countries that were directly or indirectly engaged as U.S. allies in the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, including Jordan ($525 million increase from 2001 to 2003), Afghanistan ($191 million increase), Pakistan ($224 million increase) and Bahrain ($90 million increase). The Philippines, where the United States stepped up joint operations against a local terrorist group with alleged links to al-Qaeda, also received a substantial increase of FMF funding ($47 million) from 2001 to 2003. Military aid totals have leveled off slightly since their FY 2003 peak, coming in at a requested $4.5 billion for 2006. This is still a full $1 billion more than 2001 levels. The number of countries receiving FMF assistance nearly doubled from FY 2001 to FY 2006-- from 48 to 71.

The greatest danger emanating U.S. arms transfers and military aid programs is not in the numbers, but in the potential impacts on the image, credibility and security of the United States. Arming repressive regimes in all corners of the globe while simultaneously proclaiming a campaign for democracy and against tyranny undermines the credibility of the United States in international forums and makes it harder to hold other nations to high standards of conduct on human rights and other key issues. Arming undemocratic governments all too often helps to enhance their power, frequently fueling conflict or enabling human rights abuses in the process. These blows to the reputation of the United States are in turn impediments to winning the "war of ideas" in the Muslim world and beyond, a critical element in drying up financial and political support for terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda. Last but not least, in all too many cases, U.S. arms and military technology can end up in the hands of U.S. adversaries, as happened in the 1980s in Iraq and Panama, as well as with the right-wing fundamentalist "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan, many of whom are now supporters of al-Qaeda.

At a minimum, the time has come to impose greater scrutiny on U.S. arms transfers and military aid programs. The facile assumption that they are simply another tool in the foreign policy toolbox, to be used to win friends and intimidate adversaries as needed, must be challenged in this new era in U.S. security policy. A good starting point would be to find a way to reinforce and implement the underlying assumptions of U.S. arms export law, which calls for arming nations only for purposes of self-defense, and avoiding arms sales to nations that engage in patterns of systematic human rights abuses, either via new legislation or Executive Branch policy initiatives. Equally important, the automatic assumption that arms transfers are the preferred "barter" for access to military facilities or other security "goods" sought from other nations should be seriously re-considered. Economic aid, political support and other forms of support and engagement should be explored as alternatives whenever possible.

INTRODUCTION

"The only force powerful enough to stop the rise of tyranny and terror, and replace hatred with hope, is the force of human freedom...[and] America will stand with the allies of freedom to support democratic movements in the Middle East and beyond, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."1

These words, delivered by President George W. Bush in his 2005 State of the Union address, drew cheers and applause. But shaping this noble rhetoric into concrete policies will mean reversing a decades-long policy of selling weapons and providing military aid to some of the world’s worst tyrants and dictators.

This report demonstrates that under President Bush’s leadership, this trend has accelerated and freedom and democracy have suffered as a result.

The United States transfers more weapons and military services than any other country in the world. Between 1992 and 2003, the United States sold $177.5 billion in arms to foreign nations.2 In 2003 alone, the Pentagon and State Department delivered or licensed the delivery of $5.7 billion in weaponry to countries which can ill afford advanced weaponry—nations in the developing world saddled with debt and struggling with poverty.

Despite having some of the world’s strongest laws regulating the arms trade, almost half of these weapons went to countries plagued with ongoing conflict and governed by undemocratic regimes with poor human rights records. In 2003, $2.7 billion in weaponry went to governments deemed undemocratic by the U.S. State Department’s Huma n Rights Report, in the sense that citizens of those nations "did not have a meaningful right to change their government" in a peaceful manner.3 Another $97.4 million worth of weapons went to governments deemed by the State Department to have "poor" human rights records.4 See TABLE I: Human Rights Records of Top 25 U.S. Arms Recipients in the Developing World (page 36) for more information.

It is not enough to condemn tyranny and terror. President Bush must act to remove the tools of repression from the hands of tyrants and terrorists. Al-Qaeda and other non-state actors are real threats. But, for many, the central source of tyranny and terror is their own government. The United States provides the military hardware and know-how and then all too often turns a blind eye as governments suppress rights, squash legitimate dissent and sustain repression. In all, four of the five top U.S. arms recipients in the developing world had major issues, ranging from undemocratic governments, to poor human rights records across the board, to patterns of serious abuse.

Does U.S. policy of providing military aid and selling weapons contribute to fighting the war on terrorism? Is it a sound policy for strengthening democracy and self-reliance, as U.S. documents purport? Or does this policy conflate terrorism with human rights abuses and repression by putting more money and high-tech weaponry into the hands of leaders who violate human rights, repress their citizens and wage war on their neighbors?

Weapons at War

For many, war is synonymous with Iraq or Afghanistan, but our research enumerates 25 ongoing conflicts throughout the world. In the last decade, the U.S. has transferred some $8.7 billion in arms and military services to these war zones, $970.5 million in 2003 alone. During that year (the last year for which full data is available) the United States transferred weapons and military hardware into 18 of 25 conflict zones. This is despite the fact that these transfers appear to violate the spirit (if not the letter) of the Arms Export Control Act and the Foreign Assistance Act, which bar the transfer of U.S.-origin military equipment into active areas of conflict.

The 1976 Arms Export Control Act stipulates that arms transfers can only be used by the recipient nation for self-defense, internal security and in United Nations sanctioned operations. The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 bars military aid and arms sales to countries that demonstrate "gross and consistent" patterns of human rights abuses. And the Export Administration Act, passed in 1979, regulates the sale of "dual-use " items that could have civilian or military application.

While some arms transfers are relatively small-- a few hundred thousand dollars-- they carry significant political weight. A transfer of $301,000 in weapons to Angola, for example, does more than provide military hardware. It suggests that Luanda is an ally and that Washington supports or acquiesces in the actions of their military.

In the case of conflict zones like the Philippines or Colombia, where tens of millions of dollars worth of weapons are sold, Washington supplements military hardware with deployment of U.S. troops, advisers, military aid, or training programs, representing an even greater level of U.S. involvement in these wars.

Military Aid

In times of crisis, like the tsunami that killed more than 100,000 people in the last days of 2004, the American people are very generous. And they assume their government is as well. While the United States doles out billions in foreign aid every year, Washington tends to favor military aid and weapons sales over other forms of aid, deprioritizing humanitarian, health or development aid, even though these types of foreign aid have long-term constructive impact.

Since the beginning of the war on terrorism, foreign military aid has increased precipitously. The Pentagon’s largest military aid program, the Foreign Military Financing (FMF) program, increased by more than one-third (34%) between 2001 and 2005, jumping from $3.5 billion to $4.6 billion over that time period. President Bush is requesting $4.5 billion in FMF for 2006.

Many countries previously barred from receiving U.S. military aid, because of nuclear testing, human rights abuses, or their harboring of terrorists, began to receive aid in 2001. Two dozen nations-- including Afghanistan, Algeria, Pakistan, Uzbekistan and Uruguay-- either became first-time recipients of FMF during this period or were restored to the program after long absences. As a result, the number of countries receiving FMF assistance increased from 48 to 71 between 2001 and 2006—a 47.9% increase.

In that same time period, ten countries saw their aid at least triple, and seven had their FMF assistance increase by five times or more. The biggest gainers in FMF assistance in dollar terms were Jordan (+$127 million), Pakistan (+$300 million) and Afghanistan (+$396 million). None of these countries are democracies that fully respect human rights, according to the State Department’s Human Rights Report. For more details, see TABLE III (page 42).

In the conclusion of our report, we offer a number of recommendations to reverse this course and ensure that the United States lives up to its best ideals of freedom and democracy. Briefly, following and fully applying laws like the AECA and FAA (explained above) and resisting efforts by the Executive Branch to make exceptions for the sake of political expediencies like currying favor with strategically located regimes is an important starting point. Congress can also strengthen international law by spearheading the effort to pass the International Arms Trade Treaty. The convention, drafted by Nobel Laureates and supported by many non-governmental organizations, would create legally binding arms controls and ensure that governments control arms using the same basic international standards.

Adoption of these and the other recommendations outlined at the end of the report would further the Bush administration’s counter terrorism agenda much more effectively than the arms deals documented in this report.

The Canadian-based Project Ploughshares calculates that there are 36 armed conflicts being waged in 28 countries and defines armed conflict as "political conflict in which armed combat involves the armed forces of at least one state (or one or more armed factions seeking to gain control of all or part of the state), and in which at least 1,000 people have been killed by fighting during the course of the conflict."5

In the tables that accompany this report, we provide information on U.S. weapons sales and military aid to 25 nations where conflict remains active. We have adapted the Project Ploughshares list of conflicts, excluding Sri Lanka and Serbia/Kosovo because conflicts there are coming to an end. Additionally, Project Ploughshares defines the Israel/Palestine conflict as an interstate conflict between Israel and Lebanon, while we define it as an intrastate conflict. TABLE II has detailed data on U.S. weapons sales to these conflict nations (page 40).

The vast majority of countries involved in major-armed conflicts in 2003 received some military aid, training or weapons from the United States in the last ten years. In this report, we profile 12 countries involved in (or recovering from) major armed conflict which are top recipients of U.S. military aid and weapons sales. Additionally, we profile Georgia and Uzbekistan, which are not considered conflict countries, but are included because they have received large increases in FMF/military aid since the beginning of the Global War on Terror.

A Closer Look

The United States transferred defense articles to 18 of the 25 countries involved in active conflict during 2003, the last year for which full data is available. In 20 of the nations in conflict in 2003, the United States supplied weaponry some time in the last decade.

In all, the United States transferred $970.5 million in weaponry and related hardware to nations in conflict during 2003. And in the last decade, between 1994 and 2003, the United States transferred a total of more than $8.7 billion worth of military machinery and services to these countries.

While transfers to many nations were relatively small, they have an important symbolic value. Weapons sales suggest U.S. government support for or acquiescence in the actions of the governments involved in these conflicts.

While the bulk of the value of the transfers documented in TABLE II (page 40) represent shipments to Israel, other longstanding U.S. customers that received major transfers of def ense articles between 1994 and 2003 include India ($128 million), Indonesia ($121.2 million), Pakistan ($429.1 million), the Philippines ($380.8 million) and Colombia ($656.5 million). Given the durability of modern weapons systems, much of this weaponry has no doubt been used in the current conflicts in recipient nations.

Acceleration of Weapons Sales and Changes in the Rules

Prior to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, 27 countries were banned from purchasing U.S.-made military equipment, including Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Sudan, Syria, and Tajikistan.6

In the aftermath of terrorist attacks, bans on security assistance to many of these countries have been lifted or suspended, giving the President broad power to provide military aid and weapons to nations contributing to the war on terrorism.

The Bush administration lifted sanctions against Azerbaijan and Armenia. Tajikistan was removed from the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) list of states prohibited from receiving U.S. military goods and products.

These changes have shifted the allocation of military aid. Foreign Military Financing, the Pentagon’s largest military aid program, increased by more than two-thirds (68.4%) from 2001 to 2003, jumping from $3.5 billion to nearly $6 billion over that time period, before leveling off in 2004 and 2005 and requests for 2006 to an average of $4.6 billion (which represents a more than 30% increase over pre-9/11 levels).

Pakistan enjoyed an almost 200% increase in aid between 2002 and 2003, from $75 million to $224 million. Aid to the Philippines jumped from just over $2 million in 2001 to $49 million in 2003, an increase of more than 2,000%. For details, see TABLE III: Increases in U.S. Military Aid Between 2001 and 2003.

In October 2001, Congress passed Public Law 107-57, which included a measure to reduce the notification deadlines for weapons transfers. While the 1991 Foreign Assistance Act required that the President notify Congress 15 or more days before any transfer of emergency drawdowns and excess defense articles, the new act requires only five days advance notice if the President determines that the decision is "important to U.S. efforts to respond to, deter or prevent acts of international terrorism."7 This new law dismantled an important tool enabling the human rights and arms control community to lobby against weapons sales to problem countries.

That same month, the Pentagon’s Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA), which handles government-to-government weapons sales, announced a series of changes to their policies aimed at accelerating the process of granting weapons contracts to countries allied with the United States against terrorism.

The DSCA established the "Enduring Freedom Response Cell" to "fast track weapons requests from our allies."8 Air Force Lieutenant General Tome Walters, director of DSCA, described the new mission of his agency, "If you’re an allied country, let’s say Uzbekistan, and you need radios, we’ll do whatever we can to get the job done."9 Since the changes have been invoked, weapons sales, military aid, and training programs have surged.

Restrictions on U.S. arms exports to undemocratic and repressive regimes were painstakingly crafted over the last 40 years, and should not be discarded even in the interest of building a coalition to fight terrorism. As Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), observed, "We now have a floating coalition. We can’t have floating arms."10

Ignoring History: Role of Arms Trade Boomerang in Fueling Terror

A close reading of recent history would have warned the Bush administration against a policy of offering weapons, military aid and training to new allies in the war on terrorism. The last half-century is full of examples of allies becoming adversaries and political circumstances shifting much more quickly than weapons arsenals can be destroyed.

Washington transferred weaponry to successive South Vietnamese dictatorships throughout the 1960s and 70s in an effort bolster the South’s fight against the Communist North. U.S.-origin arms were often stolen from Southern barracks and after the fall of Saigon in 1975, North Vietnamese troops took possession of huge weapons caches. Massive military assistance that the U.S. provided to the dictatorship of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlevi in Iran was seized in the 1979 Islamic fundamentalist coup, giving the Ayatollah Khomeini control of a fleet of F-14 fighter planes and other high-tech weaponry.11

More recent history is equally instructive in the dangers of the boomerang effect. The last seven times the United States has sent troops into conflict in substantial numbers: in Iraq (2003-present), Afghanistan (2001-present), former Yugoslavia (1998), Haiti (1994), Somalia (1992), Iraq (1990) and Panama (1989); they faced adversaries with weapons or military technology "Made in the USA." The widening war on terrorism and accelerating weapons sales to coalition partners will only increase the likelihood of the boomerang effect continuing to haunt us.

Later in this report, profiles of Afghanistan and Iraq provide background on how U.S. military assistance in the 1970s and 80s outlasted the short-term political justifications for their sale or transfer. For more information on earlier examples, please see detailed case studies in the World Policy Institute’s 1995 Weapons at War report.12

On the Bright Side, There is much to criticize about U.S. arms export and foreign military aid policies, but there are positive facets as well. As is mentioned elsewhere in this report, the world’s largest arms exporter has the world’s strongest laws and regulations. In addition, Washington has sometimes withdrawn U.S. military aid and arms exports to rebuke countries that violated human rights or circumvented democracy.

The Bush Administration banned arms sales to Zimbabwe in 2002 after asserting that the March national election "subverted the democratic process" and charging that long-time President Robert Mugabe’s government carried out an "orchestrated campaign of intimidation and violence" in the lead-up to the election.13

The administration continues to staunchly oppose the European Union’s plans to lift a more than decade-old arms embargo on China, citing human rights abuses and the country’s tendency to re-transfer weapons related technology as among the arguments for maintaining the ban put in place after the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre.14 These are two instances in which concerns about human and civil rights trump strategic rationalizations for arms sales. Unfortunately, these instances remain the exception instead of the rule.

AFRICA

"This isn’t target practice! This is about killing people!"
U.S. military trainer in Niger, April 2005.15

Overview of U.S. Arms and Aid to Africa

In the wake of September 11th, and in keeping with its interest in securing access to oil and other key natural resources, the Bush administration has been rapidly expanding U.S. military involvement in Africa. While most recent increases in U.S. arms sales, aid and military training in Africa have been justified as part of what the administration refers to as the "Global War on Terrorism" (GWOT), oil has been a major factor in the administration’s strategic calculations from the outset.

In his first few months in office, President Bush’s first Secretary of State, Colin Powell, stressed the need to improve relations with oil producing nations like Nigeria and Angola. Similarly, the report of Vice-President Cheney’s Energy Task Force stressed the importance of gaining and maintaining access to African oil resources, which U.S. intelligence assessments expect to increase to as much as 25% of U.S. oil imports by the year 2020.16

The Congressional Budget justification underscores the strong pull of oil interests in Bush administration decision making. The entry on Equatorial Guinea notes that "over the course of the past five years, U.S. companies have invested approximately $5 billion" in the country’s oil sector.17 The entry for Sao Tome and Principe is more forward-looking, noting that "in the coming decade, U.S. companies are expected to participate in the development of petroleum resources in Sao Tome’s territorial waters."18 Nigeria is cited for its "large oil and gas reserves," while the entry on Angola stresses the need to "help ensure U.S. private-sector oil access to a source of seven percent of U.S. petroleum imports, a figure likely to rise in the coming years."19

Beyond oil, U.S. military officials have cited "a growing terrorist threat" in northern and sub-Saharan Africa to justify a program of stepped up military engagement in the region. General James Jones, head of the U.S. European command, has suggested the need to create a "family of bases" across Africa that would range from forward operating locations that would include an airfield and facilities to house 3,000 to 5,000 U.S. military personnel to "bare-bones" bases that U.S. Special Forces or Marines could "land at and build up as the mission required."20

These new facilities would not be considered "formal" bases like the growing U.S. base in the Horn of Africa in Djibouti, which has a regular deployment of 1,800 to 2,000 troops stationed there. While new basing arrangements are being worked out, a major increase in U.S. military exercises and training missions throughout Africa will be used to sustain a regular U.S. presence.

Military Aid, Training, and Sales on the Rise

While the millions of dollars being spent on U.S. military aid and sales to Africa pale in comparison to the billions being expended in the Middle East and South Asia, all of the major U.S. bilateral aid and sales programs have increased sharply in recent years.

Funding to sub-Saharan Africa under the largest U.S. military aid program, Foreign Military Financing, doubled from $12 million in fiscal year 2000 to a proposed $24 million in the FY 2006 budget proposal, and the number of recipient nations has grown from one to nine.

The Pentagon’s International Military Education and Training (IMET) program has increased by 35% from 2000 to the 2006 proposal, from $8.1 million to $11 million, and from 36 participating nations to 47. Foreign Military Sales more than quadrupled from fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2003 (the most recent year for which full statistics are available), from $9.8 million to $40.3 million. And Commercial Sales of arms licensed by the State Department grew from $.9 million to $3.8 million over the 2000 to 2003 period.

These bilateral programs are just the tip of the iceberg in terms of overall U.S. military aid commitments going forward. The U.S. European Command has requested $125 million over five years for the Pan-Sahel Initiative, for training and exercises with Chad, Mali, Mauritania, Niger and other nations in the region. U.S. engagement under the program has gone far beyond traditional training to include involvement in combat operations.

Craig S. Smith of the New York Times offers the following description of the role of U.S. forces in a 2004 operation against the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat, a designated terrorist organization, and its leader, Ammari Saifi: "The United States European Command sent a Navy P-3C Orion surveillance aircraft to sweep the area, relaying Mr. Saifi’s position to forces in the region. Mali chased him out of the country to Niger, which in turn pushed him into Chad, where, with United States Special Forces support of an airlift of fuel and other supplies, 43 of his men were killed or captured."21

Other major U.S. military commitments include a proposed $100 million program for military and anti-terrorist training in East Africa, and a $200 million pledge to train and restructure Liberia’s military forces. The first $35 million of this amount has been committed to a training program run by DynCorp, a private military company with a mixed record in operations in the Balkans, Colombia, Afghanistan and Iraq.

In addition to programs targeted to specific countries or regions, the ACOTA program (African Contingency Operations Training and Assistance) has received $38 million in funding over the past three years, with the stated goal of training "select African militaries to respond effectively to peace support and humanitarian crises on their continent." Participants in the program have included Ghana, Kenya, Ethiopia, Senegal and Botswana.22

Transparency and accountability are major missing components with respect to current U.S. military operations in Africa. There is no single source that summarizes U.S. exercises or Pentagon-run training missions like the Joint Combined Exchange Training (JCET program) in any detail.

ALGERIA

Washington has much to learn from Algeria on ways to fight terrorism.

William Burns, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern and North African Affairs, 2002. 23

Civil war has wracked this oil-rich nation for more than 12 years, killing as many as 150,000 people.24 The war erupted in 1991 when the military-backed government called off elections that would have instated an Islamic government. Since then, the civilian population has been caught between Islamic insurgents and the military.

For many years, the dictatorship’s political abuses and the reality of civil war made it an international pariah, but in the aftermath of the September 11th attacks, Algeria overhauled its public image.

Algerian President Abdel-Aziz Bouteflika has visited the White House three times since 2001.25 Richard Erdman, the American ambassador in Algiers, explains that, " Algeria is an important ally for us in the war on terror."26

Military ties between the two countries are growing. In January 2002, Algeria began hosting U.S. naval ships and the two countries have conducted joint anti-submarine warfare maneuvers.27 In December 2002, Washington announced it would abandon its ten-year-old arms embargo,28 and the two countries have begun discussing the establishment of an American military base in southern Algeria.29

An Open Door for Military Sales

Emboldened by this collaboration, Algerian officials are pushing for new U.S. military technology, such as advanced night-vision technology and all-weather combat aircraft, as well as radar and ground-based sensors.30 In fact, when President Bouteflika visited the United States in 2001, he met with executives from Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and Northrop Grumman at a summit organized by the Corporate Council on Africa.31

Despite this warming trend, Algerian access to U.S. weaponry remains limited. All U.S. weapons transfers are decided on a case-by-case basis. In recent years, only non-lethal systems, such as radios, global positioning systems, night vision equipment and sensors have been transferred.

But, non-lethal systems still give the Algerian military a lethal advantage over Islamic guerillas. For example, an August 2002 transfer of night vision equipment aided the military in tracking and attacking insurgents.

Algeria does not receive FMF or ESF, but all signs point towards more military aid in the future. As the State Department explains in its Congressional Presentation, Algeria "has demonstrated it is an important partner in the global war against terrorism; it remains in the U.S. interest to help the Algerian military increase its professionalism, effectiveness and improve its interoperability with the U.S. and other allied forces. The threat of terrorism from internal Algerian extremist groups and those with ties to international terrorist organizations continues to plague Algeria and threaten U.S. interests in the region."32

With these goals in mind, the allocation of military training funds has been increasing in recent years. In fiscal year 2002, the U.S. provided $67,000 in IMET funding. The request for 2006 is $750,000, an increase of more than 1000% in four years.33 The Congressional justification explains the importance of a new relationship with Algeria by saying that the nation "shares our interest in fighting terrorism, plays an important leadership role in the Arab world, Africa, and the Mediterranean basin [and] possesses enormous gas and oil resources."34

Shared Interests? Human Rights Abuses Continue

While diplomatic and military relationships between the two countries have certainly progressed and will continue to do so, the human rights situation has not improved apace. There is no evidence that more military aid and training will bring about peace and stability.

Human rights lawyer Mostefa Bouchachi, interviewed by the BBC News says, "People are tortured systematically here. Eighty percent of my clients tell me when I visit them in prison that they have been tortured by police."35

The State Department’s Human Rights Report supports this statement, saying Algeria’s "human rights record remained poor overall… There continued to be problems with excessive use of force by the security forces as well as failure to account for past disappearances. New allegations of incidents and severity of torture continued."36

ANGOLA

"Angola has been a terrific place to do business."

Jim Blackwell, the director of Chevron Texaco’s operations in Angola, 2004.37

Angola is slowly emerging from a brutal war that pitched the Marxist government against rebels backed by the United States. The ensuing calm is being heralded as a major turning point for Africa.

The civil war claimed the lives of more than 500,000 Angolans and displaced another two million, ending in 2002 when rebel leader Jonas Savimbi was assassinated.38 Since then, more than one million Angolans who had fled the country are returning and rebuilding has commenced.39

Angola is not a major recipient of U.S. aid. The total request for FY 2006 is $30.7 million, which amounts to just over $2.00 for each Angolan.40 But as this nation of 14 million emerges from 30 years of war, it seems that the United States is preparing to once again take an active role in Angola’s economic, political and military trajectory.

According to Washington’s 2006 request for military aid, Angola can contribute to international peacekeeping efforts, and to "the international fight against terrorists, drug traffickers and organized crime," because it has "one of Africa’s largest and most experienced militaries."41

To that purported end, all areas of military aid are on the rise. The White House is requesting $400,000 in FMF for 2006, after allocating $300,000 in 2005. In addition to this aid, Angola is now eligible for Excess Defense Articles and has been identified as a candidate for the African Contingency Operations Training and Assistance.42

Oil Wealth: Not Trickling Down

Angola has huge oil reserves, providing the United States with more oil than Kuwait. Despite pumping more than a million barrels a day, the country’s oil wealth does not trickle down. According to Oxfam, 78% of the rural population lives in "deep poverty," and 80% of Angolans have no access to basic medical care.43

The United States is Angola’s largest trading partner, purchasing about 50% of its oil exports and providing public income that was promptly diverted away from development to sustain the long war.44 In a 1999 report, Human Rights Watch documents how the Angolan government paid for arms purchases with bank loans, oil profit remittances and mining concessions. Hundreds of millions of dollars were generated when the Angolan government offered oil exploration concession blocks to multinational oil companies like BP-Amoco, Exxon, and Elf. Those funds were then used to purchase weapons.45

According to a January 2004 updated, HRW found more than $4 billion in Angolan oil revenues were missing and had been squirreled away into private offshore bank accounts or used to purchase military hardware.46

U.S. Legacy: Support for Brutality

In 1986, President Reagan welcomed rebel leader Jonas Savimbi to the White House. He expressed his hope that the leader of UNITA, a rebel group backed by U.S. and white-ruled South Africa as a bulwark against Soviet interests in Africa, would win "a victory that electrifies the world and brings great sympathy and assistance from other nations to those struggling for freedom."47

That "freedom" proved to be brutal for Angola and extremely expensive for the United States. Like so many other African countries, Angola was a battleground for the proxy war between the U.S. and USSR.

Even prior to the 1974 revolution that ended Portuguese rule, the two superpowers had taken sides among the various Angolan independence movements. External military assistance from the United States, South Africa and Zaire supported UNITA and the National Front for the Liberation of Angola (FNLA), while the Soviet Union, China and Cuba provided arms and aid to the Popular Movement for Angolan Liberation (MPLA).

Authorized U.S. aid to UNITA/FNLA began in the mid-1970s, with a first installment of $300,000.48 Despite passage of the Clark amendment in December 1975 that barred military transfers, covert aid included 622 mortars, 42,100 antitank rockets, and more than 20,000 rifles.49 But this military support remained largely concealed from the public, Congress and the media.

In the 1980’s, despite faltering international support for UNITA in response to Savimbi’s increasingly erratic behavior, the indiscriminate use of landmines, and civilian hostage-taking, U.S. continued to aid the rebels with a total of approximately $250 million in weaponry between 1986 and 1991, including highly sophisticated small arms and light weapons like Stinger aircraft missiles. 50

In its current Human Rights Report, the State Department acknowledges that Angola ’s "human rights record remained poor… Members of the security forces committed unlawful killings, were responsible for disappearances, and tortured, beat, raped, and otherwise abused persons."51

AMERICAS

COLOMBIA

This man’s plan is working

President Bush of President Uribe in Cartagena, Colombia, November 2004.52

For four decades, Colombia has been torn apart by civil war. The three-sided conflict has claimed the lives of at least 200,000 people and displaced another two million.53 Everyday, five people are forcibly disappeared.54

Since the start of Plan Colombia in 2000, the United States has granted billions of dollars in military and police aid, training and weaponry, despite the government’s record of human rights abuses and its support for the vicious paramilitary group United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC).

Military and Police Aid

Under President Bill Clinton, the U.S. initiated the $1.3 billion Plan Colombia, ostensibly aimed at strengthening the military to combat the drug trade. President Bush now has his own version- the Andean Counter-drug Initiative (ACI). Since its establishment in 2001, the Bush Administration has requested $1.33 billion in police and military aid for Colombia through ACI.55

Colombia also receives U.S. military aid through existing programs. After allocating just $17 million in 2003, Congress agreed to increase FMF to $98.4 million in 2004 and $99.2 million in 2005. For 2006, President Bush has requested another $90 million.56

Colombia also receives significant military training assistance. In 2004, Congress granted the President’s request of $1.6 million in IMET funds, up from $1.1 million in 2003.57 The Center for International Policy found that IMET is only a small part of overall U.S. efforts to train Colombian troops. The $1.1 million granted in 2003 trained 590 soldiers. But through this and other channels, U.S. forces have trained almost 13,000 Colombian military and police personnel since Plan Colombia was established.58

According to a study by the Rand Corporation, U.S. weapons and military training have "fanned the flames of the violence in Colombia." Their detailed report, Arms Trafficking and Colombia, traces the path of small arms and light weapons from U.S.-origin stockpiles in Nicaragua, El Salvador and other Cold War battlegrounds in Central America to Colombia, where they are used by State Department-labeled terrorist groups.59 These weapons have ended up in the hands of the leftist Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the rightwing AUC.

In his second term, President Bush is continuing these failed policies under a new moniker- the "war on narco-terrorism." President Bush made Colombia one of his first state visits after the November 2004 reelection, promising more than half a billion dollars in new military and police aid and praising President Uribe’s counter-narcotics, counter-terrorism agenda.

Weapons for Colombia

Between 1994 and 2003, Colombia took delivery of $571.6 million in FMS weaponry and another $84.8 million in commercial exports, for a total of more than $656 million in U.S. weapons.60

In November 2004, Colombia announced it was in the market for 24 fighter jets, and defense officials began meeting with plane-makers from Brazil, China, the United States and South Korea. Given the preponderance of U.S. weaponry and military hardware in the Colombian arsenal, it is hard to imagine defense officials choosing another country’s fighter plane in this deal worth an estimated $234 million. Colombian defense officials hope to take delivery of the new planes by 2007.61

War on Drugs, War on Terrorism: Same War, Same Victims

The U.S. weaponry and military aid that has fueled the brutal war in Colombia have not succeeded in stemming the flow of drugs into the United States. In fact, a study by the Washington Office on Latin America found that the cocaine is 31% cheaper on the streets of the United States than it was before Plan Colombia was initiated.62

Nonetheless, President Bush is committed to continuing these failed policies in his second term. While in Cartagena in November 2004, President Bush told reporters, "President Uribe and I share a basic optimism. This war against narco-terrorism can and will be won."63

Washington has eagerly shifted from the war on drugs to the war on narco-terrorism, freed up more money for Uribe’s war and changed U.S. law to allow the Colombian president to use U.S. military assistance to directly engage the FARC.64

Domestically, Uribe defines any opposition, including criticism from human rights groups, as terrorism, and has used the rhetoric of the war on terrorism and concerns about security to enact legislation curtailing citizens rights.65

Political Violence and Human Rights Abuses

To be a trade unionist in Colombia is to have one foot in this world and one in the next.
Dan Kovalik, lawyer with the United Steel Workers of America.66

Along with the FARC and the AUC, the Colombian military and police are collectively responsible for the most human rights violations in the Western Hemisphere.67

According to the State Department’s 2004 Human Rights Report, "some members of the security forces continued to commit serious abuses, including unlawful and extrajudicial killings and forced disappearances. Some members of the security forces continued to collaborate with the terrorist AUC, which committed serious abuses."68

Some of the worst political violence and human rights abuses took place in areas controlled by U.S. oil companies. A portion of U.S. military assistance is designated for protecting oil businesses- specifically Occidental Petroleum. Amnesty International asserts that in 2003, $99 million in U.S. aid went to protecting the oil pipeline.69

In January 2003, 60 U.S. Special Forces arrived in Arauca to train units from the 18th Brigade. Dan Kovalik, a lawyer with the United Steelworkers, visited Arauca in November 2004, and met with the head of the 18th Brigade. Writing in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, he describes the brigade as "notorious for gross violations of human rights against the civilian population," including the assassination of three union leaders in August 2004.70

ASIA

INDIA AND PAKISTAN

Nuclear Neighbors

The United States imposed sanctions on rivals India and Pakistan after their 1998 "tit for tat" nuclear tests, prohibiting the export of goods listed on the U.S. Munitions List, military financing and the transfer of certain military technologies.

But the sanctions were lifted in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in September 2001 when Washington sought allies for the war on terrorism. In the years since the attacks, Pakistan and India have benefited from billions of dollars in new military aid, training and weaponry.

While adopting the rhetoric of Washington’s anti-terrorism agenda, both countries continue to pursue their nuclear aspirations, bicker across the Line of Control in Kashmir, repress domestic opposition movements and violate human rights. It remains to be seen whether recent peace talks over Kashmir can change this long term dynamic of tension between India and Pakistan.

PAKISTAN

General Musharraf is the right man in the right place at the right time.
Secretary of State Colin Powell71

Despite the sheen of democracy, Pakistan remains a military dictatorship in all but name. General Musharraf’s seizure of power was legitimized by a controversial nationwide referendum in April 2002, but many observers questioned the free and fair nature of this "exercise in democracy."72

Soon after September 11th, President Bush judged that the sanctions imposed on Pakistan "would not be in the national security interests of the United States."73 Thus, in early November 2001, the U.S. agreed to provide Pakistan with $73 million in "border security" military hardware, including Huey helicopters and spare parts for F-16 fighter planes.74

The weapons sales have remained steady ever since. In July 2004, Bell Helicopter, a subsidiary of Textron, began delivering 26 412EP medium twin-engine helicopters and associated equipment, in a deal estimated at $230 million.75

At the end of March 2005, President Bush reversed 15 years of policy begun under his father by offering F-16 fighter planes to Islamabad. Initially, Pakistan plans on buying two dozen of the Lockheed Martin manufactured planes, but Bush administration officials note there would be no limits on how many could eventually be purchased.76 Pakistan’s economy is not strong enough to allow Musharraf to purchase the $35 million per copy fighter planes, and so the deal will be accompanied by about $3 billion in military aid.77

To stave off criticism that he is playing favorites, President Bush accompanied the Pakistan F-16 announcement with a companion decision to open India to U.S. weapons manufacturers, sparking denunciations that sales of weapons technology to the rivals could lead to a South Asian arms race.

Major increases in military aid accompany these plans for new weapons and technology sales. In 2002, Pakistan was granted $75 million in FMF, the country’s first grant in more than 10 years. In 2003, the nation’s FMF totaled $49.5 million, supplemented by an anti-terrorism grant of $175 million. For 2004, FMF totaled $74.5 million with no supplemental appropriation. Another $148 million was allocated in 2005, and President Bush is requesting $300 million for 2006.78

Thus, Pakistan will have accumulated a total of $821 million in FMF support between 2002 (when FMF was resumed) and 2005. Additionally, military training funds are on the rise- from zero in 2001 to a $2 million request for 2006.79

The fiscal year 2006 Congressional justification explains the thinking behind the upsurge in military aid to Pakistan, saying "a strong U.S.-Pakistan partnership remains critical to continued progress in the global war on terrorism and regional stability."80

With these aims in mind, President Bush took the relationship one step further in June 2004, naming Pakistan a "Major Non-NATO Ally." This designation, accorded to only a handful of nations, makes Pakistan eligible for previously unavailable weapons like depleted uranium munitions, and new funding sources like U.S. government-backed loans to build up its military capability.81

A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing?

Even as word of this honored status was being communicated to Pakistan, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9-11 Commission) cited evidence of Islamabad’s collaboration with the Taliban before the terrorist attacks.

While Pakistan has made significant contributions to the war against terrorism, arresting a number of high-value al-Qaeda operatives, the report found that "the Taliban’s ability to provide bin Laden a haven in the face of international pressure and UN sanctions was significantly facilitated by Pakistani support."82

According to another report from the Congressional Research Service, Pakistan has turned a blind eye to the Taliban and other militants who use its porous border regions as a launching pad for attacks against U.S., NATO and Afghani troops. The report, Afghanistan: Post War Governance, Security and U.S. Policy notes that "U.S. and Afghan officials continue to accuse Pakistan of allowing Taliban fighters to meet and group in Pakistani cities."83

An anonymous Western diplomat, quoted in the New York Times, was more colorful, saying "if you talk about the Taliban, its like fish in a barrel in Pakistan. They train, they rest there. They get support. "84

INDIA

The real prize is India.

Richard Aboulafia, military analyst with Teal Group consulting firm, on Bush’s decision to open India to arms manufacturers.85

Once, India was allied with the Soviet Union, and roughly 70% of India’s military hardware still comes from Russia. But as military ties between India and the U.S. grow tighter, Russian influence could wane.86

In 2002 and 2003, India received more than $77 million in security assistance from the United States to wage the war on terrorism.87 No FMF was granted for 2004 and 2005. But, India is making up for it with Economic Support Funds. As mentioned earlier, while ESF is sometimes earmarked for development programs, as unrestricted grants the funds can be used to offset arms purchases. ESF to India jumped from $10.5 million in 2003 to a request of $14 million for 2006. The country is also eligible for free or deeply discounted weapons and military equipment through the Excess Defense Articles program.88

Make New Friends

Between 1994 and 2003, India purchased $128.2 million in arms from the United States, a sizable amount given that sanctions were imposed for a number of years.89 Now that those restrictions have been lifted, India expects more deals on military hardware.

In December 2001, right after the restrictions were lifted, the U.S. expedited the review of India’s request for radar and light combat aircraft. More systems are "in the pipeline," including weapons-locating radar, military aircraft and engines for light combat aircraft.90 In August 2004, India accepted delivery of the first of 12 Firefinder weapons-locating radar purchased from Thales-Raytheon Systems.91 Another deal in the works is the P-3 Orion naval reconnaissance plane equipped with the latest avionics, including sensors and computerized command and control and weapons systems. 92

In 2004, President Bush unveiled a new agreement to increase technical cooperation between the two countries, permitting the export of sensitive nuclear and space technology to India. In turn, India has agreed to strengthen controls on exports of sensitive technologies to other countries. Bush called the agreement "an important milestone."93

After announcing the sale of billions in F-16 fighters to Pakistan, President Bush called Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh to tell him U.S. military technology like fighter planes would now be available to his nation as well. This was good news to India, which is in the middle of a push to modernize its military, but it was great news to U.S. weapons manufacturers. As a spokesman for Lockheed Martin, manufacturer of the F-16 fighter plane, said, "India is a market we want to pursue."94

Human Rights in the "World’s Largest Democracy"

Relations between New Delhi and Washington are warm, with military aid and weapons sales increasing. But, India’s human rights problems have continued apace, and tensions with Pakistan remain high.

The State Department’s Human Rights Report found "serious" human rights problems; "extrajudicial killings, including staged encounter killings, and custodial deaths. Government officials often used special antiterrorism legislation to justify the excessive use of force while combating active insurgencies in Jammu and Kashmir… Security force officials who committed human rights abuses generally enjoyed de facto legal impunity."95

Kashmir: Valley of Tears

When India and Pakistan gained their independence from Britain in 1947, both claimed the Kashmir region. The Kashmir ruler wanted independence but when Pakistani tribesmen invaded, and uprisings threatened his rule, he called on India for help. India came to the rescue only in exchange for Kashmiri accession.96 Since that time, India and Pakistan have fought two wars over the province and in 1989 Pakistan began backing an Islamist insurgency to fight the 500,000 Indian troops deployed there.97 India constructed a huge electrified fence along the "Line of Control" in an effort to stop Pakistani incursions.98

The death toll from decades of fighting is somewhere between 40,000 and 100,000, and thousands more having been displaced.99 The far northern and western areas of the state are under Pakistani control and the Kashmir valley, Jammu and Ladahk are under Indian control, where a Muslim majority complains of a heavy-handed and corrupt rule. As one moderate Kashmiri leader told the New York Times, "we are trapped among three guns: The militants, the occupying forces [the Indian military] and unknown gunmen."100

The two countries began peace talks in June 2004 and agreed to a series of steps aimed at resolving their disputes. The nuclear-armed rivals will notify each other before testing missiles, open consulates and aim to work towards a peace agreement over Kashmir.101

INDONESIA

I am going to use what I have. After all, I have paid already.
General Endriartono Sutarto, when asked about the use of UK-origin Hawk fighters in Aceh.102

The war on terrorism has put intense pressure on the Congressionally-mandated restrictions on military aid and training to Indonesia, imposed in response to egregious human rights abuses by the military. Even as elements of the Indonesian military continue to kill and violate human rights with impunity, the White House is renewing military aid and training assistance to Jakarta.

One of Condoleezza Rice’s first acts as Secretary of State in the Second Bush administration was to certify Indonesia for IMET military training programs over the objections of members of Congress and non-governmental organizations.

The Bush administration’s efforts to restore ties highlight the tension in U.S.-Indonesia relations. On the one hand, as the world’s largest Muslim democracy, Indonesia is an attractive ally in the war on terrorism. On the other hand there is the sobering reality that despite its sheen of democracy, the nation’s leadership remains deeply influenced by the military.

After a devastating tsunami swept through Indonesia, killing more than 100,000- mostly in the restive province of Aceh- the pressure became even more intense.

President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono recently told reporters, "If we had a stronger military, we could have done a lot more," to bring aid to tsunami victims, and called for fivefold increase in defense spending to build a "strong and modern military."103

In the wake of the disaster, the Bush administration worked around a Congressionally-imposed embargo on military sales to provide spare parts for Indonesia’s U.S. manufactured C-130 cargo planes. When then Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz was in Jakarta in January 2005, he praised the "extraordinary strides" Indonesia has taken on "the path toward building a strong and functioning democracy" saying military relations between the two countries are a "resource that we need to rebuild."104

Eroding the Embargo: Step by Step

The embargo on commercial sales of non-lethal defense articles has been lifted and contact between the two militaries is on the rise. Indonesia’s military participated as an observer in military exercises in October and November 2004, which brought them into contact with the U.S. Navy.105

Aid to Indonesia is on the upswing. For fiscal year 2006, President Bush has requested $800,000 in IMET, up from the $459,000 that Congress froze in 2004. Jakarta also expects to receive $70 million in Economic Support Funds and the $6 million in Anti-Terrorism Activities funds to train and equip the police SWAT-like counter-terrorism force described above.106 With initial funds of $12 million, ATA has trained and equipped this elite unit with Glock-17 handguns, M4 sub-machine guns, AR-10 sniper rifles, Remington 870 shotguns and high-tech communications equipment.107

The Congressional Budget justification for 2006 notes that "Indonesia’s contribution to the Global War on terrorism is also a vital U.S. interest."108 But John M. Miller, an activist with the East Timor Action Network, counters that the military "continues to terrorize Indonesia’s residents; the military’s human rights record remains atrocious."109

Weapons Sales

Between 1994 and 2003, Indonesia received more than $121 million in weaponry and military supplies and services from the United States through Foreign Military Sales and commercial exports.110 And now Jakarta is looking for more.

Military incursions in Aceh, Papua and elsewhere have depleted weapons stocks. President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, a former General who received military training in the United States, hosted Indonesia’s first international arms show just weeks after taking office. In his opening remarks, he noted that "international military cooperation is needed, but we want a cooperation that allows the transfer of military technology."111

Indonesia is finding support from South Korea, a close U.S. ally. In a $50 million deal that has been in the works for five years, South Korea is selling Indonesia 10 military airplanes built with U.S. technology. South Korean engineers developed the KT-1B with technology from the F-16 fighter plane, manufactured in South Korea for domestic use.112

Background: A Legacy of Weapons

For many years, the U.S. was Indonesia’s largest weapons source, equipping the country with everything from F-16 fighter planes to M-16 combat rifles.

In December 1975, Indonesia invaded neighboring East Timor, which had just declared independence from Portuguese colonizers. Over the next five years, more than 200,000 people (one-third of the population) died.113 Declassified U.S. documents point to the United States giving Indonesian leader General Suharto the green light for invasion. In the months that followed, Washington signaled its approval by doubling military aid and preventing the United Nations from taking effective action against Suharto.114

From 1975 through East Timor’s referendum for independence in 1999, the United States continued its military support, transferring over one billion dollars worth of weaponry to Jakarta.115

Washington was forced to break off military relations because of the military ’s abuse of power, violations of human rights, massacres and extrajudicial killings. In 1991, military ties were suspended following the Santa Cruz Massacre where Indonesian security officers fired into a peaceful crowd of protestors, killing 271 people. The relationship was partially restored in 1995. Then, in response to military and paramilitary violence after East Timor’s vote for independence in 1999, Congress strengthened the ban, establishing a set of criteria Indonesia must meet before military ties can be resumed.

To this day, none of the criteria, including the transparency in military budget and the prosecution of soldiers involved in human rights violations, have been fully met.116

NEPAL

We own the country for the next three years.
Army Captain, while kicking a blindfolded student after the King dissolved Nepal’s government February 1, 2005.117

On February 1, 2005, King Gyanendra declared 100 days of emergency rule, dismissing the government, saying its leaders had failed to defeat Maoist insurgents. He cut Nepal’s communications to the outside world and sent the soldiers into the streets to quell dissent. The press was gagged, mobile phones rendered inoperable and human rights groups report that extrajudicial killings increased.118 In a March demonstration against the coup, the New York Times reported that Nepali police clubbed protesters in at least two towns and arrested 300 people nationwide.119

Since 1996, ongoing conflict between Maoists and Nepali security forces has resulted in 10,000 deaths.120 In the past four years alone, local human rights organizations have documented 1,200 cases of disappearances at the hands of security forces. Even before the royal coup that (among other things) prohibited speech or acts that "hurt the morale" of armed forces, Nepali security forces enjoyed almost total impunity.121 The International Herald Tribune describes the military and police as "poorly trained… with a terrible record of human rights abuses" who are fighting a "retrograde Maoist movement that makes few apologies for its equally brutal killings and systematic intimidation and extortion."122

United States and Nepal

The United States has long supported the Hindu monarchy’s fight against the Maoists. Between 1994 and 2003 (the last year for which full data is available), Washington provided Katmandu with more than $8.3 million in weapons and services, $6.6 million in 2003 alone.

After an attack at the Katmandu American Center in September 2004, Washington ramped up its military commitment. Just a few weeks after the attack, in which no one was injured or killed, the BBC reported that a plane loaded with U.S. weapons and ammunition was delivered.123

For fiscal year 2006, President Bush is requesting $1 million in FMF, down from $2.9 million in 2004 and $3.9 million in 2005. Military training funds through IMET have increased slightly from $500,000 in 2004 and $550,000 in 2005 to a request of $650,000 for 2006. Economic Support Funds are steady at an average of $4.5 million over the last three requests.124 The Congressional justification asserts that providing the Nepali military with the "capability to prevail against the Maoist insurgents" is a high priority and specifies that the U.S. will deliver "M-16 rifles, grenade launchers, and M-4 carbines to outfit a new ranger battalion." In addition, Nepal will be eligible in FY 2005 to receive grant Excess Defense Articles.125

While strengthening Nepal to prevail against the Maoist threat, Washington could be in danger of turning its back on the mounting human rights crisis in Nepal, undermining its ability to act to quell monarchist abuses.

Even as the international community--including the United States--condemned King Gyanendra’s coup, Nepali and U.S. soldiers were shoulder to shoulder in joint military training along with soldiers from Uganda, Bhutan, Sri Lanka and India. The troops received training in unconventional warfare in a six-week course at the Counter Insurgency Jungle Warfare School in northeastern India.126 A February 3 article in the Xinhua News Agency quoted the Indian commander in charge of the school as saying, "the training is in full swing and the foreign soldiers are happy with the course." The Institute’s motto is "fight a guerrilla like a guerrilla."127

London and New Delhi both suspended military aid to Nepal following the coup.128 But Washington was slower to respond. U.S. Ambassador James Moriarty was withdrawn from Katmandu but the State Department took a "wait and see attitude," postponing a decision on whether to freeze economic and security assistance until 100 days of emergency rule had passed.129 The period of emergency rule ended in early May 2005, but the abuses continue.

The State Department’s Human Rights Report notes that Nepal’s "human rights record remained poor… The security forces used arbitrary and unlawful lethal force and continued to abuse detainees, sometimes using torture as punishment or to extract confessions. The disappearance of persons in custody was a serious problem."130

PHILIPPINES

When I first became President in 2001, I inherited a commitment of military assistance from the U.S. of $1.9 million only…. Today, that American assistance to our military support is now $400 million and still counting.
President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, March 2004 131

During a visit to the Philippines in October of 2003, President Bush declared the nation a "major non-NATO ally" and the second front of the war against terrorism. With this title, Bush promised an unprecedented increase in military aid to fund anti-terrorism programs and to modernize the Philippines armed forces.132

This is a seismic shift in U.S.-Filipino relations. In 1992, the Filipino government amended the constitution to bar foreign troops from being stationed in the country, shuttering U.S. military bases in its territory. The U.S. responded by cutting military aid to the Philippines.

However, as a result of the Philippines’ willingness to be an active partner in the war on terrorism and the archipelago’s strategic position in the Pacific, a new and closer military relationship is developing.

Weapons have also been flowing in. The U.S. delivered $67.6 million in military equipment to the Philippines between 2001 and 2003, the last year for which full data is available.

Between 2001 and 2005, the Philippines received $145.8 million in Foreign Military Financing and another $11.5 million in military training aid, for a total of more than $157.3 million.133 In 2005, Manila is slated to receive $20 million in FMF and another $2.9 million in IMET for 2006. 134

Training Against Terrorism

In addition to IMET, American and Filipino soldiers participate in an annual joint "training" mission, referred to as Balikatan. Though its Constitution bars foreign troops from being stationed in the Philippines, the war games slip through loopholes created by technicalities and imprecise vernacular. American soldiers can only fire in self-defense and, until recently, were not allowed to accompany Filipino soldiers on live missions. However, all of the U.S. soldiers are armed and stationed in areas with a high concentration of rebel group members.135

The State Department’s most recent Human Rights Report finds that "some elements of the security services were responsible for arbitrary, unlawful, and, in some cases, extrajudicial killings, disappearances, torture, arbitrary arrest and detention. The physical abuse of suspects and detainees remained a problem… As in past years, the constitutionally mandated Commission on Human Rights described the Philippine National Police as the worst abuser of human rights."136

EURASIA

GEORGIA

I would never dance like that. He danced much better than I would have.
Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili on President George W. Bush’ s dancing in Tbilisi’s Freedom Square, May 2005.137

For a country that is slightly smaller than South Carolina, with only 4.6 million citizens, Georgia receives a staggering amount of military support from the United States.

In 1997 Georgia received its first FMF grant of $700,000. In 1998, Washington increased FMF more than 7 times over, granting $5.3 million in aid. Since those first years, Georgia has received a total of $107.7 million in FMF grants.138 The Bush administration requested an additional $12 million in the 2006 budget.139

Additionally, Georgia has been a recipient of International Military Education and Training funds since 1994. Between 1996 and 2001, the IMET aid hovered around $300,000 to just over $400,000 per year. And then, in 2002 the funding almost doubled to $889,000.140 In 2003, the funding increased another 33% to $1.2 million—similar amounts were granted in 2004 and 2005.141 The Congressional request for $1.2 million in FY 2006 represents an almost 2,000% increase in IMET aid since 1996.142

Both Secretary of State Colin Powell and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld visited Georgia in 2004, pledging continued U.S. support to the country.143

Georgia, an aggressive force in a number of border disputes and a state with a well-documented history of human rights violations, does not seem like an ideal candidate for U.S. military aid. Human Rights Watch says the country is, "one of the most corrupt in the world, is desperately short of money, and has a record of persistent and widespread human rights abuses." 144

The State Department agrees, finding in its most recent Human Rights Report that "nongovernmental organizations blamed two deaths in custody on physical abuse. NGOs reported that police brutality continued, and in certain areas increased. Law enforcement officers continued to torture, beat, and otherwise abuse detainees."145

A Good Investment

Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili is using U.S. weapons and know-how to strengthen his grip on power and rebuff Russia. Washington is taking advantage of Georgia’s strategic location just above the volatile Middle East, deploying U.S. troops and storing equipment and fuel. Georgia has granted U.S. warplanes access to its airspace and permitted joint training exercises with Georgian troops.146

The result has been a cozy relationship between President Bush and President Saakashvili. Georgia is one of the few European countries that have unreservedly embraced President Bush and contributed to the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

After President Bush was reelected, Georgia announced plans to increase its number of troops stationed in Iraq from 159 to 850. The Washington Times notes that given Georgia’s small population, this increase makes it one of the top contributors on a per capita basis.147

President Mikhail Saakashvili praised the President, saying, "Mr. Bush is a man of great principle, a man of great understanding of the complicated issues in our region, and the personality without whom the fight against terrorism would hardly have been possible."148

U.S. military training and support appears to have helped the Georgian military expel Chechnyan rebels and Islamic fighters from the Pankisi Gorge, a narrow strip of land near the Russian border where armed militants had found refuge.149 While the Bush administration linked these fighters to al-Qaeda, Georgian Defense Minister David Tevzadze publicly challenged these claims, saying at a Pentagon briefing with Defense Secretary Rumsfeld that "it is very difficult to believe" that al-Qaeda is in the Gorge, because they would need to "cross at least six or seven countries… No, al-Qaeda influence can’t be in the country."150

In 2002, a San Francisco Chronicle reporter spoke with soldiers receiving U.S. training for the Pankisi Gorge exercises. Their Captain, Shalvab Badzhelidze was candid about the real objectives of the training. "Pankisi is a minuscule problem," he said. "We are doing something much more serious. We are training for an operation in Abkhazia."151 Georgia lost this tiny province to secessionist rebels in 1993, and its inhabitants live under Russian support and protection.

All About Oil

American soldiers are also training Georgian "rapid response" forces to protect the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline from terrorist attacks.152 Construction on the pipeline through Georgia is near completion and will connect the Mediterranean with the Caspian oil fields, which hold the world’s third largest oil and gas reserves. This will serve a number of geopolitical interests-- Georgia will be less dependent on Russian oil and the U.S. will be able to lessen its reliance on Middle Eastern oil.

As the Georgia’s strategic value as a military and oil supplier grows in the coming years, it is unlikely that unconditional aid from the U.S. will encourage Georgia to clean up its human rights practices.

UZBEKISTAN

We consider Uzbekistan an important partner.
General Richard B. Myers, Joint Chief of Staff Chairman, August 2004. 153

Anyone in the United States…who does not know the extent of the torture problem in Uzbekistan is being willfully ignorant.
Allison Gill, Human Rights Watch154

Before 2001, Uzbekistan was not on the U.S.’s strategic map and received little in military assistance. All that changed with the war on terrorism and Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. Uzbekistan offered Washington the use of the Karshi-Khanabad airbase close to the Afghan border. The military aid poured in and the airbase is now home to more than 1,000 troops, cementing a strong relationship despite Uzbekistan’s bleak human rights record and autocratic government.155

Military Aid

In 2003, Islam Karimov’s government received $8.6 million in aid, more than it had received in the previous six years combined. An additional $8 million was appropriated for 2004, but it not released for reasons explained below. President Bush’s requests for military aid have decreased since then, perhaps signaling Washington’s impatience with the slow pace of reform. Congress granted $10.9 million in 2005 and only $4 million has been requested for 2006.156

Weapons Sales

Between 2001 and 2003 (the last year for which full data is available), the United States sold Uzbekistan more than $37 million in weapons and services, $33 million worth in 2003 alone.157 Washington has outfitted the Uzbeki military and border guards with "nonlethal" equipment like helmets, flak jackets, Humvee transport vehicles and night-vision goggles.

Human Rights Under Siege

The United States knows that its new ally is a brutal repressor. The State Department’s Human Rights Report estimates that between 5,000 and 5,500 people are in "prison for political or religious reasons--primarily persons the Government believed were associated with extremist Islamist political groups, but also members of the secular opposition and human rights activists." The State Department’s report also mentions that, "The police and the National Security Service committed numerous serious human rights abuses," they "tortured, beat, and harassed persons… Members of the security forces responsible for documented abuses were rarely punished."158

Rendition

According to a May 1, 2005 New York Times article, there is growing evidence that the Central Intelligence Agency is using Uzbekistan as a "surrogate jailer," sending terror suspects into its abominable prisons for detention and interrogation.159 In a recent report Still at Risk: Diplomatic Assurances No Safeguard against Torture, Human Rights Watch asserts that "Egypt, Syria, Uzbekistan, and Yemen, where torture is a systemic human rights problem" are receiving terror suspects from the United States and other countries.160

A CIA official quoted anonymously in the New York Times says, "the United States does not engage in or condone torture. It does not send people anywhere to be tortured."161 But, while the U.S. maintains it has sought "diplomatic assurances" that suspects would not be tortured or ill-treated, HRW notes that in countries like Uzbekistan, where "torture is a serious and persistent problem… diplomatic assurances do not and cannot prevent torture… countries that rely on such assurances are either engaging in wishful thinking or using the assurances as a figleaf to cover their complicity in torture."162

Small Step in the Right Direction

As mention above, military aid to Uzbekistan was frozen in 2004. But it was not the torture or the extrajudicial killing that forced the State Department to take action. Rather, Washington responded to President Karimov’s crackdown on international NGOs like Freedom House and the Open Society Institute.163 In July 2004, the State Department announced that the country would not receive certification for continued military aid from the U.S., until it demonstrated progress in the areas of human rights, independent media and courts, free and fair elections, and freedom of expression.164

The State Department’s freezing of some military aid because of Karimov’s repression of civil society and democracy is a step in the right direction. But this is not enough. Despite the military aid cut-off, there are no plans to remove American soldiers stationed at the airbase near the Afghan border, and Washington and Tashkent remain allies in the "War on Terrorism."

MIDDLE EAST

AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ

Boomerangs and War

The United States has more than one hundred thousand troops stationed in Iraq, and a smaller force in Afghanistan. In both places, U.S. military intervention and occupation replaced repressive oligarchies and put into place fledgling indigenous governments. But, U.S. involvement began long before with weapons and aid that in different ways established, supported and maintained unrepresentative power.

AFGHANISTAN

Bin Laden: A Product of the Cold War

Osama bin Laden, the mastermind and financier of the September 11th attacks, is more familiar to U.S. military and intelligence agencies than the Bush administration might like to admit. In the mid-1980s, bin Laden was one of Ronald Reagan’s "freedom fighters" battling Soviet forces in Afghanistan. Various rebel factions received billions of dollars worth of arms, training, and logistical support from the Central Intelligence Agency and the Saudi monarchy.

As John K. Cooley demonstrates in Unholy Wars: Afghanistan, America, and Terrorism, the resurgence of right-wing Islamic fundamentalism of the sort favored by bin Laden and his cohorts was facilitated by U.S., Saudi and Pakistani support for the Afghan resistance. By promoting the concept of a global jihad against the Soviet occupiers, funneling most of their covert aid to the most conservative Afghan factions, and establishing a network of fundamentalist schools in Pakistan and Afghanistan (funded by the Saudis), the United States and its allies helped sow the seeds of today’s right-wing Islamic fundamentalist movements. The graduates of the Saudi-backed religious schools included not only tens of thousands of volunteers from around the world, but the leaders of the Taliban.165

As one of the chief recruiters of international volunteers brought in to fight the holy war against the Soviet invaders, Osama bin Laden played a pivotal role in the CIA-backed Afghan resistance movement.166 Bin Laden worked hand-in-hand with the CIA, as he and associates from his construction company helped build a CIA-financed underground training complex in Khost. Bin Laden later built the first training camp for his own fighters within the Khost complex.167

The most important benefit that bin Laden derived from the Afghan war was the ability to meet Islamic fundamentalist fighters from 43 different countries who came to Afghanistan in the tens of thousands between 1982 and 1992.168 The founding members of bin Laden’s terror network were selected from among this diverse group, many of whom he might never have met if the CIA had not bankrolled the Afghan resistance.

Then: U.S. Weapons in Afghanistan

When Washington planned its attack on Afghanistan, questions were raised about the dangers posed by U.S.-origin weapons left over from covert support for the Mujahedeen fighters who defeated the Soviet Union.

Throughout the 1980s, the United States supplied the Afghan Mujahedeen with more than $2 billion in weaponry and equipment, including approximately 2,000 Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, manufactured by General Dynamics. 169 The U.S. also supplied AK-47s, small and light weapons, intelligence on Soviet targets and intercepts of Soviet communications, delayed timing devices for tons of C-4 explosives, a targeting device for mortars, communications equipment, anti-tank missiles and access to data from U.S. Navy satellites.170

In addition to weapons clearly transferred as part of the proxy war with the Soviet Union, more recently bin Laden’s al-Qaeda network was able to purchase U.S. weapons on the open market. In a report released shortly after the September 11th terrorist attacks, the Violence Policy Network (VPN) reveals that in 1988 or 1989 al-Qaeda bought at least twenty-five 50-caliber sniper rifles manufactured by Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, a Tennessee-based company.

Contrary to claims from Barrett Firearms, the rifles are not relics of Cold War policy of arming the Mujahedeen. VPN asserts that there is no evidence that bin Laden obtained the weapons "as part of any U.S. government program, on the contrary there is substantial evidence that he did not."171 VPN’s evidence points to bin Laden exploiting the lax controls that make buying small arms and light weapons far too easy for terrorists, assassins and others criminals.

Now: U.S. Troops in Afghanistan

Many of them are former Mujahedeen or Northern Alliance fighters. They ’re not afraid to pull the trigger, they just need to learn to work together, and so far are doing really well.
Captain Clay Gardner, a U.S. Marine embedded with a new Afghan National Army battalion being armed and trained by the United States.172

The U.S.-led war in Afghanistan, launched in October 2001, often seems to escape international notice. There are fewer troops and fewer casualties than in Iraq. But efforts to rout out Taliban, al-Qaeda and other militants continue with limited success and at great cost, both in terms of lives and the possibility for a stable and democratic future for the country.

Hamid Karzai, the leader of Afghanistan handpicked by the United States, remains dependent on Washington for protection, which is provided by the private military firm DynCorp.

It is easier for him to go to Washington than to travel throughout his own country, leading many to derisively refer to him as the "mayor of Kabul" even after October 2004 elections delivered him the presidency.173

Besides dependence on the U.S. for his own security, Karzai is beset by problems on all sides: warlords and militias, ongoing fighting, the snail’s pace of development and the difficulty in raising international funds.

While U.S. forces in Afghanistan continue the hunt for Osama bin Laden and Taliban leaders, Karzai has made it clear that the top priority for Afghani security is disarming and demobilizing the tens of thousands of militias operating throughout the country. Karzai is also concerned that U.S. troops are not doing enough to stem the tide of militants trained in Pakistan who are crossing the border to attack Afghanistan.174

Drugs and Insecurity

While U.S. forces have their hands full with al-Qaeda, warlords and Pakistani militants, a much smaller force is trying to keep Afghanistan secure for development. The International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) is a NATO force tasked with peacekeeping throughout the country, but it has largely been stuck in Kabul and unable to gain a foothold in the rest of the country.175

The fact that international peacekeepers have a small and under-equipped force has dire consequences for human rights throughout Afghanistan. It has also slowed the pace of development and hamstrung democratization efforts. The absence of a strong international peacekeeping force has created a national power vacuum that has been filled by warlords, tribal leaders and Taliban, who have set up their own fiefdoms.

The ISAF and U.S. troops are jointly training and equipping Afghani security forces.176 But, both the police and the military have been dogged by reports of their involvement in militias, the drug trade and ongoing human rights abuses.

In June 2003, a lieutenant in the Afghan Army was arrested with 167 kilograms of opium, drawing attention to the widespread problem of security forces’ involvement in the drug trade.177 A top Afghan official, anonymously quoted in the Washington Post, recounted his conversation with a U.S. General. When the General asked for a list of political, police, and military officials involved with the drug trade, the Afghan official said, "I told him it would be easier if I listed officials who weren ’t involved. It would be a shorter list."178

Human Rights Watch has documented the military’s relationship with warlords and their record on abusing human rights with impunity. In "Killing You is a Very Easy Thing For Us," Human Rights Abuses in Southeast Afghanistan, published in July 2003, HRW asserts that, "warlords and abusive military commanders are becoming more and more entrenched… If allowed to continue with impunity, these abuses will make it impossible for Afghans to create a modern, democratic state."179

The report criticizes the United States for helping to create the conditions in which warlords and human rights abusers flourish. "The situation today -- widespread insecurity and human rights abuse -- was not inevitable, nor was it the result of natural or unstoppable social or political forces in Afghanistan," the report says. "The United States in particular bears much responsibility for the actions of those they have propelled to power."180 By way of solution, HRW points to the need to expand the range and mandate of peacekeeping forces.

The Impact of U.S. Military Action

According to a 2003 International Institute for Strategic Studies survey, the success of military operations in Afghanistan has been very limited. The British-based organization estimates that about 20,000 jihadic soldiers graduated from al-Qaeda training camps by October 2001, and another 10,000 were inside Afghanistan at that time. According to their calculations, only about 2,000 have been killed or captured by coalition forces-- just a small fraction of the total force.181

At the same time, the war on Iraq has taken military resources away from Afghanistan that could have been focused on isolating and destroying terror networks. As the Survey found, the Iraq conflict has "focused the energies and resources of al-Qaeda and its followers while diluting those of the global counter-terrorism coalition that appeared so formidable" after the Afghan intervention.182 Despite more than three years of U.S. and international military presence in Afghanistan, IISS says that the al-Qaeda network was "now reconstituted and doing business in a somewhat different manner, but more insidious and just as dangerous as in its pre-11 September incarnation."183

U.S. Aid to Afghanistan

The Karzai government has asked for $27.5 billion in aid over seven years. So far, the war-torn nation has received just $4.5 billion and, according to the UK’s Independent, "much of the $2.2 billion earmarked for 2004 was diverted into military projects and emergency relief from long term development."184

U.S. aid to Afghanistan in 2005 totals more than $929 million, more than 80% of which is earmarked for the military and police. This comes on top of a similarly skewed 2004 budget of $1.7 billion, where only 10% went to development assistance and child survival and health. Taken on top of a $589 million appropriation for 2003, U.S. assistance for Afghanistan tops out at $3.2 billion and counting, with the lion’s share going to the military and police.185

IRAQ

Whose Weapons of Mass Destruction?

The case for war against Iraq, where more than 1,600 U.S. soldiers and as many as 100,000 Iraqis have died so far, raises serious questions about U.S. weapons policy.186

Saddam Hussein acquired military equipment and materials that could be applied to developing weapons of mass destruction from the United States and key U.S. allies. United Nations’ arms inspectors working in Iraq during the 1990s subsequently destroyed or seized these materials.

Washington’s contribution to the Iraqi military buildup prior to the 1991 Gulf War came largely through what is known as "dual-use" technologies. Dual-use items include unarmed light aircraft or helicopters that can be adapted to military uses, instruments of torture like thumbscrews and equipment like computers, machine tools and measuring devices. Between 1985 and 1990, the Commerce Department granted licenses for more than $1.5 billion worth of dual-use exports to Iraq, more than $500 million of which was delivered before the outbreak of the August 1990 Gulf War.187

In March 1991, under pressure from Congress and the public, the Commerce Department released a list of the dual-use exports licenses granted to Iraq in the five years leading up to the conflict. Even a casual perusal of the list reveals that many of these items were put directly to work in Iraq’s military research and production network. Some items were licensed for export to obvious military end users like the Iraqi Air Force or the Iraqi Atomic Energy Agency. There were also numerous licenses for equipment sent to Saad 16, a military production complex south of Baghdad, known as the center for Iraq’s research and production work on ballistic missiles.188

Congressional investigators later learned that even this list, which revealed significant U.S. contributions to Iraq’s defense industrial base, was incomplete and misleading; at least 68 entries had been changed to obscure their military applications.189 As Representative Howard Wolpe (D-MI) noted, "the bottom line here is that because we have been so lax in our enforcement of American laws we are now finding American-made technology in the hands of the Iraqi forces that are pointing their cannons at American soldiers. That’s outrageous."190

In December 2002, while the Bush administration was trying to build the case for war against Iraq, the Washington Post reported on Donald Rumsfeld’s 1983 meeting with Saddam Hussein. Rumsfeld, then President Ronald Reagan’s Middle East envoy, told Hussein to expect the resumption of diplomatic ties.191

According to journalist Michael Dobbs, "declassified documents show that Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad at a time when Iraq was using chemical weapons on an ‘almost daily’ basis in defiance of international conventions." The same day the famous photo was taken of Rumsfeld and Hussein smiling and shaking hands, the United Nations released a report asserting that Hussein was using "chemical weapons in the form of aerial bombs," against Iran, including mustard gas and a nerve agent known as Tabun.192

The Sunday Herald reported that declassified U.S. Congressional documents revealed a history of U.S. and UK support to the Hussein regime, including the sale of chemical and biological weapons or precursors for weapons like "anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia."193 Former Senator Donald Riegle, a Michigan Democrat who conducted hearings on Iraq’s weapons programs, concurred, telling the St. Petersburg Times "What is absolutely crystal clear is this: That if Saddam Hussein today has a large arsenal of biological weapons, partly it was the United States that provided the very live viruses that he needed to create those weapons."194

"Let Freedom Reign"

That was the note that President George W. Bush’s June 29, 2004 gave to then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice after she told him of the transfer of sovereignty in Iraq.195 But, Iraq is a long way from freedom reigning-- or ringing, for that matter.

Even after the January 2005 elections where many Iraqis voted for the very first time, economic, political and, most importantly, military power remain squarely in the hands of the occupation forces, led by the United States.

In March 2004, Coalition Provisional Authority head L. Paul Bremer issued an executive order asserting U.S. control over the new Iraqi Army, saying that, "all trained elements of the Iraqi armed forces shall at all times be under the operational control of the commander of coalition forces for the purpose of conducting combined operations."196

As part of the ceremony that put nominal control of Iraq back in Iraqi hands, the 14-year arms embargo against the country was lifted, triggering a flurry of excitement from weapons manufacturers. But, the fact that a U.S. General continues to command Iraqi forces means that U.S. taxpayers will be buying U.S. weapons to put into Iraqi hands. This is a premature and dangerous dynamic given Iraq’s volatile mix of ongoing war and occupation, civil strife and stalled political transition.

Weapons contracts for the new Iraq are coming fast and furious. Iraq bought 50,000 handguns in a $19 million contract from the Austrian manufacturer Glock for Model 19 sidearms, and defense leaders have an option to purchase an additional 50,000 handguns.197 A shipment of 421 UAZ Hunter jeeps was delivered from Russia; armored cars came in from Brazil and Ukraine.198

In March, the CPA laid the groundwork for Iraq to purchase C-130 Hercules military transport aircraft, Iroquois helicopters and reconnaissance aircraft from U.S. manufacturers to be delivered Spring 2005.199 U.S. weapons manufacturers shipped tens of thousands of handguns, assault rifles and machine guns to the Iraqi security services in July and August 2004.200

If Iraq is to be truly sovereign, they will need a well-equipped and professional military and police, but the United States’ methods for establishing them have so far fallen wide of the mark.

Through March 2005, the war, occupation and reconstruction of Iraq have cost a total of $232 billion.201

ISRAEL

They said the United States policy is tilted toward Israel, and I said, "Our policy is tilted toward peace."
President George W. Bush, October 23, 2003.202

U.S. press coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict often treats the U.S. government as an innocent bystander or an "honest broker." In fact, in its role as Israel’s primary arms supplier, Washington bears some portion of responsibility for Israeli offensive operations and could exert significant leverage over the military’s behavior in the conflict, if it choose to do so.

According to Project Ploughshares, more than 120,000 people have been killed in more than five decades of clashes between Israel and Palestinians in the occupied territories.203 The Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group estimates that since September 2000 when the Second Intifada began and March 31, 2005, 4,754 people have been killed on both sides.204

Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat died in November 2004, and in January 2005 elections Mahmoud Abbas prevailed, stepping up as President. There is hope that he can help initiate new peace talks. But even in this period of transition, Washington continues its failed policy of speaking for peace and arming for war.

Military and Economic Aid

Israel had been the largest recipient of U.S. foreign assistance for almost 30 years, and since 1985 has received about $3 billion in military and economic aid each year.205 In fact, as much as 17% of all U.S. foreign aid is earmarked for Israel.206 And, U.S. foreign military financing makes up 20% of Israel’s defense budget.207

In 2004, Israel received $2.14 billion in FMF. In 2005, the nation’s military received an additional $2.20 billion. President George W. Bush’s budget request for 2006 includes $2.28 billion FMF aid for Israel.208

According to a July 2004 Congressional Research Service report, Israel: U.S. Foreign Assistance, this FMF increase is offset by a decline in Economic Support Funds (ESF). In 1998, the U.S. and Israel agreed to reduce Washington’s economic assistance to zero over ten years, while increasing military aid from about $1.8 billion to $2.4 billion each year. Thus, since FY 1998, economic aid to Israel has dropped by $120 million and military aid has increased by $60 million each year.209

On top of regular military aid, Israel has been the recipient of a number of supplementals, including a Fiscal year 2000 appropriation for $1.2 billion of military support under the Wye agreement, $28 million in FY 2001 funding to purchase U.S. manufactured counter-terrorism equipment, and a $200 million anti-terrorism appropriation in FY 2002.210

Weapons Sales and Grants

Israel is one of the United States’ largest arms importers. Between 1994 and 2003, Israel took delivery of $6.9 billion in U.S. weaponry and military equipment, including more than $6.7 billion through the Foreign Military Sales program, and another $158.5 million in commercial exports.211

Israel has more F-16s than any other country besides the U.S., currently possessing more than 200 jets.212 In November 2003, the first of an additional 102 F-16s for Israel rolled off the production line in Texas. The $45 million per copy F-16I Sufa (Storm in Hebrew) are part of a $4.5 billion deal between manufacturer Lockheed Martin and Jerusalem. The Israeli defense company Lahav will customize much of the avionics.213

Weapons that Kill

The United States has a significant interest in a stable, democratic, and economically and militarily strong Israel at peace with its neighbors.

Congressional Budget justification for FY 2005 Foreign Operations, February 2004.

But Israel is not "at peace with its neighbors." A bloody war is being waged between the Israeli Defense Force and Palestinian militants, and Israeli and Palestinian civilians are caught in the crossfire. According to the State Department’s Human Rights Report, in 2004 "76 Israeli civilians and four foreigners were killed as a result of Palestinian terrorist attacks in Israel and the occupied territories, and 41 members of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) were killed in clashes with Palestinian militants. During the same period, more than 800 Palestinians were killed during Israeli military operations in the occupied territories."214

In the second Intifada, the IDF has adopted aggressive new tactics to combat Palestinian terrorism, including indiscriminate attacks on civilians, extrajudicial executions and home demolitions. International groups like Amnesty International and Human Rig hts Watch, as well as Israeli and Palestinian human rights groups, have documented Israel’ s use of "disproportionate, excessive, and lethal force."215

The State Department’s 2002 Human Rights Report cites U.S.-origin helicopters, fighter aircraft, anti-tank missiles, and flechettes as weapons used to commit indiscriminate attacks.216 The use of U.S. weapons in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian authority appears to be a clear violation of the U.S. Arms Export Control Act prohibiting U.S. weapons from being used for non-defensive purposes. Throughout the course of U.S.-Israeli relations the State Department has issued statements warning that Israel " may have violated" the provisions of the Arms Export Control Act and the Mutual Defense Assistance Agreement four times.217

Curt Goering, the Deputy Executive Director of Amnesty International’s U.S. section, calls on the U.S. government to "provide guarantees that their arms transfers are not being used to violate human rights."218 The father of a boy killed by the IDF is more direct, saying, "one word from the U.S. government would stop all of this."219

TURKEY

Torture remains common in Turkey today.
"A Crossroads for Human Rights?" Human Rights Watch Report, December 15, 2004 (220)

Washington sees Turkey as "a major coalition partner in the global war on terrorism, an active ally and partner in the reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan, and a pro-Western democracy in a troubled region."221

Turkey is so valuable that Washington turns a blind eye to human rights abuses and lack of democracy, and supports the country’s bid to become a member of the European Union despite the objections of leaders within that body.

In 2002, Turkey sought membership in the European Union (EU), but was turned down for a number of reasons, primarily its poor human rights record. Before Turkey can join the EU, it must comply with the Copenhagen criteria, including "democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and, protection of minorities."222 Turkey has not been able to fulfill the criteria in the past, and does not seem to have made much headway recently. In December, the European Union agreed to open negotiations with Ankara over EU membership. These meetings will begin in October 2005.223

Military Aid and Weapons

As a member of NATO and Washington’s ally in the war on terrorism, Turkey is the third largest recipient of U.S. military aid, behind Israel and Egypt. Between 1994 and 2004, it received well over $1.3 billion in FMF and another $21.4 million in IMET.224 Congress granted another $33 million in FMF and $4 million in IMET in 2005. The President’s request for 2006 is more modest-- $25 million in FMF and $3 million in IMET.225

In the midst of a thirty-year plan to modernize its military, Turkey purchases an enormous quantity of weapons and other military equipment from the United States. Between 1994 and 2003, Turkey took delivery of more than $6.8 billion in U.S. weaponry and services.226

Turkey and Iraq

Throughout the course of the U.S.-led war against Iraq, military relations between the U.S. and Turkey have been strained. Ankara was unwilling to allow use of Turkish territory as a Northern front for intervention into Iraq and refused the U.S. military access to its Incirlik base. This was a shocking reversal as the U.S. had the privilege of using this base for the past 50 years.

Recently, Ankara has been more amenable to Washington’ s requests, and the two countries are discussing housing 72 F-16 fighter planes on the base. According to a senior Turkish military official, "the bottom line is that we will gain nothing by rejecting the U.S. request. Plus a failure to accommodate the request could be unnecessarily costly. So Turkey’s final response should be a yes."227

Human Rights: Still a Problem

The government does not respect human rights, particularly in the southeast Kurdish areas. There, law enforcement officials are routinely implicated in extrajudicial killings, torture and beatings. According to the State Department’s 2003 Human Rights Report, "security forces reportedly killed 43 persons during the year; torture, beatings, and other abuses by security forces remained widespread… Security forces continued to use arbitrary arrest and detention… The rarity of convictions and the light sentences imposed on police and other security officials for killings and torture continued to foster a climate of impunity."228

Ankara disrespects and abuses religious, political and ethnic minorities. It has also aggressively taken part in two conflicts: against Greece over the island of Cyprus and against the Kurdish population in the southeast portion of the country.

The country’s long-running conflict with the Kurdish minority is rife with human rights abuses. The conflict stems from a 1980 uprising by the Kurdish Worker’s Party (PKK) over the desire for political and cultural rights based on a Kurdish identity. Many Kurds were forcibly evacuated from their villages by Turkish armed forces and are unable to return due to ongoing threats from the military, landmines, paramilitary fighters, or lack of resources to rebuild their homes.(229)

RECOMMENDATIONS

Reversing the Trend: Reforming Arms Transfers and Curbing Military Aid to Abusers

U.S. arms transfer and military aid policies undermine our efforts to counter terrorism effectively. Since September 11, 2001, funding to foreign militaries has increased and restrictions on military transfers have been waived at an unprecedented rate. Many countries whose militaries are implicated in serious human rights abuses are now allied with Washington and receive U.S. aid and weaponry.

This section makes concrete and specific recommendations aimed at promoting greater accountability in arms and military aid transfers. Adoption of these recommendations would further the Bush administration’s counter terrorism agenda much more effectively than the disastrous arms deals documented in this report.

Follow U.S. Law

The United States has some of the most comprehensive laws regulating the sale and transfer of weaponry in the world. As mentioned earlier in the report, the Arms Export Control Act requires that U.S. arms transfers are used only for self-defense, internal security and in United Nations sanctioned operations. The Foreign Assistance Act bars military aid and arms sales to countries with poor human rights records. And the Export Administration Act safeguards and regulates the sale of "dual-use" items with both civilian and military application.

These three laws include strong wording about how U.S.-origin arms and funds should be used and by whom. But neither the FAA nor the AECA define exactly what qualifies as a "pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights." Thus, in many instances, the arms industry is able to follow the letter of the law, while violating the spirit of these eligibility criteria. Nonetheless, strict adherence to these laws would significantly curb arms sales and military aid to dictatorships, human rights abusers and countries in conflict.

Ratify the Organization of American States Firearms Convention

The United States was instrumental in drafting the OAS convention, and was one of the first countries to sign the document, but the Senate has yet to ratify it. The Convention creates a mechanism for exchanging information, cooperating on investigations, and ensuring that law enforcement personnel are adequately trained. It would also increase regional capacity to identify, investigate and prosecute illicit firearms manufacturers and traffickers.

California Senator Dianne Feinstein’s Security and Fair Enforcement in Arms Trafficking Act of 2004 would require the State Department to submit an annual report on U.S. efforts to achieve universal ratification and implementation of the OAS convention. The bill, S. 2627, was referred to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in 2004, and a 2005 version is forthcoming.

Cooperate with Other Nations to Ratify International Arms Trade Treaty

An international campaign to promote adoption of the Arms Trade Treaty is gaining momentum and should be supported. The Arms Trade Treaty would create legally binding arms controls and ensure that all governments control arms to the same basic international standards. The strength of the treaty is that it reinforces governments’ existing obligations under international human rights and humanitarian law in regards to arms transfers. As enumerated in the treaty, existing international law prohibits governments from transferring arms:

To countries under UN Security Council arms embargoes;

When the arms in question are incapable of being used in a way that distinguishes between combatants and civilians;

When such transfers or use of the arms are prohibited under customary international law;

When the transfers would violate any existing international treaty by which the government is bound; and

When the transfers are used to commit serious violations of human rights or international humanitarian law, or to commit genocide or crimes against humanity.

Enact Senator Richard Lugar’s Conventional Arms Threat Reduction Act

The bill, known as CATRA, would give the United States new tools to eliminate the threat posed by vulnerable stockpiles of conventional weapons. These include tactical missiles and man portable air defense systems (MANPADS). If passed, the law would authorize the State Department to seek out surplus and unguarded stocks of conventional armaments for elimination or safeguarding.

As Richard Lugar (R-IN) notes, "Too often, conven-tional weapons are inadequately stored and protected. This presents grave risk to American military bases, embassy compounds, and even targets within the United States. We must develop a response that is commensurate with the threat."230

The bill was introduced November 16, 2004 and Lugar expects to reintroduce a new version during the 109th session of Congress.

Increase Transparency and Accountability through Better and More Timely Reporting

The Pentagon and U.S. Intelligence agencies should publish regular reports on use of U.S. weaponry in ongoing conflicts and assess how arms transfers are affecting counter-terrorism operations.

TABLES:

Table I: Human Rights Records of Top 25 U.S. Arms Recipients in the Developing World

Table II: U.S. Weapons Sales to 25 Active Conflict Nations

Table III: Increases in U.S. Military Aid between 2001 and 2006 under the FMF Program

NOTES 



-------- business

Defense Worker Charged Again in Secrecy Case

By Jerry Markon
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 25, 2005; A04

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/24/AR2005052401350_pf.html

A Defense Department analyst already accused of disclosing classified information was charged again yesterday, this time with possessing classified documents concerning Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda and Iraq, the Justice Department announced.

The new criminal complaint says 83 classified documents dating back three decades -- including 38 marked Top Secret -- were found in a search of Lawrence Franklin's West Virginia home. They included three CIA documents on al Qaeda, a CIA memo on Iraq and several government reports on terrorism. It is unclear why Franklin would have had them in his possession or taken them home.

Papers filed in U.S. District Court in West Virginia also revealed that the Defense Intelligence Agency knew as early as 1997 that Franklin was improperly removing classified documents from his Pentagon office and taking them home. Franklin was issued a written warning, but his security clearances were not suspended until the criminal investigation heated up last year, the court papers said.

Franklin was charged earlier this month by federal prosecutors in Alexandria, who alleged that he illegally disclosed classified information related to potential attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq. The formal charges did not reveal who received the information, but federal law enforcement sources have said that Franklin disclosed the material to former top officials of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, one of the most influential lobbying organizations in Washington. The sources spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is continuing.

Legal experts said it is unusual for the government to file similar charges in two jurisdictions against the same person. Experts and lawyers involved in the Franklin case said prosecutors appear to be trying to pressure Franklin to cooperate in their investigation into whether the former AIPAC officials passed classified U.S. data to the Israeli government.

"The . . . judgments being used here may involve [prosecutors'] desire to get his cooperation," said John L. Martin, who oversaw espionage cases for the Justice Department for 26 years. Though Franklin is charged in Alexandria with disclosing classified information and in West Virginia with possessing it, Martin said, "the underlying offenses are similar."

Federal prosecutors in Alexandria and West Virginia would not comment on their strategy. Kevin Madden, a Justice Department spokesman, said Franklin was charged in West Virginia yesterday because "the documents were discovered in West Virginia, and it's an investigation of two different events that took place."

Steven Aftergood, director of the Project on Government Secrecy run by the Federation of American Scientists, said it is unusual for the government to charge someone for taking documents home. The warning Franklin received in the 1990s is more typical of how the offense is handled, he said, adding that it is a fairly common security breach.

Franklin, 58, turned himself in to authorities yesterday and appeared in federal court in Martinsburg, W.Va., where he was expected to be freed on a $10,000 personal recognizance bond. His lawyer, Plato Cacheris, accused the government of "piling on. They're just trying to make things more difficult for Mr. Franklin."

Cacheris called Franklin "a loyal and patriotic American citizen" and indicated that both cases will go to trial. "Mr. Franklin and I are not interested in any further cooperation with the government," he said.

If convicted on both the Alexandria and West Virginia charges, Franklin would face up to 20 years in prison.

The investigation of Franklin, an Iran specialist, was disclosed last summer, when officials said the FBI was probing whether he had provided a draft presidential directive on Iran to AIPAC and whether AIPAC passed the information to Israel. AIPAC has said it did nothing improper.

The law enforcement sources said they did not know whether anyone else will be charged.



-------- israel / palestine 

AIPAC Wants You to Die in Iran

Kurt Nimmo, Another Day in the Empire
May 25, 2005 Uruknet
	
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m12057&l=i&size=1&hd=0

As a primary example how AIPAC runs the foreign policy of the United States, consider Dana Milbank’s AIPAC’s Big, Bigger, Biggest Moment ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/23/AR2005052301565.html?referrer=emailarticle ... ), published in the Washington Post. Milbank tells us: at the annual meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, held in Washington recently, the pro-Israel “political action committee” (or rather a political bribery and intimidation, to say nothing of espionage, committee or more accurately racket) is “here to stay” (according to Howard Kohr, executive director), that is to say no niggling little investigation by the FBI will put a kink in the pressure camarilla’s operations. Getting busted stealing U.S. secrets, according to Kohr, is no big deal, although it is a “test of [AIPAC’s] collective resolve” in its effort to dominate U.S. foreign policy in the name of Israel.

Condi Rice and “congressional leaders” were in attendance, according to Milbank. “AIPAC is a demanding crowd, and even Rice, introduced as a ‘very special friend,’ did not satisfy universally. The participants applauded heartily her reminder that Bush did not meet with Arafat, but when she said Arafat’s successor, Mahmoud Abbas, ‘is committed to both freedom and security,’ and when she mentioned more U.S. funds for Palestinians, the room was quiet.” In other words, for the AIPAC faithful, helping out the Palestinians in any way is seriously frowned upon—no doubt a lot of them feel the same way Ariel Sharon and the Likudites do: the Palestinians (or “beasts walking on two legs,” as the warm and fuzzy former PM of Israel, Menachem Begin, once characterized them) should expect nothing, maybe a few more “operations” (collective punishment and mass murder), and they should most definitely think about emigrating, maybe to Antarctica. Obviously, there is nothing Mahmoud Abbas can do except convince his people to walk across the desert, maybe with a bit of prodding from the munificent IDF, and settle in western Iraq or maybe somewhere in Jordan (AIPACers and Zionists consider Jordan the “real” home of the Palestinians, although none of them have ever lived there, or very few of them did until Israel ran them out of the country at gunpoint in 1948).

Milbank tells us “the attendees overall showed an impressive ideological discipline—right down to AIPAC’s multimedia show, ‘Iran’s Path to the Bomb,’ in the convention center’s basement” (in Washington, a lot of things happen in basements; ask Oliver North: http://www.webslingerz.com/eclauset/mediasouth/project/cu/cu3.html ). AIPAC and well-placed Zionists in the Pentagon and White House have a fixation about Iran and its supposed desire to get its hands on a couple nuclear bombs, ostensibly to “push the Jews into the sea” by way of radiation.

The exhibit, worthy of a theme park, begins with a narrator condemning the International Atomic Energy Agency for being “unwilling to conclude that Iran is developing nuclear weapons” (it had similar reservations about Iraq) and the Security Council because it “has yet to take up the issue.” In a succession of rooms, visitors see flashing lights and hear rumbling sounds as Dr. Seuss-like contraptions make yellowcake uranium, reprocess plutonium, and pop out nuclear warheads like so many gallons of hummus for an AIPAC conference.

Of course, the IAEA was absolutely spot on about Iraq—it did not possess nuclear weapons or, for that matter, many other weapons, or at least not weapons of a threat to Israel (remember Condi’s “smoking gun”: http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/01/10/wbr.smoking.gun/ and “mushroom cloud” in response to Hans Blix’s assertion that Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction, to which stand-up comedian Ari Fleischer replied: “The problem with guns that are hidden is you can’t see their smoke.” ).

It is a nostalgic addition for AIPAC to add a yellowcake uranium processor to their circus sideshow… it reminds us of the fiction Saddam was also in pursuit of the fabled yellow cake ( http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium/guide/prodhand/sld004.cfm ).

Of particular interest at the AIPAC confab was a “debate” between Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and the Prince of Darkness himself, Richard Perle, former runner-up for the Jonathan Pollard “Sell Out Your Country” Award (he was investigated by the Justice Department and found to have violated US policies relating to unlawful transmission of sensitive classified US information to Israel: http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display_any/55061 ).

Perle drew cheers for denouncing Palestinian anti-Semitism and the French. Harman mentioned that an aide once worked for AIPAC, called her audience “very sophisticated” and celebrated Yasser Arafat’s death as “a blessing.” Debating a hard-liner in front of a pro-administration crowd, Harman heaped praise on President Bush, calling the Iraqi elections “sensationally impressive” and moving to “applaud” or “commend” Perle and the administration a dozen times. “Richard is right, and so is President Bush,” she said at one point.

But after half an hour of this, Harman could not keep up. Perle provoked cheers from the crowd when he favored a military raid on Iran, saying that “if Iran is on the verge of a nuclear weapon, I think we will have no choice but to take decisive action.” When Harman said the “best short-term option” is the U.N. Security Council, the crowd reacted with boos.

In other words, when it comes to Israel and bombing Muslim and Arab nations (and forcing so-called “elections” on them), there is little difference between Democrats and Strausscons such as Richard Perle. It would seem the only difference between to two camps is in regard to Iran—Democrats such as Harman want a check for mass murder written by the United Nations while Perle believes no such check or permission is required and wants the United States to go it alone and bomb Iran in the name of AIPAC and Israel.

Iran will be attacked, maybe next month, possibly down the road a stretch (see Scott Ritter’s analysis: http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/2295/2 ). Naturally, this will be an unmitigated disaster since Iran will not stand still and do nothing during and after the bombs fall. “The entire Zionist territory, including its nuclear facilities and atomic arsenal, are currently within range of Iran’s advanced missiles,” a senior Iranian official said last August. An attack on Iran “could only be carried out by angry or stupid people.

For that reason, officials of the Islamic Republic must always be prepared to counter possible military threats,” declared Yadollah Javani, head of the Revolutionary Guards political bureau ( http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6760.htm ).

“Iran would respond within 15 minutes to any attack by the United States or any other country,” an anonymous Iranian official linked to the ruling mullahs told Borzou Daragahi of the San Francisco Chronicle in February ( http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/02/21/MNGHUBERIV1.DTL ). “Iranian authorities,” Daragahi continues, “say they have been getting ready for a possible attack. Newspapers have announced efforts to increase the number of the country’s 7 million-strong ‘Basiji’ volunteer militia, which was deployed in human-wave attacks during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. Iranian military authorities have paraded long-range North Korean-designed Shahab missiles before television cameras.” But the Iranians, paying heed to the lessons on guerilla warfare against the United States in Iraq, are not limiting their potential response to conventional military readiness. “Over the last year, they’ve developed their tactics of ‘asymmetrical’ war, which would aim not at resisting a penetration of foreign forces, but to then use them on the ground to all kinds of harmful effect,” a military expert based in Tehran added. It is also a sure bet the Iranians would stir up trouble in neighboring Iraq if the United States or Israel invaded.

So here’s what Richard Perle and AIPAC are not telling you: if Iran is invaded (or simply bombed) it will respond in kind and this will necessitate a more robust military response by the United States, i.e., more bullet-stoppers will need to be thrown into the mix. Since the Pentagon is having big problems recruiting soldiers (even the cell phone generation, more or less lost in oblivious consumerism, realizes joining the military may translate into serious bodily harm or even death), if all hell breaks loose in Iran and Iraq, as the Iranians warn, the only option will be to kick start conscription, otherwise known as involuntary servitude, or less politely slavery.

In essence, Richard Perle and AIPAC want you to donate your kids (or yourself) to the plan for Greater Israel and the long-envisioned Pax Israelica empire. Perle and the Strausscons realize they cannot attack Iran without a large influx of troops (a fact mentioned by the Strausscon William Kristol ( http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingstatementsandpressreleases/
107thcongress/01-03-21kristol.html ), who more or less, between the lines, asked for military conscription since brow-beating military recruiters bearing fistfuls of sign-up cash at the local mall or high school are not working out).

Maybe by this time next year, while AIPAC is chewing through “26,000 kosher meals, 32,640 hors d’oeuvres, 2,500 pounds of salmon, 1,200 pounds of turkey, 900 pounds of chicken, 700 pounds of beef and 125 gallons of hummus,” as Milbank notates, your 20-something son and daughter will be slumped over MREs (Meals Ready to Eat) in a foxhole somewhere in the Persian desert with deadly depleted uranium blowing around. Since there are 66,622,704 (as of 2002) Iranians, and many of them are young males, and 24,001,816 Iraqis (minus a hundred or more thousand, killed over the last couple years by “our troops” under the vicious guidance of the likes of Donald Rumsfeld), we can expect the (unphotographed) flag-draped caskets to arrive at Dover AFB in record numbers.

----

AIPAC Holds National Meeting Amid Spy Scandal Investigation

Wednesday, May 25th, 2005 Democracy Now!

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/25/1414219

A Pentagon analyst accused of leaking top-secret information to a pro-Israel group faces a new charge of illegally taking classified government documents out of the Washington area to his West Virginia residence. Larry Franklin was arrested on May 4th for passing top secret information to employees of the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC -- the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. [includes rush transcript] A Pentagon analyst accused of leaking top-secret information to a pro-Israel group faces a new charge of illegally taking classified government documents out of the Washington area to his West Virginia residence.

Larry Franklin - one of the Pentagon's top analysts working on Iran - was arrested on May 4th for passing top secret information to employees of the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC -- the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. The highly classified information was then passed on to Israeli officials.

Yesterday, AIPAC closed its three day policy conference in Washington D.C. AIPAC is one of the most powerful lobbying groups in Washington D.C. It is consistently ranked among the top five most influential interest groups in Fortune magazine's poll of annual poll of Washington insiders. APIAC has a $40 million annual budget, offices across the country and a staff of lobbyists and researchers in the capital that work on persuading the U.S government to continue sending billions of dollars in aid to Israel every year.

This conference was AIPAC's largest with 5,000 participants. Speakers included Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon. An AIPAC fact sheet about the conference stated that there were "more members of Congress" in attendance "than almost any other event, except for a joint session of Congress or a State of the Union address."

AIPAC is not named in the criminal complaint but government officials had previously said Franklin met with two officials from the organization at a restaurant in June 2003. Those two men - AIPAC's policy director Steve Rosen and Iran specialist Keith Weissman -- have since been fired. Franklin has been accused of providing AIPAC with a draft presidential directive that proposed a tougher policy on Iran, which included consideration of covert action towards regime change.

Yesterday's charge of unlawfully possessing classified federal defense documents focuses on top secret CIA files found in Franklin's home. He was released yesterday on $50,000 bond and faces a June 9 hearing.

If convicted on yesterday's charge Franklin faces up to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. The earlier charge carries a similar prison term.

We are joined on the phone right now by Justin Raimondo, editorial director of Antiwar.com.

    * Justin Raimondo, editorial director of Antiwar.com. He has an article on Larry Franklin in the forthcoming issue of The American Conservative. His latest piece on this story on AntiWar.com is called "Larry Franklin and the Axis of Espionage."

RUSH TRANSCRIPT

AMY GOODMAN: We're joined on the phone now by Justin Raimondo. He’s editorial director of AntiWar.com, has been writing extensively about this, recently wrote, “The Franklin Affair: A Spreading Treason.” “There's more to the AIPAC spy scandal than mishandling classified information,” Justin Raimondo writes. Tell us about this scandal.

JUSTIN RAIMONDO: Well, you have to understand that it didn't really start on June 26, 2003, when the FBI was eavesdropping on a conversation between Franklin, Weissman and Rosen. It started right after 9/11. That's when the investigation, you know, started. And the FBI was already watching Weissman and Rosen. And so, Franklin walked in, you know, on this meeting, and the FBI was stunned. They thought, “What's this guy doing here?” So, they started watching Franklin. And that's what led to the charges today, and the other charges, which were issued last week. So, you know, it didn't start with Larry Franklin, and it's not going to end with Larry Franklin, either.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to talk about the power of AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which just closed this massive conference, considered one of the most powerful lobbying groups in Washington, one of the top five most influential interest groups in Fortune magazine's annual poll of Washington insiders, has a $40 million annual budget. The conference, about 5,000 people turned out, among the speakers, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. An AIPAC fact sheet about the conference said there were more members of Congress in attendance than almost any other event except for a joint session of Congress or a State of the Union Address.

JUSTIN RAIMONDO: Well, you know, as you said, you know, it has legendary power. And it doesn't have to register as a foreign agent, even though its top officials are passing classified information on to Israel. And still, there's been no outcry to have them register. You know, you left out the Democratic Party, you know, leaders who were there. Nancy Pelosi gave a speech. All of these people gave speeches and they didn't mention a single word about this espionage investigation. Now, Mr. Rosen was Mr. AIPAC. That's what he was known as in Washington. He had been with them for over 20 years, and for him to be arrested, which is going to happen shortly, is just, you know, phenomenal. I mean, it’s like, you know, well, you know, there's no comparison, really. You know, like for him to be arrested like this, you know, and named in this investigation is very incriminating, and I am appalled that, you know, Condi Rice and all of these, you know, like, leaders of both parties would actually show up at this conference.

AMY GOODMAN: You know, at the same time, the First Lady, Laura Bush, has been in the Middle East, and one of the most serious protests she faced, where the protesters came closer to her than in any other situation, was those as she was going to the Wailing Wall, calling for Jonathan Pollard to be released. There wasn't a lot of attention to this in the media, or they didn't identify exactly who the protesters were. I was wondering if many thought they were Palestinian protesters, but is there a parallel here with what Jonathan Pollard did?

JUSTIN RAIMONDO: Absolutely. You know, Pollard stole the crown jewels of the U.S. intelligence community, which was how we encrypt and how we spy on other countries, and so what he did was that he handed over this stuff to Israel, and Israel handed it over to the Soviet Union, and the Soviets executed dozens of U.S. agents inside the Soviet Union. But, you know, it's interesting that the Pollardites would confront Laura in the Holy Land, but here, you know, like, nobody is confronting the Pollardites. You know, they openly have this conference, and --

AMY GOODMAN: Does AIPAC lobby for Jonathan Pollard to be released?

JUSTIN RAIMONDO: Oh, yes. I mean, you know, that's an ongoing campaign. Reportedly, Ariel Sharon has been asking for his release. They're still pressing for that. You know, you do remember that Clinton almost let him go, and George Tenet threatened to resign along with a lot of other top government officials if Clinton did it, so Clinton backed down. I suspect that Bush would get the same reaction from the intelligence community today, though, you know, perhaps Mr. Sharon is now negotiating for Larry Franklin’s release and whoever else is going to be arrested.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about exactly what they found, the latest charges, the files in Larry Franklin’s home?

JUSTIN RAIMONDO: Well, it's very interesting. According to an affidavit by an FBI agent who investigated the case, some of the documents were listed as a Terrorism Situation Report from a Terrorism Threat Integration Center. And these were classified as top secret. Another document was from the CIA, and it talked about al-Qaeda. Another one talked about Osama bin Laden, and where he is. And then there was the famous policy memorandum on Iraq, but that seems less important. So, I mean, what was this guy doing? He had 83 documents in his house, top secret. Half of them were top secret. And so, he had a library of highly classified information. And the question was, where did he get all of this stuff, and what was he planning to do with it? And who was checking stuff out of this library, and for what purpose? So, I mean, Larry Franklin is the dorsal fin of a whale. And we're just seeing that dorsal fin hit the surface, but there's a lot under the water that still hasn't surfaced. Some of it will surface in this trial. But I expect other charges. You know, we have yet to see Mr. Rosen and Mr. Weissman either charged or indicted, but that's expected soon. I have an article, by the way, coming out in the American Conservative, which talks about this.

AMY GOODMAN: And what is the response of the conservative community?

JUSTIN RAIMONDO: Well, you know, it's very interesting because you have got neoconservatives who, you know, are almost like old-line communists who would always defend the Soviet Union no matter what, and you know. I mean, to this day, they say, oh, like, the Rosenbergs were innocent, when in fact they were guilty. So, you know, you have got this kind of party line "Israel can do no wrong," but then you have got real conservatives who are saying, “What's going on here? Why is Israel spying on us, and why are these people apologizing for it?”

AMY GOODMAN: On that note, Justin Raimondo, I want to thank you for being with us. Justin Raimondo is the editorial director of the website, AntiWar.com. 



-------- latin america

Beyond the Gas War: Indigenous Bolivians Fight for "Nationalization of the Government"

Wednesday, May 25th, 2005 Democracy Now!

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/25/1414214

Massive indigenous-led protests continue to rock South America's poorest country. The fight for control of Bolivia's vast natural gas resources is fueling the current crisis but a war is escalating over the rights of the country's majority indigenous population. We'll go to Cochabamba to hear from the famed Bolivian resistance leader Oscar Olivera and longtime Bolivia activist Jim Shultz of the Democracy Center, as well as activist Moises Gutierrez Rojas of the Aymara Quichua Indigenous organization. [includes rush transcript] The political situation in Latin America's poorest country continues to heat up and it's being fueled by a battle over who will have control of the country's substantial natural gas reserves. For years, Bolivia has seen a war between pro-US and pro-corporate regimes and an opposition composed largely of indigenous communities, labor unions and dissident political movements.

At the center of these battles has been the debate over control of Bolivia's water, oil and now natural gas. This week, massive contingents of indigenous communities have escalated their campaign to call for the nationalization of the country's natural gas industry.

Yesterday, tens of thousands of people blockaded roads in and out of the capital La Paz, while protesters in the militant city of El Alto blockaded highways connecting the capital to the rest of the country and to the Peruvian and Chilean borders. A councilman from El Alto, Roberto de la Cruz, was among four people arrested. There were also confrontations with the police who used rubber bullets and water cannons on the demonstrations. American Airlines suspended its flights in and out of Bolivia, after activists threatened to occupy Bolivia's international airport in El Alto. Meanwhile, airport workers announced a 24-hour strike for today.

The current political crisis has highlighted a division between the charismatic opposition leader, Evo Morales and his Movement Toward Socialism party and the more radical indigenous communities and leaders. The indigenous groups say Morales has sold out and engaged in unnecessary compromises. They are demanding total nationalization of the country's natural gas industry and a rewriting of the constitution, demands that have significant popular support. For his part, Morales has been pushing for heavy taxation of foreign companies exploiting Bolivia's gas. That is essentially what the Bolivian Senate passed last week-a hydrocarbon law that would tax foreign companies 50% of their profits from Bolivia. While the law has shaken the foundation of foreign companies operating there, the indigenous groups say this is not enough. This is what Evo Morales said on May 17.

    * Evo Morales, speaking on May 17:"We could not continue seeing these laws harm the country. We are asking for the repeal of other laws and the marches are going to continue. They are marches fundamentally for the unity of the Bolivian people, marches for the hydrocarbon law that is a resource that should benefit Bolivians."

That was Evo Morales, leader of Bolivia's Movement Toward Socialism party. While the specifics of the fight over control of natural gas is dominating the current crisis, many observers say the battle is already headed well beyond that to the bigger issue over how long the current regime will last and who will next govern Bolivia.

We go now to Bolivia, where we are joined by two people. Jim Shultz is the Executive Director of the Democracy Center in Cochabama, Bolivia. His latest book is called "Deadly Consequences: The International Monetary Fund and Bolivia"s Black February." He writes a blog on the situation in Bolivia that can be found at DemocracyCtr.org. And we are joined by Oscar Olivera. He is the president of the Cochabamba Federation of Factory Workers and is widely seen as the key figure in forcing the Bechtel corporation out of Bolivia in 2000. He is also one of the leading voices in the international anti-corporate globalization movement. He has a new book out called "Cochabamba: Water War in Bolivia." And, we are joined in our studio by Moises Gutierrez Rojas. He is a representative of the Aymara Quichua Indigenous organization in Bolivia. He is in New York to attend the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.

    * Jim Shultz, Executive Director of the Democracy Center in Cochabama, Bolivia. His latest book is called "Deadly Consequences: The International Monetary Fund and Bolivia"s Black February." He writes a blog on the situation in Bolivia that can be found at DemocracyCtr.org.
    * Oscar Olivera, president of the Cochabamba Federation of Factory Workers in Cochabamba, Bolivia and is one of the leading voices in the global anti-corporate globalization movement. He has a new book out called "Cochabamba: Water War in Bolivia."
    * Moises Gutierrez Rojas, Representative of the Aymara Quichua Indigenous organization in Bolivia. He is in New York to attend the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.

RUSH TRANSCRIPT

AMY GOODMAN: This is what Evo Morales had to say on May 17.

      EVO MORALES: We could not continue seeing these laws harm the country. We are asking for the repeal of other laws, and the marches are going to continue. They are marches fundamentally for the unity of the Bolivian people, marches for the hydrocarbon law that is a resource that should benefit Bolivians. 

AMY GOODMAN: That was Evo Morales, leader of Bolivia's Movement Toward Socialism Party. While the specifics of the fight over control of natural gas is dominating the current crisis, many observers say the battle is already headed well beyond that to the bigger issue over how long the current regime will last and who will next govern Bolivia. We're going now to Bolivia where we're joined by two people in Cochabamba. Jim Shultz is the Executive Director of the Democracy Center. His latest book is called Deadly Consequences: The International Monetary Fund and Bolivia's Black February. He writes a blog on the situation in Bolivia that can be found at DemocracyCtr.org. We're also joined by Oscar Olivera. He is the President of the Cochabamba Federation of Factory Workers, widely seen as the key figure in forcing the Bechtel Corporation out of Bolivia in 2000. He is also one of the leading voices in the international anti-corporate globalization movement. And he, too, has a new book out. It’s called Cochabamba: Water War in Bolivia. In our studio, we are joined by Moises Gutierrez Rojas. He is a representative of the Aymara Quichua Indigenous Organization in Bolivia. He is here in New York to attend the U.N. Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, and we welcome you all to Democracy Now! As we begin with Jim Shultz in Cochabamba at the Democracy Center. Can you lay out the situation right now, and what has happened, particularly in this week, in Bolivia?

JIM SHULTZ: First of all, thanks for focusing on this. It's a really important issue. The situation right now in Bolivia is as follows. The capital of La Paz is essentially blockaded. Tens of thousands of people from the Altiplano, which is this very, very high, 14,000-foot flat plain outside the city, have descended into the city and essentially blocked it off. The airport is shut down, as you mentioned, and there is a demand for the congress to be closed for this constituent assembly, which is essentially a national constitutional congress, to be held, and the first order of business in their demands is that the gas and oil resources of the country be put back in the hands of the people, be recovered from the corporations. We are really at a standoff. It's very clear that the protests against the gas deal and in favor of nationalization are extremely intense, extremely well backed in that part of the country. So while you have that going on in the capital, in the other departments of the country, like Santa Cruz, for example, what you have are movements underway for what people are calling autonomy, which is essentially those departments want to be able to separate themselves from the national government. That's not a big surprise. That's where the gas and oil is, and the wealthy interests in that part of the country would like to really maintain as much control over the gas and oil as they can. So, you really have this battle of autonomy coming out of the conservative parts of the country and the demand for a constituent assembly and a really complete re-establishment of the state under a different order coming out of the Altiplano.

AMY GOODMAN: Jim Shultz speaking to us from Cochabamba at the Democracy Center. Oscar Olivera is also there in Cochabamba. Can you lay out what you think is the key issue? And welcome to Democracy Now! We're also translating. Andres Conteris is translating for us here in the studio for both of our guests, both in Cochabamba and here in New York, asking Oscar Olivera to lay out what he sees as the key issue. Andres.

ANDRES CONTERIS: Oscar is sending warm greetings to the listenership of Democracy Now!, and he is explaining a little bit about the situation there in Cochabamba.

OSCAR OLIVERA: [translated by Andres Conteris] I think what we are seeing now is a struggle among the Bolivian people that has been going on for several years. This began some five years ago when the Bolivian people were in the struggle for water, and they were able to kick out the corporation at that time. The people at that time then understood very well that we needed economic change as well as political change. So, since then, in the years 2002, 2003, 2004, what we see is the demands of the struggles are very similar to what they were historically five years ago. So, what we are seeing, very specifically, is that this involves changes having to do with the nationalization of the country's resources. So really, what this is about is taking away the control of the resources that the corporate powers have there in Bolivia, and this is what the people are struggling for. And so in the political realm, the changes that the people are asking for is to eliminate all of the authoritative and repressive apparatus that is present in the current political structure. So, for 500 years, the indigenous people have historically been excluded from participating in the democratic process of the country in Bolivia.

AMY GOODMAN: Oscar Olivera, do you think Evo Morales represents their views?

OSCAR OLIVERA: [translated by Andres Conteris] Originally, Evo Morales very much was listening to the perspective of the indigenous peoples, but what we are seeing currently is that the emphasis on that perspective is going down quite a bit, and so he's really not so much focused on the interests of the general population.

AMY GOODMAN: What's changed him?

OSCAR OLIVERA: [translated by Andres Conteris] I think it has to do very much with the lack of direct contact with the people at the grassroots, and he is in much more touch with the political elite.

AMY GOODMAN: We are also joined by Moises Gutierrez Rojas from the Aymara Quichua indigenous Organization. He’s here in New York at the United Nations for the Indigenous Forum. Your thoughts on this issue, Moises.

MOISES GUTIERREZ ROJAS: [translated by Andres Conteris] Initially, I would like to thank very much this coverage and also to send warm greetings to the audience. There are very much important issues that have to do with the hydrocarbons, the petrocarbon issue at this moment. But the fundamental critical issue in Bolivia has to do with the exclusion of the indigenous peoples that has happened for over 500 years. The hydrocarbons, the water resources have, in fact, been nationalized in two different occasions: in the 1940s with Standard Oil and newly nationalized also in the 1960s. So for the indigenous peoples, whether the natural resources are in the hands of the government or in the hands of the corporation, it doesn't matter. And so for us, what is most important is to nationalize the state and the government itself. What I'd like to point out about the struggle that happened in the year 2000, the water struggle, the water war that the companero, Oscar, is referring to, it would not at all have been possible without the mobilization of the Aymara people in the region around La Paz. The mobilization at that time had to do against the water laws at that moment. Presently, the country is very divided, and there are a whole range of perspectives. Bolivia is a fractured country.

AMY GOODMAN: Do you think that Evo Morales will be the next leader, or will there be an indigenous takeover?

MOISES GUTIERREZ ROJAS: [translated by Andres Conteris] At this time it's important to point out that Evo Morales received at the national level elections 20% of support. Later on, in the municipal elections, this support was lowered to 18%. What we're seeing is his support is increasingly going down further. And what my information tells me is that he is reaching a point of desperation because his mobilizations are not reaching the people as they had in the past.

AMY GOODMAN: Oscar Olivera, I will end with you on that question, where you see your country going right now. Who ultimately will lead? This is to Oscar Olivera.

OSCAR OLIVERA: [translated by Andres Conteris] I believe that the transnationals that are located in the eastern part of the country together with the U.S. embassy and its interests are very much causing the critical problem of the crisis in the country right now. The President, Mesa, also has a critical role, and what he has been doing is very much in defense of the corporate powers in the country. These forces are the ones in the country that want to divide the people and want to abscond with the natural resources that have to do with water, forestry and oil and petrol materials. These forces have great resources at their disposal in the economic realm, in communications, and in the political arena, and they are using these resources against the people. And a majority in the country, including workers and indigenous around Bolivia, what we have as our weapon is our dignity, as well as our indignation at what is happening right now and our capacity to construct an alternative society built on justice and respect for the masses.

AMY GOODMAN: And on that note, we have to leave it there, and I want to thank you very much for being with us, Oscar Olivera, one of the leading anti-corporate globalization activists, speaking to us from Cochabamba, Bolivia. We also spoke with Jim Shultz of the Democracy Center there. And in our studio, Moises Gutierrez Rojas of the Aymara Quichua Indigenous Organization. Special thanks to Andres Conteris for translating. And also want to let people know that on our website, we have our headlines translated into Spanish every day at DemocracyNow.org. 


----

Military officers demand Bolivian president's resignation

LA PAZ (AFP) May 25, 2005

http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050525193824.3a0nl86v.html

A group of military officers on Wednesday demanded Bolivian President Carlos Mesa's resignation and called for the nationalization of the country's vast gas industry, one day after protests over the key sector left at least six injured.

But the military chief of staff quickly distanced themselves from the gesture which heightened tensions in the south American nation.

Lieutenant Colonel Julio Cesar Galindo, part of a group calling itself the "Generational Military Movement," appeared on private television, demanding that Mesa "leave, simply quit the government, quit the presidency and make room for the government of the people."

Another officer, Lieutenant Colonel Julio Herrera, added: "This is not a military coup d'etat, but a declaration of the people."

The military command rejected the mid-ranking officers saying in a statement it does not "represent the opinion of the services of the armed forces which stand firm in the defense of the rule of law, democracy and the country's institutions."

Armed forces chief, Admiral Luis Aranda, said it was "an isolated incident" and that the officers do not have command of any troops.

Miners, peasants and students on Monday and Tuesday protested against legislation they say favor foreign companies exploiting Bolivian gas.

Protestors clashed with police and at least six people were injured, according to a human rights group.

Nineteen months ago, demonstrations over the vital gas industry led to the ouster of President Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada, who was replaced by Mesa, his vice president.



-------- mideast

Syria's Voices of Change
Ruling Party Reformers, Emboldened Dissidents Debate Their Nation's Destiny, Despite Dangers

By Anthony Shadid
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, May 25, 2005; A01

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/24/AR2005052401431_pf.html

DAMASCUS, Syria -- Ayman Abdel Nour's contest with censorship began with a term not uncommon in Syria: "forbidden."

Last spring, the word appeared on the screen of his Compaq computer, barring him entry to his Web site, all4syria.org. His computer was the problem, he thought at first. Perhaps the server was down. Then he realized the government had blocked his site -- a forum for unprecedented dialogue among groups, parties and thinkers in Syria -- nearly a year after he had inaugurated it.

Abdel Nour, a 40-year-old reformer from within the ruling Baath Party, lost little time.

The same day, he collected the e-mail addresses he had -- 1,700 in all -- and dispatched his daily update. Two days later, the government blocked e-mails from that address from entering the Syrian network. The next day, he changed the address and transmitted another bulletin. Then that address was shut down. Changed again, and blocked. And so it went for nearly a month and a half -- Abdel Nour devising new addresses, the government barring them -- until the censors finally gave up.

"I was always ahead of them," said Abdel Nour, a kinetic multi-tasker fond of reading e-mail, holding a conversation and answering a cell phone at the same time. "They couldn't read my mind. They couldn't ban the addresses in advance."

Since then, Abdel Nour's e-mail list has grown to 15,200 subscribers, including secular and religious dissidents, intellectuals, businessmen, party leaders, ministers and Syrian embassies. Through its content and as a symbol, the bulletin has emerged as a crucial interlocutor in the tentative, precarious space permitted to dissent in a country where nearly everyone suspects that change is ahead, even if they clash over the shape and direction it might take.

The opposition in Syria remains weak, riven by personality and principle and groping for a voice in a country of 18 million ruled for 42 years by the same party and more than three decades by a family that belongs to a powerful minority.

But emboldened by mounting U.S. pressure, a measure of government tolerance that alternates with capricious crackdowns, and a sense of national crisis as deep as any in a generation, dissidents and reformers have begun debating Syria's destiny on the Internet, in public forums and through frank conversation. The opinions are as diverse as the country itself -- a society no less complicated than those of neighboring Iraq or Lebanon. At issue are the role of the United States, the tactics needed to bring about change and the very nature of legitimacy.

On one side of the conversation is a generation of dissidents hardened by prison. At the core of their beliefs is a sense that a system driven less by ideology than by patronage and self-interest has begun to crumble. The sooner it does, they say, the better, even if they fear the aftermath.

Abdel Nour is on the other side. He is seeking to propel reform from within the Baath Party by creating dialogue in hopes of a national reconciliation -- what many view as the only alternative to chaos.

"No one single party, association or man can bring solution to all these challenges," Abdel Nour said in his home office, strewn with paper, pamphlets, books and compact discs piled on the floor, sofas and chairs. "We have to gather all Syrians together."

'You Have to Be Inside'

Abdel Nour's bulletin has made him something of a celebrity among Syria's intelligentsia. Even if some dissidents are uneasy about his Baath Party credentials -- the charge of working as an informant is often made within opposition circles -- they almost universally praise the role of his bulletin in airing debate and exchanging ideas that would have had no forum just a few years ago.

Each day, he and his staff of four receive submissions, scour Syrian, Lebanese, pan-Arab and other foreign newspapers, cover news conferences and browse Web sites. (Abdel Nour purchased software for $1 that allows him to circumvent government controls and reach Web sites banned in Syria.) Spending six to seven hours a day, he whittles nearly 200 pages of material to less than half. In all, he uses about two dozen articles in Arabic, with an occasional contribution in French or English.

In two years, he said, he has never taken a day off.

"We didn't even have a holiday on Christmas," said Abdel Nour, who is from an Orthodox Christian family.

The topics run the gamut from corruption and globalization to the government's ability to introduce sincere change and the prospect of cooperation between Islamic and secular opposition groups. One writer asked bluntly: "Is it possible for Syria to reform?" Another entry quoted U.S. congressional testimony this year that decried Syria "as an oppressor state in every sense."

"You can know everything going on in Syria better than the ministers themselves," he said.

Many in opposition circles believe Abdel Nour is protected by President Bashar Assad, whose own reformist impulses are a subject of considerable debate. Abdel Nour remains loyal to the party and doesn't doubt a desire for reform on the part of some within the government. But he said he worries over what they face: a sclerotic establishment and an oblivious old guard.

"They are out of date. The last book they read was in the 1970s. All of them are educated in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, and they don't know what the Internet means," he said. He shook his head, his arms flailing. "Is this believable?"

Frustration often marks Abdel Nour's words, as if he is preaching to the inconvertible. Like many, he is sober, even pessimistic about the future. But as he often does, he offers an answer in the form of a question: What's the alternative?

"You have to be inside. You have to persuade the people of reform. You have to lobby them and have them join you. This is the best way to facilitate transition, to not have chaos like you have in Iraq," he said. "The smoothest way is to change from inside."

An Eclectic Opposition

"Let this regime go to hell," answers Riad Turk, an anti-government opposition leader.

The most adamant dissidents in Syria remain an eclectic lot: the Muslim Brotherhood, groups representing Syria's Kurdish minority, and a generation of leftists and nationalists in and out of jail. The leadership of the Brotherhood, whose battle with the government in the late 1970s and '80s bordered on civil war, largely fled into exile. The Kurdish parties are still mainly dedicated to fighting for ethnic rights. Anti-government leftists are searching for a vision and a leadership to pronounce it.

Turk, 75, a communist leader, is perhaps the most iconic of the dissidents, respected by many for his conviction and trials.

Since 1952, Turk has been jailed four times. The longest was for nearly 18 years under President Hafez Assad, Bashar Assad's father, who died in 2000. Turk was confined to an underground cell, six feet by six feet, in an intelligence headquarters in Damascus. For 10 years, he says, he didn't see the sun, was allowed "not even a cigarette or cup of tea." After 13 years, his wife was allowed to visit. Books finally followed, and he read 130 in his last five years of internment. (Charles Dickens was one of his favorites.) To pass the time, he collected discolored pieces of rice. Each morning, on a white blanket, he would painstakingly arrange the rice into landscapes or still lifes.

"This regime is too old, and we have to bury it," he said, slowly dragging on a cigarette as though it were his last. "Can we do it now? No. But I'm very optimistic this regime is marching to its demise, and we have to work to make it reach this end."

Turk is the most outspoken among the opposition leaders, but across an increasingly dynamic Damascus, conversation among them is as forthright as at any time in recent memory. Cell phones, the Internet and satellite television have made for a far more aware public, and the extent of repression here pales in comparison with that in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Assad seems determined to rule through acceptance rather than fear, and the cult of leadership that was pervasive under his father has receded.

A popular Syrian nationalist party was legalized in May, and the government is debating whether to repeal a 25-year-old law that decrees the death penalty for membership in the still-powerful Muslim Brotherhood. Five leftist and nationalist parties, meanwhile, have come together in a group called the National Democratic Gathering. Others have begun meeting and organizing -- very tentatively.

Room to maneuver, though, remains uncertain, and the red lines are dangerously blurred.

In an episode shrouded in suspicion, Mashouq Khaznawi, a Kurdish Islamic leader, was abducted in broad daylight this month in Damascus, his colleagues said, sending a chill through opposition circles. The government has denied any knowledge of his whereabouts. Several days later, a prominent activist, Ali Abdullah, was arrested for reading a Brotherhood statement in public.

In the most severe crackdown yet, eight leaders of the Forum of Jamal Atassi, named for a late leftist leader, were arrested in their homes at dawn Tuesday, said Haitham Maleh, a human rights lawyer. The forum, which met on the first Saturday of every month, had brought together activists in what resembled a debating club, coordinated by Atassi's 35-year-old daughter. She was among those detained in the crackdown, which the State Department criticized as a "negative development."

"We have a weak opposition, even if it is growing now," said Yassin Hajj Saleh, 44, an activist who joined the Communist Party at age 16 and was imprisoned in 1980 for 16 years. "It still cannot exert credible pressure on the regime."

Saleh, a handsome man with gray hair, fears sudden change, as do many of the dissidents. In his view, it is a prescription for chaos in a country deeply fragmented between Kurds and Arabs, Sunni Muslims and religious minorities. He hails Abdel Nour, whose efforts he deems crucial in navigating the kind of tumult that haunted Syria's early years of independence after World War II.

"Perhaps the future depends on an alliance between the opposition and some reformers within the Baath Party and the government," Saleh said. "Both have the same opponent" -- an ossified leadership and old guard that remain Abdel Nour's bane.

"I think we need time," Saleh added. "The longer the period of regime weakness, the better for the opposition and the better for the Syrian people. Everyone is afraid of the Iraqi example, even if they hate the regime and want it thrown in the deepest sea."

The U.S. Role

More than anything else, the Iraqi example colors how reformers and dissidents perceive U.S. pressure on Syria.

The United States has effectively ended engagement with the Syrian government, in part over what Washington contends are halfhearted Syrian efforts to prevent would-be insurgents from crossing its border with Iraq. Those charges have mounted during the past week, with a U.S. military official suggesting that Iraq's most-wanted militant met lieutenants inside Syria. Whether the United States aims to see Assad's government toppled remains the axis around which analysts say Syrian officials are debating foreign and domestic policy.

For many in Syria, the fear of what might follow lends the government de facto support among its people: It's either us or an Islamic government, us or civil war. The most pessimistic in Syria call Iraq the country's crystal ball.

"Chaos is most probably waiting for us," said Michel Kilo, another prominent activist in Damascus.

As in Iraq, the view of the United States is often nuanced, tied up in history, mistrust and grievances accumulated across four wars in five decades. Almost no one views the United States as working toward democracy in Syria. Rather, people see it securing its own interests -- more pliable Arab governments in a region dominated by Israel.

Dissidents mention President Bush's pledges for democratic change less frequently than U.S. reconciliation with authoritarian Libya after it dismantled its weapons of mass destruction programs. Few of the opposition leaders rule out a U.S. reconciliation with the Syrian government if it goes far enough to meet the Bush administration's demands.

The deep wariness aside, though, almost all opposition leaders say they still see U.S. pressure short of intervention as beneficial in itself, creating unprecedented space for them. The question they ask: Can it keep exerting pressure without going too far?

"Objectively speaking, Syrian democrats benefited from this pressure. This has no relation at all with American intentions," Saleh said. "We have a suppressive regime. When it suffers from heavy outside pressure, its hand will be shorter."

"The problem is that the Americans are in a hurry," he added. "Outside pressure is not good in itself. It's good when it encourages more and more people to participate in public affairs. You can't do this in two months."

Finding a New Path

There are slogans on a road in Damascus. Few are converted by them anymore.

"The Syrian armed forces are a school of martyrdom," says one. "We possess the will and determination to fight and win victory," says another. "Unity is our path to liberation," reads the last.

Abdel Nour's father, 75-year-old Ibrahim, came of age with slogans. A Christian born in Damascus's Old City, he joined the Baath Party as a 14-year-old idealist. Like many Christians, he saw in its Arab nationalism a unity between religious faiths. Like many Syrians, he saw in the Baathist slogan -- "Unity, freedom and socialism" -- a way to undo a colonial legacy of subjugation and whimsical borders. Like many Arabs, he saw in its promise a unified Arab state that would reclaim the glories of its medieval civilization.

"The terms have changed. They don't mean what they meant before," lamented Ibrahim, a gentle retired doctor. "The entire world is moving forward. We can't stop where we are. If we stop, the world will collapse over our heads."

"There's no problem with the principles if you modernize them and adapt them," said his son, Ayman, the party reformer.

To him, "unity" becomes a framework for an ever more integrated Arab world on a path toward a European-like system. "Freedom" ensures individual rights and liberties, he said, and "socialism" pledges the government to a policy of social justice.

"The problem is with the leaders, not the ideology," Abdel Nour said. "The problem is with the implementation."

Others see a bigger crisis unfolding, a government whose ideology can no longer justify its rule and whose prestige has withered. Does a new legitimacy come through the exercise of force, an elusive notion of citizenship, a consensus gathered through reform and reconciliation? In essence, both dissidents and reformers say the transition underway must answer that question.

"You have to come up with a new formula," said Nabil Sukkar, an influential businessman and former World Bank economist. "The party can no longer claim to be the guardian of state and society. It has to share power."

----

Pentagon not aware of any change in Syrian relationship

Wednesday May 25, 2005 News International, Pakistan

http://jang.com.pk/thenews/may2005-daily/25-05-2005/world/w7.htm

WASHINGTON: The US Defence Department is not aware of any change in the US military’s relationship with Syria, even though the Syrian ambassador to Washington said Damascus has severed all ties to the US military and the CIA, a Pentagon spokesman said on Tuesday. "We are not aware of any, or haven’t been informed of any, changes to the relationship," said Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman. Syria’s ambassador to Washington, Imad Moustapha, told the New York Times in an interview published on Tuesday that his government has "severed all links" with the US military and the CIA because of what he said were unjust allegations against Syria.

A CIA spokesperson would not comment on the report, saying the agency did not discuss its relationships with foreign governments. Senior US officials have complained bitterly about Syria’s failure to stop Iraqi insurgents from using its territory to funnel money and foreign fighters into Iraq for attacks on US-led forces.

A senior US military official in Baghdad last week charged that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the top al-Qaeda leader in Iraq, met with top lieutenants in Syria recently and ordered them to step up car bombings in Iraq.



-------- prisoners of war

Trial Starts in Abu Ghraib Death
Navy SEAL Faces Charges; CIA Agents Not Named in Case

By T.R. Reid
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 25, 2005; A02

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/24/AR2005052401428_pf.html

SAN DIEGO, May 24 -- An alleged Iraqi insurgent, Manadel Jamadi, died under intense CIA questioning at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad about 19 months ago. On Tuesday, the government launched the first criminal trial in the case -- but none of the CIA agents who were involved is facing charges.

Rather, the Navy court-martialed Lt. Andrew K. Ledford, a Navy SEAL whose platoon had captured Jamadi and delivered him -- alive, kicking and shouting, witnesses say -- to CIA interrogators on the night of his death.

Ledford faces 11 years in jail if convicted on charges of punching Jamadi in the arm, posing in a photograph with the captured prisoner and lying to investigators.

The prosecution of a decorated Navy commando following a killing that occurred under CIA auspices has stirred resentment in military circles, with sailors concerned that a naval officer is taking the fall for civilian misconduct. The CIA says the case is under investigation, but none of its agents has been charged.

"It's a very good question why my client is the one on trial," said Ledford's civilian defense attorney, Frank Spinner, during a break in proceedings. One of Ledford's former subordinates, Dan Cerrillo, bluntly declared from the witness stand Tuesday, "I don't think this whole thing is right."

Echoing testimony in other trials stemming from the Abu Ghraib scandal, Cerrillo said he and his fellow SEALs were untrained for dealing with Iraqi prisoners.

"Our Navy training was very, very inadequate," he testified Tuesday. "What we did in Iraq was very different from what we were trained for -- 180 degrees."

Since dramatic prison photographs were leaked to the media a year ago, American abuse of Iraqi prisoners in the often-chaotic Abu Ghraib cellblocks has turned into a global scandal. The pictures prompted worldwide denunciation of the United States. An insurgent group in Iraq kidnapped and killed a U.S. civilian, saying it was retaliating for mistreatment of Iraqis in the prison.

President Bush has said that the wrongdoing was strictly the fault of a small clique of junior enlisted soldiers.

A government report obtained by the Associated Press said that Jamadi died an hour after his arrival at Abu Ghraib in early November 2003. The report said he had been beaten while in CIA custody and then hung by his wrists, with his arms crossed across his back -- treatment described as "torture" by international organizations. The prisoner reportedly died before CIA interrogators extracted information from him.

U.S. Army guards at the prison then packed his body in ice and posed with the corpse in mocking photographs.

Ledford, a Naval Academy graduate, was commander of SEAL platoon Foxtrot, based near Baghdad. His squad was a "delivery unit," charged with tracking down Iraqi insurgents and delivering them to intelligence officers for questioning.

Nine other members of Ledford's platoon have faced administrative reprimands -- to the military, "non-judicial punishment" -- stemming from the arrest of Jamadi.

Spinner, the defense lawyer, said Ledford was given the more severe treatment of a court-martial presumably because he was in command.

Because of the CIA involvement in the prisoner's death, the Ledford court-martial has a heavy intelligence overlay.

A "security officer" approves every question from lawyers before witnesses can answer. Some witnesses testify behind blue curtains to protect their "visual identity." A civilian CIA lawyer tracks all testimony from the back of the courtroom.

As the prosecution launched its case, a naval investigator, Eric Barrus, acknowledged that he lied to Ledford while questioning him about the arrest of Jamadi. Barrus said he made up stories about what other members of the platoon had said to get Ledford to admit to abusing the prisoner.

A six-member jury of naval officers, most of them also members of the SEAL commando unit, was seated to hear the case. Lawyers said they expect a verdict on the five charges this week.



-------- POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS / JUSTICE


-------- courts / tribunals

Following Filibuster Compromise, Senate Prepares to Confirm Priscilla Owen to U.S. Appeals Court

Wednesday, May 25th, 2005 Democracy Now!

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/25/1414208

Yesterday, the Senate voted to end debate on the confirmation of Priscilla Owen to the U.S Appeals Court, clearing the way for her confirmation. The vote came after a surprise compromise was reached Monday night that averted a showdown over judicial nominees. The deal -- agreed upon by a bipartisan group of 14 Senators -- came less than 24 hours before the Republican leadership was expected to change the Senate rules in order to deny Democrats the ability to filibuster judicial nominees. [includes rush transcript]

Under the agreement, the Republican leadership will not implement the so-called nuclear option and Democrats will allow votes to proceed on at least three of President Bush's nominees for federal judgeships. However, there was disagreement over the meaning of the compromise. Republican leader Senator Bill Frist said that the agreement "if followed in good faith, will make filibusters of judicial nominees in the future, including Supreme Court nominees, almost impossible." And he said that a ban on the filibuster is still very much on the table. But Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid said that the right of the minority party to filibuster is still available. He said "The agreement that will allow Justice Owen to receive an up-or-down vote also had the effect of taking the nuclear option off the tableThis agreement makes clear that the Senate rules have not changed. The filibuster remains available to the Senate minority."

    * Josh Marshall, is a contributing writer for the Washington Monthly and a columnist for The Hill. He is the editor of the blog, talkingpointsmemo.com. 

RUSH TRANSCRIPT

AMY GOODMAN: Well, joining us on the phone right now in New York is Josh Marshall, editor of the blog, TalkingPointsMemo.com. Welcome to Democracy Now!, Josh.

JOSH MARSHALL: Thanks for having me.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you explain what exactly this compromise is?

JOSH MARSHALL: Well, as you can see with those quotes, I think that the reason they were able to come up with the compromise is that no one really agrees what was compromised on. I think, basically, what happened is that there was an agreement to kick the can down the road a bit. The filibuster is there, but so is the nuclear option. I think that what happened here is, obviously, three of the most extreme judicial nominees are going to be allowed to go to an up-or-down vote on the floor. Although it's not completely clear to me that each of those three will actually win those votes. So it's possible that only two will go through. Basically, I think that we –

AMY GOODMAN: Which two do you think?

JOSH MARSHALL: You know, I have heard different things. I have heard Pryor might go down or Brown might go down. I don't -- that sort of stuff is sort of at the level of rumor and speculation. I just – I think that some people -- there's some speculation that an unstated part of this deal included the idea that a number of these republicans will vote against one of those nominees, and that one -- you know, one of the three still won't actually be seated.

AMY GOODMAN: So, go on with what you were saying around the issue of whether –

JOSH MARSHALL: Right. The -- I think, you know, we're not going to know for weeks or even months quite the internal dynamics of this compromise. If this compromise makes any sense among these 14 moderates, seven on each side, it has to be that neither side is going to push the other past its limits. And for that to happen, I think the seven republicans have to exert some sort of influence over the White House for the next judicial nominee, let alone Supreme Court nominee, not to be another hard right nominee. Now, obviously, it's going to be someone far more conservative than democrats want, but it's that difference, whether it's someone like Priscilla Owen or Pryor or something like that. And so, that's really the issue. You know, if a few months from now the President appoints another nominee who's just the same, the democrats will filibuster and the whole agreement will fall apart. We'll be right back where we were.

AMY GOODMAN: So, what do these 14 senators think they accomplished?

JOSH MARSHALL: Well, they accomplished [inaudible] I think that each of these 14 were people who for their own reasons just had institutional reasons they didn't want this to happen. And again, I really don't think they did too much more than buy time. Having said that, I think that it is a somewhat better deal for the democrats than it is for the republicans, because Reid did get seven republicans to just on paper, and on principle, say that the right to filibuster in some cases should exist. And I think -- my sense of this sort of globally is that the republicans' whole agenda right now is absolutes: wanting to get every one of their judges, wanting to have things exactly their way. The democrats are in the minority. There's only so much that can be managed while you don't have 51 votes in the chamber. So I think that this will be more damaging internally to the republicans than it is for the democrats. I think it's a painful compromise, but with the options that were available, I think it's a little better for the democrats than for the republicans.

AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Josh Marshall. He is the editor of Talkingpointsmemo.com. I wanted to switch for a moment to Social Security, something you also follow very closely: President Bush still going out around the country. Where does it stand right now?

JOSH MARSHALL: Well, you know, sort of as the issue has moved from the front of the pages, President Bush's approval on this topic has just continued to nosedive, 30% now. So, the original plan, the idea of having carved out private accounts, I think, is as close to dead as it's ever going to be. I think that where the issue moves to now, is whether, again, a similar group of senators to the ones who just made this judicial nominee compromise, is going to try to make some sort of compromise on Social Security. And I suspect, if they did, or I fear if they did, it would be one -- it would probably not include carved out private accounts, which is, you know, a little progress. It would probably include a needless level of cuts, basically Social Security cuts that weren't -- that really were not necessary to insure the long term solvency in the program, that were necessary to make sure that we could keep in place all of the tax cuts that the President has pushed through in the last four years. So, I think that's -- I mean, I think the overall news on Social Security is good because what the President was trying to do a few months ago is just – is totally dead. I think if the democrats remain united, they can really stop any damage from being done to Social Security in this congress, and I think the prospects for them being able to remain united on that issue are relatively good. But as the possibility that -- again, these 14 senators, some similar constellation of them, would try for some other -- you know, sort of -- you know, benefit cut-based compromise. If that possibility is still there, I think it's just as essential for all of the people who were pushing and making their voices heard over the last six months to continue doing so, and they can just -- if this is an issue you care about, you can continue doing so knowing that what you have done so far has had a huge effect and probably continue to have effect through the life of this congress.

AMY GOODMAN: Josh Marshall, the protests. I mean, in Rochester, hundreds – was there something like 700 people came out and protested when Bush was there, around Social Security. And then we have still that Denver situation where people, three people who went were escorted out, told they would have to leave. And now – and it turns out, well, we don't know who it was that told them. They were under the understanding that it was the Secret Service escorting them out, having believed that it was something to do with a bumper sticker on their car that said something like “No blood for oil.”

JOSH MARSHALL: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: What's happened in that case and about the protest? Any coverage of this? I mean, that's a major protest, 700 people in Rochester.

JOSH MARSHALL: Yeah. There was not as much coverage as I thought there might be. There was more in the local press, which is a good thing, because obviously, you know, one of the issues here are these three republican congressmen that the President was up there to push to, you know, to support his plan. And I doubt they will be doing that anytime soon. The case with the Denver Three keeps moving along. I know they're actually going around the country with a few other people from other cities who had similar things happen to them. So, I think -- I'm not precisely sure of the legal status of that. I mean, what's become more and more clear since that incident, as the three have pushed, you know, in the media, and to some extent administratively -- I don't think it's gotten before a judge or anything -- is that what these were was Republican Party officials basically impersonating Secret Service agents and kicking these people out of a public -- a taxpayer-funded event because, as you said, they had a political bumper sticker on their car that some G.O.P. operative thought, you know, thought that anybody with a “No Blood for Oil” bumper sticker on their car was not someone who had any business being at that meeting. Needless to say, not a premise I agree with.

AMY GOODMAN: They were given tickets to the event by their republican congress member.

JOSH MARSHALL: I'm sorry?

AMY GOODMAN: They were given tickets to the event by their republican congress member.

JOSH MARSHALL: Yes. This has been, you know – this entire tour that the President has been on -- you know, it's one thing when they actually sort of physically eject people from the venues, but yeah, they have -- the entire tour has been based around giving tickets to only people they're absolutely sure support the President no matter what. And it's one thing to do that at a campaign event. The campaign event is a private event. But these are taxpayer-funded events, so it's clearly wrong. I think it's precisely what -- it's still being figured out precisely what laws it breaks. I mean, one would think just basic -- on First Amendment grounds, it shouldn't pass muster.

AMY GOODMAN: Finally, just back on the issue of the Supreme Court where all of this filibuster issue is going, with Rehnquist taking ill sometimes, going to the hospital, do you have any thoughts on who the possible replacement could be?

JOSH MARSHALL: You know -- well, I’d say the best answer is: I don't know. I think the thing to keep an eye on is that, who the President might choose to succeed Rehnquist as Chief Justice might depend a lot on how the dynamics of this deal plays out over the next few months. If it really seems like those moderate republicans have a little more of the upper hand, it might be more likely that the President would basically promote someone from within the court. Now, that's not great, considering who the likely promotions are. That's basically Thomas and Scalia. It's certainly not going to be the other -- any of the other three republican appointees. Outside of that, I really don't know.

AMY GOODMAN: And Supreme Court nominee just becoming a Supreme Court Justice?

JOSH MARSHALL: Well, then, you would obviously have a new person that would be -- that would -- I guess what I was talking about is if you had a situation like happened with Berger back in the 80s where you had Rehnquist promoted from being an Associate Justice, Supreme Court Justice, and then Rehnquist replaced by someone else. But as to who, I really don't know.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, Josh Marshall, we will leave it there.

JOSH MARSHALL: I can't give you a good answer.

AMY GOODMAN: Josh Marshall, editor of TalkingPointsMemo.com. 



-------- homeland security / national intelligence

Lawmakers Criticize U.S. Shipping Measures

Wednesday, May 25, 2005 Global Security Newswire

http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2005_5_25.html#B7DC48EF

The U.S. Homeland Security Department has reduced inspections of U.S.-bound cargo from 36 international ports and 5,000 importers certified under its antiterrorism initiatives, but has failed to confirm whether those entities have actually tightened security, the New York Times reported today (see GSN, May 4).

“We have folks here who have the right intentions,” said Senator Norm Coleman (R-Minn.), chairman of a panel scheduled to hold a hearing on the programs tomorrow. “But rather than making it harder for folks with evil intentions to do harm to this country, we have in place a system that creates the potential for greater vulnerability.”

Until last month, importers enrolled in the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism were automatically designated as a lower security risk. However, so many businesses signed up that thousands of the preferential security clearances were granted without verifying whether the companies had improved security measures, said Todd Owen, director of the program.

“It is very troubling to me,” said Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine), chairman of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee. “If in fact it is a hollow program, then oddly enough that increases our vulnerability.”

The ports program also has significant weaknesses, according to members of Congress and shipping experts.

Since late 2002, 40,628 U.S.-bound containers have been deemed high risk, and about 10 percent were not inspected prior to shipment, Customs officials said.

In addition, the Energy Department has completed installing radiation equipment in only two of the world’s largest ports, government auditors said (Eric Lipton, New York Times, May 25).

----

Loopholes Seen in U.S. Efforts to Secure Ports

By ERIC LIPTON
May 25, 2005 NY TIMES

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/25/politics/25ports.html?pagewanted=print

WASHINGTON, May 24 - The Department of Homeland Security's effort to extend its antiterrorism campaign overseas by enlisting help from importers and foreign ports has been so flawed that the program may have made it easier at times to smuggle unconventional weapons into the United States, Congressional officials say.

Homeland Security has reduced inspections in the United States of cargo coming from 36 foreign ports and 5,000 importers that were certified under its antiterrorism initiatives. But the department has failed to confirm whether most of those importers have tightened security or whether thousands of high-risk containers headed to the United States were inspected at ports overseas, agency records show.

"We have folks here who have the right intentions," said Senator Norm Coleman, Republican of Minnesota, chairman of an investigative panel scheduled to hold an oversight hearing on the programs on Thursday. "But rather than making it harder for folks with evil intentions to do harm to this country, we have in place a system that creates the potential for greater vulnerability."

The port and importer programs, which offer incentives to those who sign on to Homeland Security initiatives, are intended to help block threats overseas so they cannot reach American shores, government officials say. But Kristi M. Clemens, assistant commissioner at Customs and Border Protection - the division of Homeland Security that set up these efforts - said the agency realized that the two programs had some problems.

"We have had to make adjustments to further strengthen the program," she said in an interview on Tuesday. "The criticisms are fine, some of them have been helpful."

However, Ms. Clemens rejected the suggestion that the programs' weaknesses had compromised national security. "We are still in a better position with the programs than we were without it," she said. "We are on the right track. Are we perfect? No." Customs officials have long recognized that the nine million ship containers arriving in the United States each year pose a security risk. Robert C. Bonner, commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, called the containers "the potential Trojan horse of the 21st century" in a speech in January.

"A 40-foot container loaded with ammonium nitrate would create a huge blast 10 to 20 times that of the Oklahoma City bombing," he said. "But the sum of all fears is a 'nuke-in-a-box.' "

Soon after the September 2001 terrorist attacks, Customs demanded that 24 hours before a sea shipment leaves a foreign country, carriers must electronically deliver details on any cargo headed to the United States or the shipment can automatically be blocked. A special computerized targeting center in the United States screens all these reports, looking for any anomalies that might provide a hint that a container holds dangerous goods. That could include a supplier listed for the first time or a product shipped through an unusual route.

Until last month, importers enrolled in the Customs incentives program - known as the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism - were automatically designated as a lower risk. Containers shipped by them are inspected once every 306 times, instead of once every 47 times, Customs officials said, permitting faster movement of goods to warehouses owned by Wal-Mart, Home Depot, Lowe's and other companies.

Ms. Clemens and Todd Owen, director of the importers' program, acknowledged that so many businesses enrolled that the agency granted thousands of the preferential security clearances without determining whether the companies had improved security measures. "Trust, don't verify," is the slogan some critics have given to the program.

About 9,000 applications from importers have been submitted so far. But of the 5,000 that have been accepted, Customs officials have only verified that 597 companies were taking the required measures. Those include such steps as putting up fencing around manufacturing plants and watching over loaded containers as they move from the factory to the ship, Mr. Owen said.

"It is very troubling to me," said Senator Susan M. Collins, a Maine Republican who is chairwoman of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee. "If in fact it is a hollow program, then oddly enough that increases our vulnerability."

Late last month, after the Government Accountability Office and members of Congress raised questions about the practice, Customs retracted some of the preferred treatment for more than 4,000 importers until verification efforts are complete. Customs is also moving quickly to hire more auditors, going from a staff of 40 last year to about 100, with plans to add more soon.

The foreign ports program, has less severe but still troubling weaknesses, members of Congress and shipping experts say. Ports enrolled in the program must agree to set up scanning equipment that can look inside containers to see whether any suspicious items might be hidden in loads that the targeting center deems "high risk." In return, cargo from those ports are moved more quickly once they land in the United States.

Customs sends four of its own inspectors to the overseas ports to help supervise the handling of cargo, a tiny number given the size of these giant ports, including those in Tokyo, Rotterdam or Hong Kong. But as the program has started up, it at times failed to inspect "high risk" containers before they were loaded and sailing toward the United States, said Al Gina, the program's director.

Sometimes, that was because information provided by foreign customs officials resolved suspicions about a possible threat. But in many other cases, Customs officials discovered that the containers they wanted to inspect were already gone. In other cases, counterparts from the host nations declined to conduct a requested inspection.

Countries with certified ports include Canada, the Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, France, Sweden, Italy, Britain, Greece, Spain, Singapore, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Thailand, United Arab Emirates, China, South Africa and Argentina.

Since late 2002, when the program started at the first major overseas port, 40,628 containers headed for the United States from participating ports were deemed high risk. About 10 percent did not get inspected before they left, Customs officials said.

The failure to inspect "high risk" containers is only one of the weaknesses identified by auditors and Congressional investigators.

The requirements for screening equipment and the training of foreign customs officers who use it are not clear enough, Congressional investigators said. The Energy Department, which has been moving to put radiation detection equipment at the world's largest ports, has been too slow to install the equipment, completing work at only two ports by the end of the last fiscal year, government auditors said.

And because of flaws in the Customs computer system, agents stationed overseas had no reliable way of telling counterparts in the United States when a high-risk container might have left without being checked, a shortcoming that has since been addressed, officials said. Customs officials would not provide documentation to show that all of the high-risk containers not inspected at the foreign ports were checked once they arrived in the United States. But they said they were reasonably confident the checks had been made.



-------- ENERGY 


-------- alternative energy

Senate Bill Would Double Ethanol Use

By H. JOSEF HEBERT
The Associated Press
Wednesday, May 25, 2005; 10:46 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/25/AR2005052501274_pf.html

WASHINGTON -- Over the strong objections of oil companies, a Senate committee on Wednesday approved a requirement that refiners use more corn-based ethanol and other renewable fuels in gasoline.

The legislation would mandate that refiners annually use at least 8 billion gallons of renewable components _ almost all of it ethanol from corn _ in gasoline by 2012, doubling ethanol production, a boon to farmers.

A House-passed energy bill would require 5 billion gallons.

Supporters of the higher number argued that such a mandate would replace 5 percent of the gasoline by volume beginning in 2012 and reduce U.S. need for oil imports.

"This is about a supply that is domestic," said Sen. Jim Talent, R-Mo., who offered and won voice vote approval for the ethanol mandate as part of an energy bill being crafted by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., the panel's chairman, said the ethanol mandate will be key to getting energy legislation through the Senate when it takes up the bill, probably in late June.

Talent said ethanol use would reduce refiners' need for imported oil, reduce gasoline costs and help the environment by curtailing toxic emissions and climate-changing carbon dioxide. "There's no question that ethanol helps the environment," he said.

But the oil industry, in an intense lobbying effort, said expanding the mandate from 5 billion to 8 billion gallons will require ethanol use in regions where it is not economical and increase fuel costs while providing "negligible reductions in oil imports."

The ethanol industry countered that 8 billion gallons of ethanol would replace 2 billion barrels of crude oil and trigger $6 billion in new investment in ethanol production.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., cited a report by the Energy Information Administration that said an 8 billion-gallon ethanol requirement would add 2.4 cents a gallon to the price of gasoline.

Supporters of the mandate dismissed the study, saying it was based on oil costing $25 a barrel, when all expectations are that oil prices _ now above $50 a barrel _ will remain substantially higher than that in the foreseeable future.

Feinstein also cited California agency findings that the use of ethanol during hot days increased smog-causing vehicle emissions.

"You're forcing something on us that is not necessary," she said.

By a 12-10 vote, the committee agreed to give California a summertime waiver to the ethanol mandate if needed to meet air quality requirements, although refiners in the state would still be required to use 900 million gallons of ethanol annually.

Meanwhile, President Bush again urged Congress to move more quickly on energy legislation.

"I think the American people are tired of waiting. I'm getting a little tired of waiting on the energy bill," Bush said as he visited a gasoline station in northeast Washington that features _ as a demonstration project _ a pump that provides hydrogen as a motor fuel.

The Senate bill calls for expanding hydrogen fuel research, with the goal of having 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010 and 2.5 million vehicles as well as a hydrogen fuel infrastructure by 2020.

The energy panel also approved construction of a prototype $1.25 billion nuclear reactor that would produce hydrogen as well as electric power at the Energy Department's Idaho National Laboratory.

Separately the panel voted to extend for another 20 years a government commitment, first made in 1957, to limit the nuclear industry's liability from a major nuclear accident, with taxpayers assuming costs above $9.34 billion.

On the Net:

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee: http://energy.senate.gov/public/

Renewable Fuels Association: http://www.ethanolrfa.org

American Petroleum Institute: http://www.api.org

----

Los Angeles Adopts 20 Percent Renewable Energy Goal By 2017

LOS ANGELES, California, May 25, 2005

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/may2005/2005-05-25-09.asp#anchor2

In less than 12 years, the city of Los Angeles will likely be drawing 20 percent of its energy from renewable resources. That goal was set on Monday by the Board of Water and Power Commissioners for the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP).

The new policy sets an interim goal of 13 percent by 2010 and a higher goal of 20 percent by the year 2017. The goals - called a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) - would be measured by the amount of electric energy sales to retail customers.

LADWP General Manager Ronald Deaton said, "This policy provides a long term framework to achieve the 20 percent goal without compromising power reliability or the financial stability of LADWP and its customers," he said.

He emphasized that LADWP will conduct detailed studies to determine the need for a renewable energy surcharge to meet the goals, and, if needed, a calculation method and plan for implementing the surcharge.

LADWP will also examine the possibility of a solar surcharge to support a proposed set aside for solar photovoltaics.

Deaton also said LADWP plans to initiate discussions with neighborhood councils and other community groups, on the RPS policy and potential RPS surcharge ordinance. Any proposed surcharge or surcharges would also be subject to a third-party, independent financial review, according to City Council action.

LADWP is also in discussions with renewable resource providers that made a "short list" of proposals submitted under the RPS request for proposals that was issued on June 30, 2004. The short-listed projects consist of wind, geothermal, landfill gas, biomass, and small hydroelectric power facilities.

As described in the RFP, the Department plans to acquire new renewable energy resources through development and ownership of projects, and through mid- to long-term power purchase agreements.

LADWP expects to meet the RPS goals through multiple projects over the next several years.

Deaton said the goal is to enter into agreements with the renewable energy providers once a renewable surcharge, if needed, is established. LADWP, however, would continue to pursue smaller projects with short-term agreements and minimal financial impact.

LADWP also expects to initiate discussions with neighborhood councils to update the LADWP's 2000 Integrated Resource Plan - a 10-year blueprint for meeting future energy load growth, improving system reliability, maintaining the lowest possible rates, and demonstrating environmental leadership.

Among renewable projects already in the works are the 120-megawatt Pine Tree Wind project and an agreement to purchase 40 megawatts of power annually from a proposed BioConverter green waste digestion facility.

LADWP is administering a $150 million program to install rooftop solar photovoltaic systems throughout Los Angeles.

The department is also modernizing its hydroelectric power plant in San Francisquito Canyon.

The LADWP has increased energy efficiency and decreased emissions in Los Angeles by "repowering" its aging, in-basin natural gas powered generating units with combined cycle generators and state-of-the-art emissions technology, resulting in over 75 percent emissions reductions. 

----

Solar Power Profitability: BP Solar

May 25, 2005 — By Paul Geary, ENN

http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=7810

For many years the benefits of solar power have been offset by the reality that solar power companies find it difficult to be profitable. Many theories have been put forth to explain this, ranging from blaming oil companies for self-perpetuation by shutting solar out of the market, the renewable nature of solar power, and bad marketing strategies on the part of solar power entities. However, BP Global, the huge energy company formerly known as British Petroleum, has announced that its solar power subsidiary, BP solar, was profitable in 2004. Though a major fossil fuel concern, BP has made a commitment to solar power.

BP has been involved in solar power since 1973. Its subsidiary, BP Solar, is now one of the world’s largest solar power companies with production facilities in the United States, Spain, India and Australia, employing a workforce of over 2,000 people around the world. In its operations, BP Solar concentrates on the production of solar cells and modules in order to produce electricity. Over the last five years, BP International invested 500 million US dollars in this high growth, but relatively small business segment.

Steve Westwell, Head of BP Solar and Group Vice President in the International BP Group says that “solar power has an immense growth potential for the future, due to technological progress and therefore greater efficiency in transforming the energy inherent to sunlight. At the same time, prices will fall as the market penetration increases, demand grows and targeted support is provided by marketing and legislation.”

He cautions though that solar power probably won't have a significant positive impact on global climate change until 2020. "All of the renewable energy sources, including solar power, currently account for just 2.5 % of the global demand for energy,” according to Westwell. However, industry growth in 2004 was 40%, and more than 1,000 megawatts worth of power production was installed around the world. Prices fall each time supply is increased.

Despite its small size relative to the fossil-fuel industry, solar is making a significant impact in some parts of the world.

BP has a program to help remote communities develop by providing solar power for vital equipment such as school lights and refrigeration facilities for medicines and vaccines. solar power can offer a lifeline to remote rural communities in the developing world that have little chance of being connected to an electricity grid, but are exposed to a lot of sunshine. BP is involved in ‘off-grid’ projects in countries such as Malaysia, Thailand, the Philippines, India, Angola, Zambia and Brazil.

Some are substantial programmes which bring power to thousands, while others are demonstration projects or prototypes which show communities and governments what can be achieved.

For instance, in the Philippines, the Solar Power Technology Support project is being jointly undertaken by the Philippines and Spanish governments to bring electricity to around 40 communities. The project will provide lighting in schools, water pumping for clean drinking water, and vaccine refrigeration. The SPOTS Project will positively impact about 400,000 people in the most isolated regions of Mindanao.

In Angola, the Paranhos Solar Pilot Project, funded jointly by BP Angola and the UK Government, provides energy to a village of 360 people 60 kilometres north of Luanda. Launched in June 2004, the project is helping the area recover from the recent war by providing energy to community buildings including the school and medical centre - including a vaccine refrigerator, as well as lighting for houses, a water pumping system and street lighting.

BP is the world's largest oil concern (ahead of ExxonMobil) with revenues of about $285 billion in 2004. It's the world's second largest company in sales, just behind WalMart. Source: BP p.l.c., BP Solar, Hoover's 



-------- ACTIVISTS

Greens: Congress Must Investigate Torture of Detainees, Pentagon's Missing

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld must be removed, say Green leaders, citing abuses of power.

Common Dreams (press release),
Article nr. 12038 sent on 25-may-2005 07:59 ECT

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m12038&l=i&size=1&hd=0

WASHINGTON -- May 24 -- Green Party leaders called on Congress to begin immediate and far-reaching investigations of major abuses by the Pentagon:

* Evidence of torture and abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and abuse at facilities in the U.S., especially at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, New York.

* Recent reports that the Pentagon is unable to account for more than a trillion dollars in financial transactions and missing equpment; $8.8 billion in Iraqi oil sales unaccounted for in a 2005 audit, according to the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction.

"The astronomical waste of taxpayers' money, torture of detainees, inadequate protection for U.S. troops facing enemy fire, disregard for the effects of depleted uranium, and 1,600-plus deaths of American personnel and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths are more than a failure of accountability," said Gloria Mattera, lead organizer of the demonstrations at the Brooklyn facility and current Green candidate for Borough President in Brooklyn <http://www.electgloria.org/>. "This is a massive abuse of power. It deserves impeachment, criminal investigation, and prosecution."

"The Department of Defense can no longer call the torture reports a matter of excessive misbehavior by a few individuals," added Steve Kramer, co-chair of the Green Party of the United States. "It's a systematic problem -- a policy decision made at the highest levels. Mr. Rumsfeld has disgraced his office and should resign immediately, or be removed for the sake of our nation's integrity. And the missing one trillion dollars must be accounted for before Congress considers another dime in any war appropriations."

Despite its apologies, the Newsweek accounts of desecration of the Quran by U.S. military personnel at detention centers have been corroborated in reports from the International Committee of the Red Cross, legal depositions, and in numerous other periodicals, including The Financial Times.

"President Bush was more outraged by the fact that abuses are being reported than by the abuses themselves," said Marc Sanson, who is also co-chair of the Green Party. "Newsweek's retreat is a blow to freedom of the press -- to the media's obligation to investigate and report, regardless of threats from the powerful."

Greens noted that several U.S. generals have become increasingly grim about the future of the occupation.

"The generals are confirming what antiwar protesters claimed from the very beginning -- that the invasion of Iraq was based on a misinformation campaign and will likely continue for years, with mounting casualties," said David Cobb, 2004 Green Party candidate for President. The Green Party led the political opposition to the invasion and sharply criticized Democratic and Republican support for President Bush's invasion plans, and now calls for an immediate end to the occupation.

###

CONTACT:

Green Party of the United States
Scott McLarty, Media Coordinator, 202-518-5624,
mailto: mclarty@greens.org
Nancy Allen, Media Coordinator, 207-326-4576,
mailto: nallen@acadia.net

----

Police arrest 500 protesters in Patna, India

Wednesday May 25, 2005 News International, Pakistan

http://jang.com.pk/thenews/may2005-daily/25-05-2005/world/w2.htm

PATNA, India: Riot police arrested more than 500 opposition activists during a protest on Tuesday, after India’s prime minister dissolved the legislature of the eastern Bihar state following months of political turmoil.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s move on Monday came after lawmakers in the impoverished and often lawless state failed to forma government three months after elections. Singh accused politicians of offering bribes to legislators to form coalitions and ordered fresh elections to be held within six months.

"Horse trading of the worst type was taking place and it is the constitutional duty of the government to see that such nefarious practices don’t spoil the good name of our country,’’ Singh told reporters Tuesday.

His move infuriated India’s main opposition National Democratic Alliance, led by former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, which insists it has the support to put together a state government.

"This is murder of democracy,’’ Vajpayee said. On Tuesday, police used batons to disperse nearly 1,000 National Democratic Alliance supporters who marched through the streets of Patna, the state capital, trying to stop trains and burn effigies of ruling coalition leader Sonia Gandhi and Bihar Governor Buta Singh, said police inspector-general, Ashish Ranjan Sinha.

More than 150 people were arrested for violating emergency orders prohibiting the assembly of more than five people in Patna, Sinha said.


----

Anti-Military Recruiting Campaigns Heats up At Seattle Schools

Wednesday, May 25th, 2005 Democracy Now!

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/25/1414224

On Monday, four US military recruiting offices in Seattle were shut down when students blocked the entrances to protest recruitment practices and to oppose the occupation of Iraq. Meanwhile the Parent Teacher Student Association at one school has passed a resolution recommending that military recruiters be barred from the campus. [includes rush transcript] Students from nine local universities, community colleges and high schools joined in simultaneous demonstrations. A military recruiting office near the University of Washington and another near Garfield High School were also blockaded by groups of students.

Garfield High School also made news recently when the school's Parent Teacher Student Association passed a resolution recommending that military recruiters be barred from the campus. The resolution, passed on May 9th, was the first of its kind in the state. Seattle school district officials then released a statement stating that under President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act, it was illegal to ban only military recruiters - they must be granted the same access to students as college or job recruiters at schools that receive federal money.

Garfield High School is no stranger to speaking out against the war. In 2002, the school passed a resolution opposing the invasion in Iraq.

    * Amy Hagopian, is the president and co-chair of the Parent Teacher Student Association at Garfield High School in Seattle, Washington.

RUSH TRANSCRIPT

AMY GOODMAN: Joining us on the phone from Seattle is the co-chair of the Parent Teacher Association, Amy Hagopian. She is the mother of a senior at Garfield High. Welcome to Democracy Now!

AMY HAGOPIAN: It’s good to be with you.

AMY GOODMAN: I’m sorry we only have a few minutes. Can you quickly explain how did your P.T.A. vote to kick out the recruiters? And what will happen now?

AMY HAGOPIAN: Our P.T.A. has a mission to promote the welfare of children and youth and to support and speak out on their behalf. That's the mission of P.T.A.s everywhere in America. And we would encourage other P.T.A.s to act on behalf of their mission and also look seriously at the recruitment happening in their schools and the nature of that recruitment, the frequency, the intensity, and the hard pressure tactics.

AMY GOODMAN: Your school is almost a third African American?

AMY HAGOPIAN: It is. It's a inner city school that's large and very diverse. It's a magnet school, so there's many high achieving kids and there's many kids who can’t read.

AMY GOODMAN: What will happen if No Child Left Behind Act says you lose federal funding? Will the school actually stop recruiters from coming on campus?

AMY HAGOPIAN: We can’t physically stop them, and we can’t legally stop them, but we can stand at the doors and explain that they're not welcome, as can every high school in the country. Somebody obviously needs to challenge this legally, but that's a hard task to ask of public schools that are strapped for money.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, I want to thank you very much for being with us, Amy Hagopian, co-chair of the Parent Teacher Association at Garfield High. Another issue we have dealt with in the past is that kids' names are given to the Pentagon automatically by schools, part of the No Child Left Behind Act, unless parents proactively tell the school they don't want those names sent, or the student does, and then those names will not be sent, a story we have covered here.