NucNews - May 27, 2005 -------- NUCLEAR -------- accidents and safety Sirens at nuclear plants often lacking backup power 5/27/2005 9:48 AM (AP) http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-05-27-nuclear-sirens_x.htm http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Sirens-No-Backup.html?pagewanted=print MIDDLETOWN, Pa. — More than two dozen nuclear power plants across the country lack sirens that would warn of a nuclear emergency if electricity also was blacked out, according to a report by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Twenty-eight U.S. plants lack backup power for sirens that are supposed to alert residents in a 10-mile radius of trouble, the NRC said. Seventeen plants have full backup for the systems, while 18 others have at least some sirens that would remain operable during an outage. The NRC released the information Wednesday as part of its response to a coalition of 17 activist groups and elected officials that petitioned the commission in February for information about the siren systems. "Basically, we have an inoperable emergency system at a majority of the sites," said Paul Gunter, director of the Reactor Watchdog Project for the Washington, D.C.-based Nuclear Information and Resource Service. Plants that lack any backup power for sirens include the Indian Point plant just north of New York City and the Davis-Besse plant near Toledo, Ohio. At Three Mile Island in Middletown, the site of a March 28, 1979, partial meltdown that remains the nation's worst nuclear plant accident, only 19 of the 96 sirens would operate if power went out. During mock terror attacks on plants, NRC officials assume electric power would be disrupted. Working sirens would be crucial since a loss of electricity can challenge nuclear plants' safety shutdown systems and heighten the risk of a core-melting accident, nuclear watchdog groups said. The groups have asked the NRC to step in and require plant owners to provide backup power to the sirens. The NRC said siren upgrades are in the works at about half the plants that lack warning systems that are fully backed up. The Federal Emergency Management Agency is revising warning requirements following the massive August 2003 electrical blackout in the northeastern United States. Todd Schneider, spokesman for Davis-Besse, said the sirens are only one part of an emergency plan. Warning messages are also spread by police car loudspeakers and radio stations. On the Net: Nuclear Information and Resource Service: http://www.nirs.org/press/05-25-2005/1 Nuclear Regulatory Commission: http://www.nrc.gov/ ---- Sick Weapons Workers to Be Compensated By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Published: May 27, 2005 Filed at 4:45 p.m. ET http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Weapons-Workers.html WASHINGTON (AP) -- Tens of thousands of former nuclear weapons workers exposed to radiation and other industrial toxins at government facilities can soon start filing for compensation. The Labor Department's compensation program is one of two designed to pay workers who got sick while helping to build Cold War-era bombs or clean up the waste left behind. ''We are totally committed to ensuring that workers who are eligible for this program receive compensation as quickly as possible,'' Labor Secretary Elaine L. Chao said before the rules were released late Thursday night. Earlier this year, the Labor Department began giving lump-sum checks of $125,000 to survivors of workers who died from job-related illnesses. So far, it has paid more than $53 million for 430 claims. But living workers had to wait for officials to develop a payout formula that accounts for permanent impairments and lost wages. Payouts in the new program are capped at $250,000, but compensation to workers who were paid through another program is not. The Labor Department will start processing claims within a week, Chao said. Most of the people covered by the program worked at facilities in Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, New Mexico, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee and Washington. Critics point to several problems, including how impairments are measured and the burden of proof required for claimants. Congress concluded in a report on the law that the American Medical Association Guides might not list all illnesses caused by exposure to toxic substances, including certain mental impairments. But the new rules say people whose illnesses can't be assessed through the AMA Guides won't qualify for impairment payments. People may lose compensation ''because of a bureaucratic determination that their illness doesn't fall into a particular book that the Department of Labor is using,'' said Richard Miller, a policy analyst for the Government Accountability Project, a Washington-based watchdog group. In their claims, workers must prove that they came in contact with toxins while on the job at government facilities. But Miller said the Energy Department didn't always monitor toxic exposure, and ''in the absence of monitoring records, workers are facing an insurmountable burden of proof.'' Congress last year gave the Labor Department authority over the revamped compensation program after lawmakers criticized how the Energy Department was managing it. On the Net: Labor Department: http://www.dol.gov -------- britain Ireland slams Sellafield leak as further damning indictment DUBLIN (AFP) May 27, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050527180142.xxc6u63r.html New information that a pipe may have been leaking a liquid containing uranium and plutonium at Britain's Sellafield nuclear facility for months was slammed on Friday as a "further damning indictment" of the plant's safety record by Ireland's Environment Minister. Minister Dick Roche said Ireland was notified by the British authorities on April 21 that a pipe leak at Sellafield's Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant (THORP) had resulted in a spillage into a tank. THORP reprocesses spent nuclear fuels from power stations in Britain and Japan. It subsequently emerged from further inspections that the spillage involved 83 cubic metres - 15,000 gallons - of liquid containing uranium, plutonium and fission products. Roche said new information on Friday - following an investigation by the British Nuclear Group (BNG) - was of "serious concern". He said the BNG findings showed there was "some evidence to suggest that the pipe may have started to fail in August 2004. Failure of the pipe is believed to have occurred in mid January 2005." Roche said that while the spillage had no immediate implications for Ireland and there was no risk to Sellafield workers or the environment, it was "deeply worrying" that opportunities had been missed to significantly reduce the amount of liquid released. "The pattern with Sellafield is well established and consistent," Roche said. "A serious incident occurs, the investigation reveals serious safety failures and weaknesses, recommendations are drawn up and implemented, and further assurances given that the plant is safe. "However, this pattern is untenable and the safety record at the plant has given the Irish Government serious cause for concern for some time. "This latest information serves only to increase the concerns of the Government and to reinforce our efforts to secure the safe and orderly closure of Sellafield." He told RTE state radio the management systems at Sellafield should have picked up the leak much earlier. "This is something that you'd expect from Homer Simpson. This was a pipe that was leaking for five months before it was detected. "It is not rocket science. If you have a highly dangerous fluid going in one end of a pipe and the volumes coming out the other end of the pipe are defficient, you should know about it." Roche has asked Ireland's nuclear watchdog to take a specific interest in the leak investigation and he plans to raise it with the EU Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs and the British energy minister. -------- depleted uranium US media censor uranium weapons stories Depleted uranium turns to poison gas May 27, 2005 — By Bob Nichols Project Censored Award Winner & Online Journal Contributing Writer http://www.onlinejournal.com/Media/052705Nichols/052705nichols.html A dedication in 2120 might say: Dedicated to the memory of the Iraqi people. Many people believe Iraq was the birthplace of civilization some 5,000 years ago. Iraq was destroyed and radioactively contaminated in an early 21st Century Oil War by a fascist world power, now extinguished. Dedication to the Iraqi People in 2005: Iraq is uninhabitable. The wars in Central Asia all were nuclear wars fought with radiation-dispersing American weapons. None of the Bushista NeoCons running this miserable genocide in Central Asia care one whit. In fact, it is what they ordered from the US military's list of services. Mostly, the remaining 300 million "good Americans" do not care, do not know and do not want to know. Those Iraqis not yet radiologically contaminated must leave Iraq as soon as possible. Before they too get radiation poisoning, their genetic line is kaput, they die and become just so much radioactive sand in the deserts of Iraq. The only hope of the US-UK troops in Iraq is that they get out before they take a fateful breath in the wrong place, at the wrong time. The not yet dead say there is a very slight metallic taste at the time. Meanwhile the 140,000-pound A1M1 Death Machine Tanks keep dispensing Poison Uranium Oxide Gas that lasts forever in the Occupied Territories of Iraq, as per the Bushista NeoCons' instructions. That's the bottom line. The US military, funded by the US taxpayer who borrowed up to 80 percent of the world's savings at one time, killed the Iraqi people. The Iraqis don't even know it yet. Most scientists and just plain people are afraid to look them in the eye and tell them the truth. Censorship at Work (America, Land of War Criminals) Radiation poisoning is a miserable way to die. It means adult diapers, unbearable and unimaginable pain and morphine as a goddess, if you can get it. Poisonous, radioactive, ceramic uranium oxide gas colors everything else. There is no treatment and there is no cure. Radiation poisoning is a death sentence, courtesy of the US Political Class delivered on target and on time by the US military, the most lethal military in the history of the world. . See for yourself how people are faring in the shadowy world of government censorship, lies payola and grim everyday officially sanctioned propaganda. You and your family are subject to these NeoCon lies daily. If you are an American, chances are you believe them. You are wrong, dead wrong. You could not possibly be more wrong. Google these phrases at www.google.com: depleted uranium On May 14, 2005, it received 971,000 Internet page hits. Lie: "Depleted Uranium is really OK! After all, the Pentagon would not call it depleted if it wasn't, would they?" ceramic uranium oxide gas + battlefield Truth: This stuff is deadly. It is Bad, Radioactive and Kills people—forever. It is not okay a year from now. It is not okay, ever. Its use is always a war crime. Only 19 Google Net page hits. May 14, 2005, the Google count was a minuscule 19 Hits. It's on fewer than 19 websites. Nineteen is hardly any at all. That's it! Total for the world as reflected by Google. But, still, I'm right and you are wrong. Again, that's 971,000 vs 19 hits. That's a totally overwhelming advantage. Yet, the US military and intelligence agencies keep investing more and more resources and money to counter the miserable little 19 stories, articles and references to the genocidal product "ceramic uranium oxide gas" used by the US military in Bosnia, the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq—in other words, Central Asia. Why are they worried? In the world of "Big Media" what effect can a mere 19 articles have against the Tsunami of 971,000 page hits? Well, a lot, actually. Now Google the phrase Zyklon B That is the poison gas the Nazis used to kill millions of concentration camp victims during the Holocaust of World War II. WW II lasted from 1939 to 1945. You see, the United States Political Senior Class joyfully joined, 60 years later, the German Nazis of World War II in the decision to use genocide as an official government policy (OGP.) This was not done by mistake. No, these modern day butchers knew exactly what they were doing. What's genocide? Dictionary.com defines it as: The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group. Weaponized Ceramic Uranium Oxide Gas betrays the motives of its users in the US military and its advocates in politics, government and society. Just as surely as the Nazi's poisonous hydrogen cyanide gas does for an impartial war crimes investigator. Genocide is the kind of international crime that has a big downside, if knowledge of it gets out of a tightly controlled orbit of enthusiastic and dedicated cult-like supporters. Of course, the CIA can easily control the big media to manage the spin. It's pretty simple, they do so every day. William Colby, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, once stated "The CIA owns anybody of consequence in the national media." It is obvious on its face. Folks, the CIA cannot control you, though: Tell your neighbors about the US military's Kill Everything Uranium Weapons. It's known unofficially as the "Kill'em All Policy." also: "Waste Them," "Whack Them," and "Nuke 'em." Once set free in the political environment that is the kind of searing truth that burns out corruption: the infection, pus, and bloody raw wounds of a democracy turned fascist. Currently in the deepest, darkest, blackest part of the fascist theocratic government in the United States, the slavishly obedient US military sees little reason to revolt and say "No!" to the well-known genocidal policies of the senior politicians. Even though poisonous uranium gas sickens and kills their own troops, the officer corps goes along with it as necessary because the civilian political leadership wants it that way. It is also, as a practical matter, an efficient method for eliminating ailing vets that cost billions of dollars in budgetary appropriations for the Veterans Administration. They are just following the advice of US foreign policy guru Henry Kissinger. In 1973, in General Alexander Haig's presence, then National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger, referred pointedly to military men as "dumb, stupid animals to be used" as pawns for foreign policy.[10] Kissinger set the public stage for the war managers to sacrifice the gullible, but patriotic and "stupid," American troops to the use of weaponized uranium oxide gas. American General Norman Schwarzkopf from the First Gulf War stated they were not told anything about harmful uranium munitions. As seen in the overwhelming comparison of 971,000 articles to 19 articles, the "depleted uranium" metal the US military and government actively encourages the meek and submissive academic sector to study is most often called "mildly radioactive." The same metal in most of the rest of the world is "highly radioactive." The "big media's talking heads" simply do as they are told, read what they are handed and collect their millions in payola bribes; and, of course, they smile—a lot. In short, the lying big media have you and your family controlled perfectly. That makes the Professional Hairdo News Readers on your tube guilty of being accessories to genocide and accessories to mass murder. These media celebrities should utterly disgust everyday Americans, anywhere, anytime. Wait just a few minutes and everywhere in America, you will see their bright shiny faces on the boob tube. The men are strong, confident and well fed. The women look gaunt, anorexic and coping. In the ivy covered halls of academia, the US government has thousands of frightened scientists busy studying the wrong radioactive metal, on purpose. The War on Central Asia is a large well-organized industrial killing operation. God forbid the overeducated, worthless clowns should study the poison uranium gas that is actually crippling and killing our own troops on the ground in Iraq, and Iraqi men, women and children. Yes, you see: poisonous radioactive ceramic uranium oxide gas and dust is altogether different from the elemental uranium block of metal from which the more lethal version is derived. This metal [uranium] humbly makes itself available for the having, by anyone with the gumption to dig it out of the ground and "process" it one time. No big deal, eh? Your watch dial might even glow with a cousin metal. It has a pretty, soft glow, doesn't it? Guess what? Glowing watch dials have absolutely nothing to do with the lethal, crippling and killing radioactive uranium oxide gas used everywhere by Americans on battlefields in the last 15 years. And, that is the only place you will find this kind of uranium gas—in the air on battlefields. Killing is all it is good for. Killing for an eternity. The US military uses millions of pounds of the weaponized version of it promiscuously in Iraq and Central Asia by order of senior American politicians. That's a trick of the propagandists' art. See how easy you were to get off the track? Stay focused. These monsters are really good at diverting your attention. It's officially called "misdirection" in propaganda classes. The real subject is "ceramic uranium oxide gas" + battlefields. Remember! When you talk to your neighbors tell them that is what all the fuss is about. Guarantee you, when your neighbor Googles it, they are going to find one of the 19 articles. In this case, being right is not a consolation prize. It just means more threats and harassment for authors who dare to write and speak about its use as a war crime. Since 1943 American war planners have known "The amount necessary to cause death to a person inhaling the material is extremely small. It has been estimated that one millionth of a gram accumulating in a person's body would be fatal. There are no known methods of treatment for such a casualty." [9] This is from a Declassified document from the secretive Manhattan Project. I invite you to try an experiment. Spend a while contemplating the following two questions. Write to me with your conclusions. Send them to: bobnichols@cox.net 1. What kind of a person purposefully selects a genocidal weapon for use in Central Asia; then orders massive quantities of it used in battle. 2. What kind of person orders a government and military cover up of the resulting slow genocide? The only statements throughout history that speak to the very issue we all face in the world today are these few sentences from the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal at the end of World War II. "Individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience . . . therefore have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from occurring."—Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, 1950 Since the obliging and compliant Congress will not stand up to the president as they are supposed to, we have a serious problem in this country. I would not want any weak-minded souls to think I do not respect the processes of government created by the likes of Thomas Jefferson and his friends before 1776. Read all they wrote and said. The Nuremberg statement is now international law and by extension, U.S. law. It is now the duty of all loyal American citizens that the fascist government controlling the United States and the US military can no longer be allowed to exist; it must be replaced. The world, and international law, holds all Americans accountable, and the price to pay is dear. As you think about the "problem" we have in the United States I send you this greeting "Welcome to hell." The following sources were consulted for this article. Listen to the former director of the Pentagon's Depleted Uranium Project Dr Doug Rokke Ph.D., former Nuclear Weapons Lab Scientist Leuren Moret, former Army Sgt Dennis Kyne, human rights and war crimes lawyer Karen Parker, Canadian nuclear celebrity Susan Riordan, well-known nuke power plant investigator Russell Hoffman and Project Censored Award Winning Writer Bob Nichols discuss these thought provoking questions and more on the following recent World Wide Talk Radio Program: Depleted Uranium: Cause and Effect 4 Hour Special on The ?X? Zone Radio Show and TalkStar Radio Network 1. Nichols, "There Are No Words" 2. Nichols, "My God! My Country Is Using Poison Gas In Iraq" 3. Russell Hoffman, "Poison Fire, USA" 4. Moret, Depleted uranium: Dirty bombs, dirty missiles, dirty bullets 5. World Depleted Uranium Weapons Conference 6. International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan written opinion of Judge N. Bhagwat 7. Gsponer and Hurni, "Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: The Physical Principles Of Thermonuclear Explosives, Inertial Confinement Fusion, And The Quest For Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons" 8. Ingri Cassel "An Interview with Amy Worthington" 5–15–2005 9. Declassified documents, the Manhattan Project, 1943 Memo to Gen. Leslie Groves. 10. Kissinger's quote regarding military men comes from Chapter 14, which extensively discusses Al Haig, Kissinger and other Nixon staff advisors' negotiations and differences over national security issues during the 1969–1974 period. The exact, direct quote marks begin with the word 'dumb' and terminates after the word 'used'. SOURCE: Bob Woodward & Carl Bernstein, The Final Days, second Touchstone paperback edition (1994), Chapter 14, pp. 194–195. Copyright by Bob Nichols. Bob Nichols is a Project Censored Award Winner and lives in Oklahoma where 20 percent of the people cannot read. He is a contributor to Online Journal, AxisofLogic.com, DissidentVoice.com other online publications and the "San Francisco Bay View" newspaper. Nichols is a former employee of the McAlester Army Ammunition Plant. Nichols can be reached by email at bob.bobnichols@gmail.com. Email editor@onlinejournal.com -------- india India Looks To China, Not Just U.S. Chief of General Staff of the People's Liberation Army of China, General Liang Guanglie (L) met the Indian Defence Minister, Prajab Mukherjee before their official meeting in New Delhi, 25 May 2005. Guanglie was in India for a five day official visit. AFP Photo by Raveendran. by Martin Sieff UPI Senior News Analyst Washington (UPI) May 27, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/news/india-05t.html The warm and successful visit of China's top military officer to New Delhi last week has confirmed the lesson of the F-16s sale to Pakistan: India under its Congress government puts detente with China above partnership with America. India and China are going to increase their confidence-building measures across their border. Visiting Chinese army chief Gen. Liang Guanglie made the proposals in his meetings with Indian leaders and security chiefs Wednesday and they were believed to include an increase in military-to-military exchanges. "The defense minister shared his (Liang's) view that the two sides and armed forces must work to promote peace and tranquility on the border and promote stability and development in Asia," an Indian defense ministry spokesman said. On Thursday, the head of the Indian army announced that the armies of both giant nations were going to hold unprecedented joint counter-terrorism and peacekeeping training programs. Gen. Joginder Jaswant Singh said the plans had been discussed with Gen. Liang. He said that border tensions between the two countries had eased so much that young soldiers from both armies were already going on joint mountaineering expeditions, playing volleyball matches and even and sharing meals on their inaccessible Himalayan joint border area. "The momentum given by the leaders of our two countries is being enhanced further by the two militaries," Singh told reporters. "On the roadmap of military-to-military cooperation in the future (are) exercises where both countries could carry out together to counter terrorism or on UN missions," he said. Also on Wednesday, India offered to hold a second round of naval exercises with China off the Indian coast. Adm. Arun Prakash, chairman of India's Chiefs of Staff Committee and naval chief, made the offer to Gen. Liang who expressed his support for the idea, according to a Press Trust of India report. The two countries' navies held a joint exercise off the Shanghai coast in November 2003. Indian military observers were also invited to witness Chinese People's Liberation Army exercises in 2004. Liang further met Wednesday with Indian Defense Minister Pranab Mukherjee and expressed optimism on the progress of talks to solve the vexed boundary issue between the two countries. He also met with National Security Adviser M K Narayanan. Liang's six-day visit was the first by a Chinese armed forces chief of staff to India in seven years. It followed the April visit of Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao. India-China relations have been warming over the past two years since even before Congress shocked the world by unexpectedly and decisively routing the pro-American Hindu nationalist led government of former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and his Bharatiya Janata Party. The two countries had already signed cooperation documents during the visit to China of former Indian Army chief Gen. N.C. Vij in December, and they held joint naval exercises in November 2003. Beijing invited the Indian Army to observe military exercises in China last September. The warmth of Gen. Liang's visit contrasted with the fury of India's leaders in March when President George W. Bush revealed to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh that he had approved selling 70 nuclear-capable F-16 fighter-bombers to India's arch-enemy, neighboring Pakistan. The F-16s may well significantly shift the air balance of power in Pakistan's favor as they have far more advanced electronics than India's Russian supplied Sukhoi interceptors. The Indians also noted that the Bush administration has extended its current generous aid levels to Pakistan of $3 billion year until 2009, with no time cap at the end so that they can be indefinitely renewed. And the just-approved "9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act" includes a waiver on all remaining U.S. sanctions on Pakistan for the next two years. India's leaders are concerned that the new wave of U.S. largesse to Pakistan will embolden Pakistan's shrewd and tough President Pervez Musharraf and possibly encourage him to take a tougher, less conciliatory line toward New Delhi. However, ultimately, it is the Bush administration's cornucopia of financial support and state of the art weapons to Pakistan that is the main cause for the souring of the U.S.-India honeymoon. If senior U.S. officials wanted to reassure Singh's Congress-led government they were a different breed from the old Nixon and Reagan teams that dumped India to court Pakistan, they have signally failed to do so. Strategic engagement between the United States and India is still far from dead. Bush administration leaders remain enamored of the idea and India has a lot to gain from enjoying increased access to world leading U.S. military technology. In particular, New Delhi has welcomed U.S. ioffers to sell F-18s for its future expanded carrier fleet in the Indian Ocean as well as for its land-based air force. The F-18s would be a massive improvement on India's aging Russian-supplied interceptors, with their inferior electronic equipment and often-troublesome lack of sufficient spare parts. However, Gen. Liang's productive visit serves notice to Washington that the Congress government is determined to improve ties with China, not confront it. And far from joining the United States in some strategic alliance or understanding to surround and contain China, the current Indian government looks set to dramatically further upgrade ties with its northern neighbor, freeing China to concentrate its forces and strategic concerns on the possibility of eventually having to confront the United States over Taiwan. -------- iran Iran slams US nuclear policies at non-proliferation conference UNITED NATIONS (AFP) May 27, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050527212621.3u5sl3zo.html Iran blasted US nuclear policies on Friday, blaming Washington for the failure of a major UN non-proliferation conference and warning that American atomic weapons are a danger to the world. "The United States wished for this representative body to fail, so that it could pursue its own unilateral initiatives and priorities through other more exclusive bodies and groups," Iranian ambassador Javad Zarif told a closing session of the conference on the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Zarif placed the sole blame for the conference's failure to agree on measures to make the NPT more effective on the United States and accused Washington of sabotaging the event. "It's no wonder the United States tried to create smokescreens at this conference to deflect attention from its abysmal record," said Zarif. He also gave a harsh warning about the United States' current nuclear weapons capacity and its considering developing new small nuclear weapons. "The extremist attitude reflected in these ... practices seems to indicate that no lessons have been learned from the nightmare of Hiroshima and Nagasaki," said Zarif. "If history is any guide, nuclear weapons, ladies and gentlemen, are in the most dangerous hands," the Iranian ambassador said. ---- Iran, EU give themselves two months to find final accord on nuclear crisis VIENNA (AFP) May 27, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050527163136.c8g4p1tu.html The European Union this week pushed back by two months the deadline for a final deal with Iran on its nuclear programme, or a new battle if Tehran were to resume sensitive nuclear fuel work. Following a meeting in Geneva with Iran's chief negotiator Hassan Rowhani, the foreign ministers of Britain, France and Germany pledged to come up with proposals for a deal with Tehran by the end of July. The EU is expected to offer help with developing civilian nuclear power, as well as commercial and political ties, in exchange for respecting a deal struck last November to freeze its uranium enrichment programme. In the meanwhile Washington, which accuses the Islamic state of trying to develop nuclear arms, will watch the Iranians with an eagle's eye as will the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The United States has long wanted the IAEA to refer Tehran to the UN Security Council, a move than can lead to sanctions, and negotiators say the Europeans leaned strongly on this threat in Geneva. A diplomat said Iran's negotiators were left with no doubt that the EU-3 had started to draw up contingency plans on referring Iran to the council during the IAEA's next board meeting, if the talks failed. After weeks of brinkmanship Tehran backed down, for now, from its threat to resume its uranium conversion cycle. The process is a precursor to nuclear enrichment that lies at the heart of suspicions that Tehran is seeking atomic weapons. The Iranians have refused to portray the outcome as a climbdown. Rowhani on Friday said Iran will restart conversion work if top officials in Tehran did not find the EU proposals due in July, unacceptable. "We will restart (work at the) the Isfahan (uranium) conversion plant, and the fuel cycle is our (non-negotiable) red line." He added: "Since the European proposal was a new one and it is up to the regime's officials to make a decision, we brought it to Tehran. If not accepted we will begin enrichment in Isfahan." Rowhani also warned the Europeans that if "they want to drag out the negotiations, we will begin the enrichment in Isfahan." In Geneva, he had reiterated Tehran's official line that it was not seeking nuclear arms but had the right to pursue a civilian nuclear programme, and that this included enrichment work. The EU-3 said it was "satisfied" with the outcome. German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer sounded a note of warning, telling reporters: "We have our different positions and it is not easy to narrow them." But a Paris-based diplomat said what mattered for now, was that the dialogue with Tehran did not collapse and the November accord had survived. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Thursday welcomed Iran's decision to keep the suspension in place as a "very positive development." The Iran dossier will be under scrutiny again at the next meeting in mid-June of the IAEA's board of governors. While the fuel work suspension holds, the IAEA is likely to focus on other areas of concern on Iran's programme and demand information its inspectors claim Tehran so far failed to furnish, a diplomat here said. "The EU-Iran Geneva agreement will take the focus away from the suspension, and will put the focus on unresolved questions on Iran's nuclear program," he told AFP. "The IAEA wants to establish the history of the nuclear programme in Iran ... a country that has hidden nuclear activities for 17 years." One issue still troubling the UN nuclear watchdog is plans its inspectors found for a highly sophisticated P-2 nuclear centrifuge found in Iran. Tehran said it had not worked on the centrifuges for seven years, but said a diplomat: "The worry is that they are lying ... that they have been working secretly on more developed centrifuges." -------- korea N Korea looks to be on 'escalatory ladder': top defense official WASHINGTON (AFP) May 27, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050527155753.a7uhlwzg.html North Korea appears to be on an unpredictable "escalatory ladder" in its pursuit of nuclear weapons and US officials are concerned because it has made good on threats in the past, a senior US defense official said Friday. The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said there was no new information to suggest North Korea was preparing to test a nuclear weapon. He added that there could be a test but it was difficult to predict when that might happen. "The North Koreans appear to be on an escalatory ladder," he told reporters. "We can't predict when the timing or timeline of that ladder is. We can't predict what the events on that ladder will be. "But we're always concerned when they say things, because sometimes, or a lot of times, when they say they are going to do things, they actually do do them. And they have shown in the past a capacity to execute against the statement they have made," he said. "But again absolutely no suggestion that anything is about to happen or will happen," he said. North Korea in February declared itself to have nuclear weapons and has said it has unloaded 8,000 spent fuel rods from its nuclear reactor, a step that would allow it to reprocess weapons-grade plutonium for more nuclear bombs. North Korea, however, denied late Thursday it plans to carry out a nuclear test, according to South Korea's Yonhap news agency, which quoted North Korea's Central Television Station. Amid the heightened tensions, the Pentagon this week suspended MIA recovery missions in North Korea because of fears for the safety of US military teams working there. The air force announced it is sending 15 F-117 stealth fighters to South Korea for at least four months, along with 250 airmen. The air force said it was part of a continuing rotation of forces in the western Pacific. "This is a prudent measure to maintain a credible deterrent posture and presence in the region," said Major Linda Pepin, an air force spokeswoman. The defense official said the deployment was long planned and not in response to the current tensions. But he said the conditions played into the decision to suspend the MIA recovery missions, a nine-year-old program that has been interrupted only once before, in 2002, when North Korea first told a US diplomat it had nuclear weapons. "I think we sort of stood back and looked at it, and said we have 28 people on the ground. They are in incredibly remote locations. The only have the opportunity to go in and come out at six-week intervals. Is this really the type of situation that we want 28 Americans, military personnel that we're responsible for, to be in? It's as simple as that," he said. North Korea will be a top item on US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's agenda at an international security conference in Singapore June 4-5, the official said. But he said the conference, which brings together defense ministers from across Asia, was unlikely to be used as a venue to discuss common responses in the event North Korea does test a nuclear weapon. What to do if North Korea tests a nuclear weapon already is the subject of "constant discussion" between the United States, Japan, South Korea, China and Russia -- all participants in stalled six-party talks with North Korea, he said. ---- North Korea calls nuclear test reports a U.S. 'fabrication' 5/27/2005 1:03 AM http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-05-27-nkorea_x.htm SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — North Korea has denied reports that it might be preparing to test a nuclear weapon, calling them a U.S. "fabrication." U.S. officials said earlier this month that North Korea appeared to be digging tunnels and building a reviewing stand in the northeast and said these could be preparations for a nuclear test. At the time North Korea criticized the report, which was based on spy satellites, but did not deny it. "The U.S. leadership has recently ... come out with a fabrication that there are some kind of missile tests and signs of an underground nuclear test," the Korean Central Television Station, the North's only nationwide network, said late Thursday. KCTS said the United States continued to use "very bellicose, abusive language" toward North Korea. "Our army and people do not want a war or relations (with the United States) to worsen, but we also would not beg for dialogue and peace under any circumstances," KCTS said. The communist North has stepped up its anti-U.S. rhetoric in recent days, repeating claims that Washington is preparing to unseat leader Kim Jong Il and refusing to rule out a pre-emptive attack of its own. It's not unusual for the North to raise tensions before entering into negotiations in hopes of extracting aid and other concessions from the West. The World Food Program on Friday appealed for more food for North Korea, warning of a worsening food crisis. There has been a recent flurry of activity aimed at persuading Pyongyang to return to six-party nuclear talks, stalled since the third round ended last June. Two weeks ago, U.S. State Department officials went to North Korea's office at the United Nations, reportedly to reiterate assurances that Washington recognizes North Korea's sovereignty and has no plans to attack, and to urge resumption of the talks that involve the two Koreas, the United States, China, Japan and Russia. The two Koreas also held their first face-to-face talks in 10 months last week, with Seoul repeatedly bringing up the nuclear issue. Working-level talks were being held Friday on the makeup of a South Korean delegation that is to go to Pyongyang next month for the fifth anniversary of a historic summit accord. North Korea claimed in February to have nuclear weapons, and international experts believe it has enough plutonium to build about six bombs. It said two weeks ago that it had removed 8,000 fuel rods from a reactor, a move that could allow it to harvest more weapons-grade plutonium. A top State Department official predicted Thursday that North Korea's decision to remain isolated internationally will eventually lead to the collapse of its government. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill said North Korea has shown no interest in taking lessons from the successes neighboring China has enjoyed from its reform program. "It's a real problem," Hill said, alluding to North Korea's self-imposed isolation. "And it's a problem that will ultimately be their undoing." Hill expressed frustration with North Korea's seeming focus on "small issues," such as the occasional pejorative comments in Washington, when it should give top priority to resolving the "monumental" issue of nuclear weapons development. "We're talking about an issue that would profoundly affect the future of North Korea," he said. "Are they serious?" he asked. "I can't answer that right now." ---- U.S. Sends Mixed Messages In N. Korea Nuke Dispute By REUTERS May 27, 2005 Filed at 10:08 p.m. ET http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/politics/politics-korea-north-usa.html?pagewanted=print WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Amid increasing concern over North Korea's nuclear ambitions, the United States is sending mixed messages about its intentions, promoting negotiations while planning for ``other options'' if talks fail. Even as top officials have affirmed a commitment to dialogue, the Bush administration this week suspended a long-running and successful joint search with Pyongyang for missing American servicemen from the Korean War and deployed Stealth fighters to the region for training. It also forced out the executive director of a U.S.-led international consortium created to implement a nuclear energy deal with the North, underscoring plans to shut down the operation by year's end. ``If the United States wants to send a mixed message, then it certainly is,'' Wendy Sherman, a former U.S. envoy to North Korea in the Clinton administration, said in a telephone interview. Sherman, who just returned South Korea, said Washington must keep open all options, including military options, but the administration's approach was likely to leave Pyongyang ``very confused.'' Still, she sees a ``glimmer of hope'' that events over the next few weeks, including the June 10 visit to Washington of South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun, will revive six-nation talks. North Korea's nuclear activities will be a major issue when Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld attends a security conference in Singapore next week and meets with counterparts from Japan and South Korea, a senior Pentagon official said. Many experts, including administration sympathizers, fear the United States lacks a coherent strategy toward the North. Some say the administration is wracked by internal divisions over its approach. NUCLEAR CRISIS Retired Lt. Gen. Brent Scowcroft, who was national security adviser to President Bush's father, concluded in a Wall Street Journal article this week that Pyongyang ``has gained effective control and pacing'' of the nuclear crisis. For nearly a year, the North has boycotted six-nation talks hosted by China and aimed at persuading the isolated communist state to abandon nuclear arms-related activities that may have already produced more than eight weapons. Despite intense diplomatic efforts to salvage the talks, Pyongyang has continued to fan tensions, declaring itself a nuclear weapons state and making what U.S. officials said were apparent preparations for a weapons test. U.S. officials say they would consider ``other options'' if negotiations fail. But a senior official said on Thursday that the Pentagon was already preparing for the possibility the North has decided to abandon the talks. Against that backdrop, recent Pentagon initiatives seemed designed to reinforce an ominous message. The decision to suspend the search for remains of American troops killed during the 1950-53 Korean War was officially attributed to an atmosphere in North Korea dangerous to U.S. workers. But the senior Pentagon official acknowledged Pyongyang had taken no specific new action to warrant the suspension and said: ``We are prepared to return to the missions ... when the situation clarifies itself.'' The Pentagon has paid the cash-strapped North millions of dollars to conduct recovery efforts since 1996, often boasting how they continued even in tense times. Critics said the suspension had a political message. ``It will interpreted by the North as a step toward possible U.S. military action,'' one U.S. Senate critic said. Some experts said the deployment of about 15 radar-evading F-117 fighter jets to South Korea for joint training exercises would also reinforce a muscular U.S. message. ``They are there to emphasize security support for our allies in the region,'' an Air Force spokesman said. ``The normal rotation is about four months. But they could stay longer if necessary.'' ---- Pentagon Making Plans If N. Korea Abandons Talks By REUTERS May 27, 2005 Filed at 9:11 a.m. ET http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-korea-north-usa.html?pagewanted=print WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon said on Thursday it was preparing for the possibility that North Korea had decided to abandon six-party nuclear talks and a top official said diplomacy with Pyongyang would soon have to produce results. At a congressional hearing, Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill and Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Richard Lawless -- the Bush administration's senior Asia experts -- kept up the pressure on Pyongyang to return to the negotiating table and promised U.S. ``flexibility'' if it did. But they indicated American patience was wearing thin and the impasse could not go on forever. However, Washington is also aware that any other U.S. options for dealing with the growing nuclear problem are grim. Hill and other officials have repeatedly said the administration would consider ``other options,'' including military options, if the talks collapsed or if Pyongyang tested a nuclear weapon. For nearly a year, North Korea has boycotted China-hosted six-party talks aimed at persuading the isolated communist state to abandon nuclear weapons-related activities. Other states involved are South Korea, Japan and Russia. Despite an intense diplomatic effort to salvage the negotiations, including U.S.-North Korea talks in New York last week, Hill was not optimistic when he spoke to reporters after testifying before a U.S. House of Representatives International Relations subcommittee. ``We do not seem to have any positive response (from Pyongyang). They have not communicated anything to us in private. ... Even the press releases have not been terribly encouraging.'' At the hearing, Lawless said Pyongyang may have suspended participation in the talks to gain additional rewards. ``At the same time, we are preparing ourselves for the possibility the DPRK (Democratic Republic of Korea, the North's official name) has made a strategic decision to abandon the talks,'' he told lawmakers. U.S. officials said recently American intelligence had picked up signs Pyongyang might be preparing a nuclear test, but China disagreed with that assessment. A U.S. Senate advisory group last week predicted a nuclear test could still be averted but said China must agree to join the United States and other Asian nations in a quarantine of North Korea. Adding to tensions, the North in February declared itself to be a nuclear state and recently announced it had removed fuel rods from its Yongbyon nuclear reactor, a potential precursor to building additional bombs beyond the eight U.S. officials estimate already exist. Also, the Pentagon on Wednesday suspended a nine-year-old project inside North Korea to find remains of American troops killed during the 1950-53 Korean War, accusing Pyongyang of creating an atmosphere dangerous to U.S. workers. Reaffirming his warnings that unproductive diplomacy cannot go on indefinitely, Hill said: ``We have to start achieving results soon. I don't want to put a deadline but clearly this can't go on forever.'' Under congressional pressure to reconsider its insistence on only holding bilateral talks with the North within the six-party format, Hill agreed the United States ``cannot appear to be stubborn'' and must be ``results oriented.'' He promised if negotiations resume, ``we will be very flexible'' in the six-party process and he would be prepared to meet the North Koreans, as his predecessor had done. U.S. officials previously have had bilateral meetings with the North Koreans in the context of six-party negotiations but these sessions have been limited. -------- pacific New Zealand marches to its own beat May 27, 2005 By Janaki Kremmer THE WASHINGTON TIMES SYDNEY, Australia — In a region isolated by distance from the rest of the world but close to failing states like the Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea, New Zealand's reluctance to shoulder more of the defense burden in the South Pacific has been a source of irritation for Australia for more than two decades. "The fact that New Zealand never committed [itself] to the levels of defense spending required for keeping up a full range of hardware for all capabilities was what gave Australia so much tension," said Hugh White, professor of strategic studies at the Australian National University. "It had an army, navy and air force, but put no money into maintaining them," he said. And since New Zealand was evicted from the 1951 ANZUS (Australia, New Zealand, United States) treaty in 1986 for refusing to allow American nuclear-powered or nuclear-weapons-carrying ships in its waters, governments on the east side of the Tasman Sea have been moving steadily away from Australia because Canberra is closely allied to Washington. "New Zealand's anti-nuclear, pacifist stance has now become a part of its identity and what keeps it fiercely independent from the only superpower in the world," said Peter Cozens, executive director of the Center for Strategic Studies, an independent national think tank at Victoria University at Wellington, New Zealand's capital. But along the way, it was also denied access to U.S. intelligence and communications. F-16 lease canceled In 2000, New Zealand canceled a lease-to-buy deal for 28 American F-16 fighter jets because of budget constraints. It cut back its number of modern warships to two, and reduced its air force. These drastic moves toward further isolation dismayed its own generals and affected the morale of its armed forces. "It left the defense forces gasping for sustenance," said Mr. Cozens. "A lot of people have felt uncomfortable about these decisions in the past, and now, with the realization that the end of the Cold War has only opened a Pandora's box and created more trouble spots, its time, they feel, to contribute in the best way possible," he added. Army getting boost A country with under 4 million people — less than the population of Maryland — it has now decided to boost defense spending by (U.S.) $3.3 billion to be spent over the next 10 years, mainly to modernize equipment and add hundreds more ground troops. It currently spends the equivalent of $856 million per year on defense — less than 1 percent of its gross domestic product. By the end of the 10-year funding package, New Zealand will have increased its defense force operational baseline funding by 51 percent since the present government took office in 1999. "It's about recognizing that it's time to complete the job of reversing the decay of the 1990s," New Zealand Defense Minister Mark Burton told the Australian Broadcasting Corp. when the budget was announced early this month. "Not everyone doing a little bit of everything, but rather that we can make realistic contributions," Mr. Burton added. Doing what it can In other words, the New Zealand military will concentrate on where it can, and has in the past best contributed to peacekeeping, leaving the heavy lifting to Australia, which has five times as many people as New Zealand. "New Zealand has moved from trying to imitate Australia to imitating Fiji," said Mr. White. It stayed out of the U.S.-led war against Iraq — thus, to some extent, it believes, out of danger from becoming a focus of terrorism. New Zealand "does not believe that as a tiny, isolated, country it faces any severe threat from outside," Mr. White added. But what if it did face such a threat? Australia provides shield "The fact is that New Zealand has lost the capability to fight any substantial maritime threat and is of the view that anyone who tried to attack New Zealand would have do deal with Australian defense forces first," said Mr. White. Australia, which spends about. $13.34 billion on defense, has the advantages of possessing signaling and communications equipment from the United States, as well as fully equipped armed forces. So is Australia spending more than if New Zealand had paid its own way, militarily? "Not really," said Aldo Borgu, director of programs at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute in Canberra. "Australia has already taken a decision to be ready in case of attack, especially after 9/11, and any attack that was in the vicinity of New Zealand would be close enough to be [covered] in its plans of self-defense," said Mr. Borgu. Wellington sent troops Other observers taking a benign view of New Zealand's strategic role in the region say the government in Wellington has contributed peacekeeping troops to East Timor, Afghanistan, Papua New Guinea and other trouble spots, and will continue to do so long as there is a global mandate to do the job. "There are whispers that Australia is pleased with the increased spending, but they will naturally want more from us if possible," said Mr. Cozens. Mr. White believes a contribution to infantry is just what Australia needs in its overseas deployments. Its help is welcome "Australia has only six battalions, and that should in any case be increased to eight or nine, but if New Zealand helps to ease that pressure wherever possible, it's welcome," Mr. White said. Analysts believe that by redefining its "defense identity," New Zealand could well have found the way to repair the relationship with the United States, damaged in the 1980s. "New Zealand now does not need the latest American equipment, plus it offers troops in certain situations overseas if there a multilateral agreement, and that opens up the possibility of rebuilding something that was lost," Mr. White concluded. -------- russia Russia tests new cruise missile Moscow, Russia, May. 27, 2005 (UPI) http://www.washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050527-050429-4113r.htm http://www.spacewar.com/news/missiles-05zk.html The Russian Air Force has successfully conducted a test of the X-555 cruise missile. U.S. analysts Friday were commencing their study of the implications of the Russian announcement. The X-555 is the newest smart precision weapon utilizing the most modern technologies, Lt. Gen. Alexander Rakhmanov, deputy head of the weapons directorate of the Russian military forces, said according to an Interfax news agency report. "Our high-precision aircraft-based missile has been recently demonstrated. From a distance of 2,000 kilometers the missile hit the target as they say in the air force 'right in the window,'" Rakhmanov said. Rakhmanov said all of Russia's modern high-precision weapons technologies had been used to create the new missile. "This is a modernization of an old missile with use of all newest technologies," he said. The X-555 missile is a conventional modification of the nuclear-tipped X-55 that had been designed for strategic bomber aircraft like the Tupolev Tu-160 or the Tu-95. It has a range of more than 1,500 kilometers and uses first-generation cruise missile targeting, including a radar scanner and an onboard computer that compares the terrain with a digital map, making the missile independent from satellite-based navigation systems. ---- Russia to Get 2 Newly Equipped Nuclear Submarines in 2006 Created: 27.04.2005 MosNews http://www.mosnews.com/news/2005/04/27/nuclearsubs.shtml The Russian navy will get two newly equipped nuclear submarines in 2006. The Yuri Dolgoruky and Dmitry Donskoy submarines will be armed with new Bulava-M intercontinental ballistic missiles, Russia’s naval chief said. Commander-in-chief, Admiral Vladimir Kuroyedov, was quoted by Associated Press as saying the submarines should join the navy by the end of next year. The missiles have a range of 8,000 kilometers (5,000 miles) and are in the midst of a three-year testing program. Each submarine will be equipped with 12 missiles. In December, Putin encouraged the Defense Ministry to keep up production of new strategic missile systems, a process slowed in the past by a shortage of funds. Construction began on the Yuri Dolgoruky in 1996; the Dmitry Donskoy was built in 1982 and has been undergoing thorough modernization since 1989. Yuri Dolgoruky was a Russian prince of the 12th century, a possible founder of Moscow. Dmitry Donskoy, a Moscow prince, won a significant victory over the Tatars in the 14th century. -------- treaties UN Nuclear Treaty Review Ending in Failure, Japanese Envoy Says Friday, May 27, 2005 by Bloomberg News http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/headlines05/0527-07.htm NEW YORK/UNITED NATIONS - A United Nations review of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty is ending in failure today, according to a Japanese delegate who said there is no agreement on new steps toward disarmament or measures to block nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea. ``We lost an opportunity to send out important messages on issues such as North Korea, Iran and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty,'' Japanese envoy Mine Yoshiki told reporters at the UN. ``Some countries put the emphasis on nonproliferation, some on disarmament, and we could not get any agreement.'' None of the three committees created to deal with the issues of disarmament, proliferation, peaceful uses of nuclear energy and terms of withdrawal from the treaty presented a substantive report. Brazilian diplomat Sergio Duarte, president of the conference, began the last meeting by telling delegates there would be no comprehensive outcome document. The conference, a five-year review of the 1970 treaty, began on May 2 with Secretary-General Kofi Annan telling delegates that ``the consequences of failure are too great to aim for anything less'' than new measures to block proliferation of nuclear weapons and reduce the number of existing arms. Iran, North Korea The U.S. called for amendments to the treaty to block the development of nuclear weapons by Iran and North Korea, or a determination to refer those issues to the UN Security Council. Delegations led by Egypt and Iran demanded assurances of the nuclear powers that they wouldn't attack non-nuclear nations, and that they would ratify the proposed test ban treaty. Neither side compromised and the delegates didn't adopt an agenda until May 11 or refer key issues to committees until May 19, leaving too little time for agreements. ``This appears to be the most acute failure in the treaty's history,'' Thomas Graham, a U.S. envoy to disarmament talks under Democratic U.S. President Bill Clinton told reporters at the UN yesterday. ``It comes at a time when the treaty is under heavy pressure, weaker than it has ever been because of the Iranian and North Korean situations, and will have an effect on keeping the regime going.'' Diplomats put much of the blame on the U.S., saying the Republican Bush administration wasn't willing to reaffirm disarmament commitments made at previous conferences or allow discussion of a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East that would include destruction of Israel's undeclared arms. Israel, which has never acknowledged having nuclear weapons, has not ratified the treaty. Blaming the U.S. ``You need to compromise, show recognition for the key priorities of other states,'' Paul Meyer, head of Canada's delegation, said in an interview. ``The positions of the vast majority of states have to be acknowledged, but we did not get that kind of diplomacy from the U.S.'' Former U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, a Democrat, said in a news conference at the UN yesterday that U.S. nuclear policies were ``immoral, illegal, militarily unnecessary and destructive of the non-proliferation regime that has served us so well over the 40 years.'' Richard Grenell, spokesman for the U.S. mission to the UN, said Egypt and Iran sabotaged the conference by blocking agreement on an agenda until May 11. He said the U.S. wanted to use the ``precious'' remaining time to deal with the emerging problems of Iran and North Korea rather than discussing past disarmament commitments. U.S. Nuclear Deterrent ``This conference is as much about nonproliferation as it is disarmament,'' Grenell said. ``We have discussed disarmament, made commitments and are proud of our record. But a credible U.S. nuclear deterrent is an important statement that will always be there.'' North Korea, which has said it has nuclear weapons, withdrew from the treaty in 2003 and didn't attend the conference. U.S. officials met North Korean representatives at the UN on May 13, the first such meeting in six months, amid efforts to convince the communist country to restart talks aimed at dismantling its nuclear weapons that include the U.S., Japan, China, South Korea and Russia. Iran agreed last November to suspend its enrichment of uranium, a program the U.S. believes is meant to produce nuclear weapons, during talks with the U.K., Germany and France. Iran said after a May 25 meeting with European nations, known as the EU-3, that it would continue the suspension while they prepare a ``detailed proposal'' to end the crisis. ``At the same time the conference was arguing about procedures the EU countries were negotiating a continuation of Iran's enrichment moratorium, which shows that the most important nonproliferation work is being done in capitals and not at the UN,'' former U.S. State Department policy planner and Pentagon adviser Lee Feinstein, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, said in an interview. ---- Nuclear Arms Conference Collapses Without Deal By REUTERS May 27, 2005 Filed at 6:26 p.m. ET http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-nuclear-arms.html?pagewanted=print UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - After a month of bickering, the 188 signatories to the global pact against atomic weapons ended their conference on Friday with no agreement on new steps to combat the danger of a nuclear holocaust and many blamed the United States and Iran. The review of the nuclear 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty was characterized by divisive debates over North Korea, Iran's nuclear enrichment ambitions, Israel's presumed atomic arsenal and U.S. plans for new and improved atomic weapons. When the conference began on May 2, countries had hoped to agree on a plan to plug loopholes in the treaty that enable countries to acquire sensitive atomic technology and to hear from Washington and the four other NPT members with nuclear weapons that they remained committed to disarming. But it quickly descended into procedural bickering, led by the United States, Iran and Egypt, and ended after approving only a document that listed the agenda and participants. In a clear swipe at Washington, which angered developing countries by refusing to reaffirm previous pledges to scrap its own nuclear arsenal, Canada's chief delegate blasted countries that tossed aside earlier commitments. ``If governments simply ignore or discard commitments whenever they prove inconvenient, we will never be able to build an edifice of international cooperation and confidence in the security realm,'' Ambassador Paul Meyer, the head of Canada's delegation, said in a speech to the conference. The United States has denied undermining the conference. Privately, U.S. officials blamed Iran and Egypt, who they said hijacked the block of non-aligned nations in an attempt to focus criticism on the United States and Israel. NUCLEAR THREAT U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan regretted that nations missed a ``vital opportunity to strengthen our collective security against the many nuclear threats to which all states and all peoples are vulnerable.'' He warned that the inability to take action was ``bound to weaken the treaty and the broader-based regime over time,'' U.N. spokesman Stephan Dujarric said. The head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog, Mohamed ElBaradei, said he was not surprised there were no breakthroughs as the world is too divided on how to address the nuclear threat. ``The treaty is still there. It will continue to work, but it will continue to work with the same shortcomings,'' he told Reuters from Vienna. ``I think the best thing is to move forward and not to engage in recriminations over who is to blame.'' Nine countries possess 30,000 atomic weapons, nearly all of them in the United States and Russia. Dozens more nations could build a bomb if they wanted to.United States, Russia, Britain, China and France -- pledged to eventually scrap their deadly arsenals but have not done so. U.S. officials said that since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the most urgent issue was not disarmament but proliferation and the possibility that terrorists could obtain atomic weapons. ``Much has changed since we last met five years ago,'' Ambassador Jackie Sanders told the conference. In addition to North Korea withdrawing from the NPT and announcing it has nuclear weapons, Iran appears to want the bomb, she said. ``Iran's nuclear weapons program, previously shrouded in secrecy and deceit, has been exposed, as have Iran's violations of its (NPT) obligations,'' she said. Iran's U.N. ambassador, Javad Zarif, slammed the United States for not disarming as called for by the NPT and invoked memories of the 1945 U.S. atomic bombing of Japan. ``The extremist attitude reflected ... seems to indicate that no lessons have been learned from the nightmare of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If history is any guide, nuclear arms, ladies and gentlemen, are in the most dangerous hands,'' he said. ---- UN nuclear chief calls failure of non-proliferation conference "distressing" UNITED NATIONS (AFP) May 27, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050527202125.zlh0ycjf.html UN nuclear chief Mohamed ElBaradei said Friday that the failure of a UN non-proliferation conference in New York to agree on new measures to fight the spread of nuclear weapons was "distressing" and that world leaders must now focus on the issue. "The conference after a full month ended up where we started which is a system full of loopholes, ailing and not a roadmap to fix it," ElBaradei told AFP by phone from Vienna. The head of the watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency said it was distressing that there was "no readiness on the part of the players to come together and fix the system." ElBaradei said issues such as controlling more tightly the making of nuclear fuel that has peaceful but also weapons purposes and enforcing greater compliance with the safeguards of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty "need to be addressed at the highest policy level." "I would hope (a UN) summit meeeting in September which is going to discuss a report on globabl government should look at these (non-proliferation) issues," ElBaradei said. "We should draw a lesson from this conference" of the 188 treaty member states, which 150 states attended in New York from May 2 until Friday. ElBaradei said that "heads of state of government need to be directly engaged," pointing out that none of the nuclear powers that have signed the treaty -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- sent foreign ministers to the review conference in New York. "People thought they could fix things with business as usual" but non-proliferation problems "can only be resolved when top policy people in government focus on them," ElBaradei said. ---- Nations unable to agree on new steps against nuclear proliferation UNITED NATIONS (AFP) May 27, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050527175408.omscoe0x.html Despite growing concern about the spread of nuclear weapons in the era of the war on terror, a key UN conference has failed to agree on new steps to stem proliferation, the conference chairman said Friday. "I regret that the conference has not been able to reach consensus and unable to record any recommendations," Sergio Duarte of Brazil told a plenary session of representatives from 150 nations on the final day of the month-long review meeting of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The failure was all the more bitter as the two previous review conferences, in 1995 and 2000, had made great strides by making the 1970 treaty permanent and mandating 13 steps towards nuclear disarmament. But the United States resisted here being bound by disarmament promises while Iran pressed for acceptance of its right to peaceful nuclear technology and Egypt insisted on sanctioning Israel for not declaring its alleged atomic weapons and not joining the NPT. Duarte told reporters the conference had failed due to "the lack of convergence by the states parties on the best ways to achieve the purposes and objectives of the treaty." He said the divergences were so great that he would not even be able to make a final summary statement when the conference formally ended later Friday. Malaysian ambassador Rastam Mohd Isa, speaking for non-aligned nations, said: "It is now clear that divergent views among states parties on fundamental questions could not be bridged." The failure comes at a critical time in the fight against proliferation, with concern high about alleged nuclear weapons programs in North Korea and Iran as well as smuggling rings supplying terrorists with sensitive atomic technology and materials. North Korea has withdrawn from the treaty and says it has already made nuclear weapons, while EU states Britain, France and Germany are pursuing independent diplomacy to get Iran to guarantee it will not pursue development of atomic bombs. The United States pushed here for the treaty -- which for decades had kept the lid on the spread of nuclear weapons -- to be strengthened to crack down on "rogue" states which fail to comply with international nuclear safeguards. But non-aligned states refused to go along with this if progress was not made on disarmament and backed Iran's defense of its right to the peaceful use of nuclear technologies, even if Western states charge these could also be used to make atomic weapons, diplomats said. The so-called "core bargain" of the NPT, which has 188 member nations, is nuclear-armed states, such as the United States and Russia, agreeing to disarm while states without nuclear weapons pledge not to acquire them. "This conference is, in essence, a tremendous lost opportunity," Daryl Kimball of the Washington-based think tank Arms Control Association told reporters. A former US ambassador for disarmament, Thomas Graham, said this "comes at a delicate time, when the NPT regime is under pressure" and "weaker than it's ever been." Non-proliferation expert and former US official Robert Einhorn said by phone from Washington: "This particular conference was destined not to produce an outcome." But he said this did not mean the international non-proliferation effort was doomed to failure. "What happens in a conference like this is less important than what happens day to day in the real world," Einhorn said. Rick Grenell, the US spokesman at the United Nations, said the United States was "happy to talk about disarmament issues but didn't want to look just at the past." Grenell said the world needs "new tools," such as the US Proliferation Security Initiative, to deal with such things as "illicit arms sales," referring to acts of smuggling such as those attributed to the father of Pakistan's atom bomb, Abdul Qadeer Khan. However, non-proliferation expert Jon Wolfsthal of the Washington-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace think tank blamed US President George W. Bush's administration for failing to "make an effort" at the review conference. He said Washington had "treated past conference decisions as problems, as things to be walked away from," referring to disarmament agreements reached at previous NPT reviews in 1995 and 2000. The reviews are held every five years. Wolfsthal said the "Bush administration has an ideological opposition to any legal treaties that could possibly constrain any American freedom of action." But Grenell said the United States is "not giving up on the NPT. We have a crisis of compliance. We need to strengthen the NPT." ---- U.N. Nuke Conference Offers No New Action Friday May 27, 2005 11:16 PM By CHARLES J. HANLEY AP Special Correspondent http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NucNews/pending UNITED NATIONS (AP) - A monthlong conference to toughen global controls on nuclear arms ended Friday with nothing to show for its four weeks of divisive work. From Japan's ``extreme regret'' to Norway's ``profound disappointment,'' delegates expressed frustration that the failure to agree on an action plan for growing nuclear threats might weaken the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the pact that has helped keep a lid on doomsday weapons for 35 years. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan believes ``their inability to strengthen their collective efforts is bound to weaken the treaty,'' his spokesman said. Annan said world leaders should deal with the issues at a global summit scheduled here for September. The failure comes at a time of heightening nuclear tensions in the world. North Korea has pulled out of the treaty and says it is building atom bombs. Iran's uranium-enrichment program raises questions about possible weapons plans. Arab states view Israel's nuclear arsenal as increasingly provocative. The conference had futilely debated proposals to address all these issues. Many delegates also were disturbed over the Bush administration's talk of modernizing the U.S. nuclear force, and sought U.S. reaffirmation of commitments made to disarmament steps at the nonproliferation conferences of 1995 and 2000. In this meeting's final hours, the U.S.-led Western group of nations blocked any mention of those commitments in the conference's already-thin final report. The disagreements even kept conference President Sergio de Queiroz Duarte from issuing a statement endorsing nonproliferation principles. ``It would be very difficult for me in the face of so many divergencies,'' the Brazilian diplomat told reporters. Members of the 188-nation Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty convene only once every five years to assess the workings of the 1970 treaty and find ways to make it work better - political commitments that give a boost to nonproliferation initiatives. Under the nuclear pact, states without atomic arms pledged not to develop them, and five with the weapons - the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China - undertook to eventually eliminate their arsenals. The nonweapons states, meanwhile, were guaranteed access to peaceful nuclear technology. Citing that guarantee, Iran has obtained uranium-enrichment centrifuges, which can produce both fuel for nuclear power plants and material for bombs. The United States contends Iran plans to build weapons, but the Iranians say they're interested only in peaceful energy. Delegations here had promoted ideas, for example, for limiting access to such dual-use technology with bombmaking potential, along with proposals to strengthen inspection of nuclear facilities and to pressure nuclear-weapons states to shrink their arsenals more quickly. On withdrawal from the nonproliferation pact, which North Korea managed without consequence, some delegations supported plans to make the process more difficult and penalty-laden. But the dozens of proposals were stalled for more than two weeks while delegations squabbled over the agenda. Then, when debate finally started, it proved impossible to win consensus. Iran objected to any mention of it as a proliferation concern. Egypt balked at toughening treaty withdrawal, since it wants that option open as long as ex-enemy Israel has nuclear bombs. And the United States fought every reference to its 1995 and 2000 commitments. Those commitments included, for example, activating the nuclear test-ban treaty and negotiating a verifiable treaty to ban production of bomb materials - both steps the Bush administration opposes, but other weapons states support. In final speeches Friday, delegation after delegation, including the European Union representative, spoke of the importance of the 1995-2000 commitments. ``If we allow agreements at one conference to be rolled back at the next, we will undermine the very premise the multinational system is based upon,'' said South Africa's Abdul Minty. The lead U.S. delegate, Jackie Sanders, countered that the United States has a ``strong record on nuclear disarmament.'' She expressed only mild disappointment at the conference outcome, instead pointing to unilateral Bush administration initiatives to halt the spread of ultimate weapons, such as its efforts to intercept illicit nuclear trade. In an Associated Press interview from his Vienna headquarters, the U.N. nuclear agency head, Mohamed ElBaradei, said of the failed conference, ``It is vital that we pick up the pieces and look forward. We have a golden opportunity at the summit meeting in New York'' in September. As the conference closed, the U.N. spokesman's office said Annan ``challenges leaders to use that (summit) opportunity to make bold commitments and address the pressing challenges.'' ---- Future tense as nuclear treaty stalls By Paul Reynolds World Affairs correspondent, BBC News website 2005/05/27 19:56:36 GMT http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/4588423.stm The failure by a review conference to strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is no surprise given the competing interests and arguments. But it leaves the world even more uncertain as to how to stop the spread of nuclear weapons on the one hand and to reduce their numbers on the other. Two loopholes have not been closed. The first is that a member state can, under inspection, legally develop fuel enrichment technology to produce nuclear power. But that know-how can then be used to make a nuclear bomb and all the country concerned then has to do is to leave the treaty. The second loophole is that leaving the treaty is virtually cost-free. Two countries demonstrate what can happen. Iran wants to develop the fuel cycle technology and efforts are being made to stop it, given the mistrust that developed after it hid its programme for nearly 20 years. It insists despite this that its intentions are peaceful. North Korea has not only developed the expertise, it has left the treaty and has announced that it has built a bomb. Several in fact. US strategy The deadlock means that the US will concentrate even more on unilateral and multilateral measures outside the treaty to counter future threats. It was significant that the opening statement from the US delegate, Assistant Secretary for Arms Control Stephen Rademaker, laid heavy emphasis on such measures. We have also had success in designing new tools outside of the NPT that complement the treaty Assistant Secretary for Arms Control Stephen Rademaker "We have also had success in designing new tools outside of the NPT that complement the treaty," he said. Not long ago, the US put together the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), in which more than 60 countries agreed to monitor and if necessary to intervene against the illegal trade in nuclear materials. The threat is seen to come not only from North Korea and possibly Iran but also from clandestine groups like the AQ Khan network, named after the Pakistani nuclear scientist who sold his secrets around the world. Accusations are already flying as to who is most to blame for the conference's failure. The US is in the frame for some critics, who say it has turned its back on a commitment at the last review meeting to negotiate the elimination of nuclear weapons, has refused to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and is planning to develop so-called "mini-nukes" as bunker-busting bombs. The US and Russia are also accused of not reducing their strategic arsenals enough. Complacency The Americans blame others for complacency in the face of North Korea, which has openly proclaimed its development of nuclear weapons, and Iran, which hid its enrichment programme for nearly 20 years. They argue that some of the most significant successes have come independently of the treaty, notably when Libya gave up its nuclear programme under pressure and the Khan network was rolled up. As for working towards the elimination of nuclear weapons, the US says that thousands of warheads have gone since the Cold War and under its agreement with Russia, thousands more will soon be gone, leaving around 2,000 active warheads on each side. The conference got bogged down on the usual issue that bedevils any attempt to strengthen or reform the treaty - the tension between those who have nuclear weapons and those who do not. The basic deal in the treaty was that the haves would negotiate towards eliminating their weapons and the have-nots would not seek to acquire them, while being free to develop nuclear power for peaceful purposes. The have-nots have always argued that until the haves are serious about negotiating, then they should not be expected to agree on tightening up methods of control. Thus, Egypt complained about the "laxity" of the nuclear powers in negotiating reductions in arsenals and asked whether it would therefore be "logical or even feasible" to expect the others to negotiate additional controls. The NPT has been successful in stopping a flood of countries from becoming nuclear powers. The two loopholes will be the subjects of further discussion but given the failure at this conference, the hopes of a successful outcome cannot be very high. And the next review conference is not for another five years. ---- America's broken nuclear promises endanger us all Bush has done his utmost to frustrate talks on the non-proliferation treaty Robin Cook Friday May 27, 2005 The Guardian http://politics.guardian.co.uk/columnist/story/0,9321,1493568,00.html Not a day goes by without a member of team Bush lecturing us on the threat from weapons of mass destruction and assuring us of the absolute primacy they give to halting proliferation. How odd then that the review conference on the non-proliferation treaty will break up this evening, barring an 11th-hour miracle, with no agreed conclusions. And how strange that no delegation should have worked harder to frustrate agreement on what needs to be done than the representatives of George Bush. The tragedy is that, for all its faults, the non-proliferation treaty has hitherto been the best barrier put up by the international community against the spread of nuclear weapons. With the support of all but a handful of nations, the treaty provided a robust declaration that the development of nuclear weapons is taboo. That peer-group pressure has since resulted in more countries abandoning nuclear weapons than acquiring them. South Africa disowned and dismantled its nuclear weapons after the collapse of the apartheid regime. New states to emerge from the Soviet Union, such as Ukraine, renounced the nuclear systems they inherited on their territory. Argentina and Brazil dropped the nuclear capability they were developing after negotiating a non-nuclear pact between themselves. Even Iraq turned out to have abandoned its nuclear weapons programme, although in that particular case the success of the non-proliferation regime was more of an embarrassment to George Bush. Previous review conferences, which come round every five years, have been used as an important opportunity to regenerate support for the treaty. Not this time. The full weight of Washington diplomacy was focused on preventing any reference in the agenda to the commitments the Clinton administration gave to the last review conference. As a result, the first two weeks of negotiation were taken up with arguing over the agenda, leaving barely one week for substantive talks. Robert McNamara, the former US defence secretary and no peacenik, has observed that if the people of the world knew "they would not tolerate what's going on in the NPT conference". Observance of the non-proliferation treaty rested on a bargain between those states without nuclear weapons, who agreed to renounce any ambition to acquire them, and the nuclear-weapon powers, who undertook in return to proceed in good faith to disarmament. It suits the Bush administration now to present the purpose of the treaty as halting proliferation, but its original intention was the much broader ambition of a nuclear-weapon-free world. The acrimonious exchanges inside the present review conference reflect the frustration of the vast majority of states, who believe they have kept their side of the deal by not developing nuclear weapons but have seen no sign that the privileged elite with nuclear weapons have any intention of giving them up. It was to bridge the growing gulf between the two sides that the British delegation, led by Peter Hain, at the last review conference in 2000 helped broker agreement to 13 specific steps that the nuclear-weapon powers could take towards disarming themselves. Labour scores reasonably well against those benchmarks. Britain has taken out of service all non-strategic nuclear weapons and as a result has disarmed 70% of its total nuclear explosive power. It has also halted production of weapons-grade material and placed all fissile material not actually in warheads under international safeguards. This positive progress will be comprehensively reversed if Tony Blair does proceed as threatened to authorise construction of a new weapons system to replace Trident, but until then Britain has a good story to tell. Not that it gets heard in the negotiating chambers, where it is obscured by our close identification with the Bush administration and our willingness in the review conference to lobby for understanding of their position. Their position is simply stated: obligations under the non-proliferation treaty are mandatory on other nations and voluntary on the US. Even while the review conference was sitting, the White House asked Congress for funds to research a bunker-busting nuclear bomb, although to develop new nuclear weapons, especially ones designed not to deter but to wage war, is to travel in the opposite direction to the undertakings the US gave to the last review conference. The rationale for the bunker-buster is revealing. Its objective is to penetrate and destroy deeply buried arsenals of weapons of mass destruction. Perversely, the current regime in Washington does not perceive its development of nuclear weapons as an obstacle to multilateral agreement on proliferation but as the unilateral means of stopping proliferation. Whatever may be said for this muscular approach to proliferation, there is for sure no prospect of negotiating an agreed text with the rest of the world legitimating it. Any progress within the non-proliferation treaty is therefore likely to be on hold until George Bush is replaced by a president willing to return to multilateral diplomacy. This is worrying as there are other pressing problems that should not be left waiting. One of the design flaws of the treaty dates from its negotiation in the pre-Chernobyl era of rosy optimism about nuclear energy. As a result it turned on a deal in which the nuclear powers undertook to transfer peaceful nuclear know-how in return for other nations forswearing the military applications of nuclear technology. At the time many of us warned that it was inconsistent to enshrine the spread of nuclear energy in a treaty trying to halt the spread of nuclear weapons. It therefore is no surprise that we now have a crisis over the advanced nuclear ambitions of Iran. One of the weaknesses in the west's negotiating position is that there is nothing in the non-proliferation treaty to prohibit Iran from acquiring a declared nuclear energy programme, although it seems implausible that the country has any urgent need for one, as it practically floats on a lake of oil. The desirable solution is for an addition to the treaty banning countries without nuclear weapons from developing a closed fuel cycle for nuclear energy, which would stop them acquiring the fissile material for bombs. But this would deepen the present asymmetry between the nuclear powers and everyone else, and is only going to be negotiable if there is some evidence that we are serious about disarmament. If the review conference breaks up in failure to agree, I suspect there will be some in Washington celebrating tonight, perhaps not in anything as foreign as French champagne but in the Napa Valley imitation. Within their own narrow terms they will have succeeded. They will have stopped another multilateral agreement and will have escaped criticism for not fulfilling their commitments under the last one. But in the process they will have weakened the non-proliferation regime and made the world a more dangerous place. The next time they lecture us on their worries about weapons of mass destruction, they do not deserve to be taken seriously. r.cook@guardian.co.uk ---- Leaders split on nuclear treaty BBC May 27, 2005 http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/4586829.stm Nuclear chiefs have failed to agree new measures to stop weapons proliferation after a month of talks in New York. Delegates from 188 nations had been discussing ways to beef up the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which first came into force in 1970. The accord aims to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, achieve disarmament and promote nuclear energy. But even amid international concerns about nuclear activities in Iran and North Korea, no deal was struck. Politics and procedural wranglings dogged the planned review of the treaty from the start, the BBC's Jonathan Marcus reports from the UN headquarters in New York. He adds that it is hard to see the conference as anything other than a lost opportunity to bolster the NPT. 'Wasted weeks' "I regret that the conference has not reached consensus," conference chairman Brazilian Sergio Duarte told the delegates on the final day of the talks. GLOBAL NUCLEAR POWERS Signed the NPT : US, Russia, UK, France, China Declared or known : India, Pakistan, Israel Suspicions over : North Korea, Iran Formerly had programmes : Algeria, Argentina, Belarus, Brazil, Kazakhstan, Iraq, Libya, Romania, South Africa, Ukraine Three separate committees had been discussing the three key areas that the treaty covers - nuclear disarmament, safeguards on national nuclear programmes and the peaceful use of atomic energy. Arms control advocates say the US delegation came intent on focusing on the proliferation side of the equation and was totally unwilling to give any ground on US pledges to scrap its nuclear arsenal, our correspondent says. The delegates also wasted two weeks of the talks arguing on empty procedural wrangling, he says. In recent months the US and Iran in particular have been at loggerheads over Tehran's nuclear activities. Washington accuses Iran of using its nuclear energy programme as a cover for developing nuclear weapons - a charge Tehran denies. Global threat When the talks began in May, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan called on world leaders to reinforce their commitment to a treaty and for former Cold War rivals Russia and the US to reduce their current nuclear arsenals. Mr Annan warned then of the possibility of a nuclear catastrophe. "In our interconnected world, a threat to one is a threat to all, and we all share responsibility for each other's security," he said. "The plain fact is that the regime has not kept pace with the march of technology and globalisation, and developments of many kinds in recent years have placed it under great stress." ESTIMATED NUCLEAR WARHEADS, STRATEGIC AND TACTICAL *The US is also said to have some 3,000 warheads in reserve, while Russia has about 11,000 in non-operational stockpiles Israel declines to confirm it has nuclear weapons North Korea claims it has nuclear arms but no details are available Iran is accused by the US of ambitions to build nuclear arms ---- Key facts relating to NPT conference Reuters 27 May 2005 21:01:00 GMT Reuters http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N27328496.htm UNITED NATIONS, May 27 (Reuters) - A conference at the United Nations intended to take stock of the 1970 nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which was designed to halt the spread of nuclear weapons, ended on Friday with no agreement on how to strengthen the treaty. Following are some details associated with this issue: Member states: -- 188 states are members of the NPT including the five declared nuclear weapons states: the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia. -- Three states have not signed but are understood to have nuclear arms: India, Pakistan and Israel. -- One state, North Korea, signed the treaty and then withdrew in 2002. It recently announced it has nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons arsenals: -- U.N. experts estimate there are 30,000 weapons worldwide. -- Of this number, the United States is estimated to have 7,100 operational nuclear warheads with 3,000-5,000 more in its stockpile. -- Russia is thought to have 8,000 operational nuclear warheads and 8,000 stockpiled. -- China is said to have 402 nuclear weapons; France, 348; and Britain, 185. -- As for non-NPT members, India and Pakistan are said to have 40 operational warheads each, while Israel's arsenal is put at around 200. -- U.S. officials estimate North Korea may have produced enough nuclear fuel for nine weapons. Disarmament debate: Nuclear have-nots complain that nuclear states, especially the United States, are not moving fast enough toward NPT-mandated disarmament. Washington has mounted a vigorous defense, insisting it leads the world in efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear, chemical and biological arms in these ways: -- The United States has reduced its nuclear stockpile by more than 13,000 weapons since 1988, officials say. -- A U.S.-sponsored resolution, adopted by the U.N. Security Council, requires states to enact and enforce effective anti-proliferation measures. -- More than 60 states have joined the U.S.-launched Proliferation Security Initiative that encourages states to interdict shipments of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) on sea, land and in the air. -- Since 1991, the United States has spent more than $9 billion in cooperative projects to safeguard and eliminate WMD technology and facilities, including destroying 6,312 nuclear warheads, 537 intercontinental ballistic missiles and 27 nuclear submarines. -- The United States and Britain played leading roles in shutting down the nuclear black market headed by Pakistani Abdul Qadeer Khan and in persuading Libya to jettison its nuclear program. ---- UN Press Release 27/5/2005 27/5/2005 Press Release DC/2969 NPT Review Conference 21st & 22nd Meetings (AM & PM) REVIEW CONFERENCE FOR NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY CONCLUDES, WITH MANY STATES EXPRESSING DEEP DISAPPOINTMENT AT OUTCOME Despite Recent Challenges to Treaty Regime, Final Document Makes No Substantive Recommendations The States parties to the Treaty aimed at ending nuclear weapon proliferation closed their month-long Review Conference at UN Headquarters today, with several delegations expressing deep disappointment at the outcome -- adoption of what amounted to a series of procedural texts, while doing little to tighten control over the spread of nuclear arms. A number of speakers expressed frustration that States parties had been unable to achieve a consensual final document, especially in light of the recent challenges to the non-proliferation regime. Those included non-compliance, a first-ever Treaty withdrawal, the discovery of a clandestine nuclear weapons supply network, and a host of agreed nuclear disarmament steps gone unimplemented. Expressing profound disappointment, Norway's representative said that substantive deliberations had started "a lot too late", owing to the fact that some delegations had taken an "extraordinary interest" in procedural issues, which seriously undermined the entire Conference. At a time when the integrity of the global arms control regime was under severe stress, it was disturbing that the international community had been unable to address issues like non-compliance, defection from the Treaty, and terrorists' desire to obtain mass destruction weapons. Despite the "diplomatic euphemisms", said Chile's speaker, the Conference could only be described as a failure. Consensus existed in the room on almost all of the items under discussion, but there was too little time left for substantive debate. The positive political will of an overwhelming majority of delegations broke down in the face of the paralyzing application of the rule of consensus. The majority had been crushed by a "de facto" veto, which some had been prepared to use. "Perhaps we will remember and regret the missed opportunities to practice multilateralism", he said. Asserting that the Conference had let the pursuit of short-term, parochial interests override the collective long-term interest in sustaining the Treaty's authority and integrity, Canada's Ambassador said that the precious time that might have been devoted to exchanges on substance had been "squandered by procedural brinkmanship". The Conference had witnessed intransigency from more than one State on the pressing issues of the day, coupled with the hubris that demanded the priorities of the many be subordinate to the preferences of the few. It had been hampered by a lack of imagination and will to break with the status quo and adopt new ways of conducting business, he said. South Africa's speaker said that the Treaty's progress was not about tinkering with procedures, by mustering the necessary political will to build on previous undertakings and commitments. States must guard against reopening the debate on obligations and commitments, which might open the way for some to reinterpret, negate or withdraw from parts of the bargains struck. If agreements settled at one Conference were allowed to be rolled back at the next, the very premise on which the multilateral system was based would be undermined. He, therefore, called on the nuclear-weapon States to reaffirm their previous commitments to systematically and progressively eliminate their nuclear arsenals. Offering another view of the Conference's outcome, the United States' representative said that, while it had not reached consensus, it had broken new ground. The Conference had been the first to examine in detail indicators of non-compliance with article II, which concerned the obligation of non-nuclear-weapon States not to receive nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. It had explored the linkage of article IV, which concerned the right of Treaty parties to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, to the obligations contained in articles I, II, and III of the Treaty. (Those articles concern the obligation of non-nuclear-weapon States not to transfer or receive nuclear weapons, and to accept International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards for the exclusive purpose of verifying fulfilment of those obligations, with a view to preventing diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.) She noted that views were also exchanged on the steps that States parties, the IAEA, and the Security Council should consider to hold accountable those in non-compliance with their NPT obligations. Also, for the first time, the Conference discussed seriously how States parties, the IAEA, the Nuclear Suppliers Group, and the Security Council should address notifications of withdrawal. There had also been an important discussion of the grave challenges to security and to the non-proliferation regime posed by Iran's and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea's non-compliance with their non-proliferation and safeguards obligations. Iran's representative, however, said that the United States wanted the Conference to fail, so that it could pursue its own unilateral initiatives through other more exclusive bodies. That should not be allowed. States Parties needed to quickly get together in informal and formal discussions to reinvigorate the ways and means to achieve the Treaty's objectives. The three pillars of the Treaty were intertwined and needed to be followed without diminishing the significance and effectiveness of any one pillar against the others. Above all, members needed to ensure full universality of the Treaty without exception and reject any perception that nuclear weapons were a means of achieving individual and collective security. Conference President, Sérgio de Queiroz Duarte (Brazil) made brief closing remarks, in which he said that the last few weeks had strengthened his conviction that the Treaty enjoyed the full support of all its parties. Earlier today, in a Press Conference, he deemed it "hasty and superficial" to declare that the Conference had been a failure. Statements were also made by the representatives of Japan, Malaysia (on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement), Egypt, Brazil, New Zealand, Luxembourg (on behalf of the European Union), Switzerland, Turkey, Cuba, Algeria, Russian Federation, Republic of Korea, Australia, Spain, Sierra Leone, China, Indonesia, and Ukraine. Background The Review Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) met this morning to hear reports of its three Main Committees on negotiations under way since 12 May. Main Committee I dealt with issues of nuclear disarmament and security assurances. Main Committee II, safeguards and regional issues, including establishment of a nuclear weapon-free zone in the Middle East, and Main Committee III took up implementation of the Treaty's provisions related to the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Business of Closing Session Conference President, SÉRGIO DE QUEIROZ DUARTE (Brazil) said he had been advised by Conference Services that there would be no services available after 6 p.m. today. That was a general policy recently adopted by the United Nations. It meant that the Conference would not have interpretation, sound or security after 6:00 today. Delegations who wished to speak, either this morning or afternoon, should inscribe their names on a speaker's list before noon, although the list would remain open throughout the afternoon. States parties then accorded observer agency status to the European Commission, in a last request of the Conference for such status. IVAN T. PIPERKOV (Bulgaria) introduced the report of the Credentials Committee (document NPT/CONF.2005/CC/1). The Chairmen of Main Committees I, II and III presented their reports, respectively, as follows: SUDJADNAN PARNOHADININGRAT (Indonesia); LÁSZLÓ MOLNÁR (Hungary); and ELISABET BORSIIN-BONNIER (Sweden). In each case, the Chairmen informed the Treaty's States parties that no consensus had been achieved in the negotiations of the Main Committees, and thus, the reports were largely of a technical nature. The Conference then took note of the reports of the three Main Committees. Turning to the draft final document (document NPT/CONF.2005/DC/1), Chairman of the Drafting Committee, DORU ROMULUS COSTEA (Romania) presented an oral report. He said the Committee had held just one meeting, on 25 May, in which it considered and agreed to recommend to the Conference for adoption the draft final document. The Conference took note of the report of the Drafting Committee. It would adopt arrangements for meeting the costs of the Conference, once the addition of the European Commission, as observer, was calculated. Adoption of Draft Final Document The Conference then adopted the individual sections of the text. The text contains the following sections: introduction; organization of the Conference; officers of the three Main Committees, the Credentials Committee and the Drafting Committee; the agenda; officers of subsidiary bodies 1, 2, and 3, which had been established for the duration of the Conference under the three Main Committees; participants of the Conference; work of the Conference; documentation; and conclusions and recommendations of the Conference. The latter section, on recommendations, contained none of substance. The Conference President said he regretted that the Conference had been unable to achieve consensus in either the Main Committees or their subsidiary bodies and, thus, had been unable to record any recommendations in that section. As proposed by France's representative, and agreed by the Conference, adoption of the Final Document as a whole would be deferred until 3 p.m. today, once it was translated in all official languages. Statements of States Parties PAUL MEYER, Ambassador for Disarmament of Canada, recalled that, four weeks ago, at the beginning of the Review Conference, United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan had reminded all of the historical reality and the still present danger of a nuclear weapon explosion. He had recalled the great security benefits that the NPT had bestowed for more than 35 years, but warned against complacency in underlining the great stress the Treaty was currently under. "I fear that this Review Conference has not risen to the Secretary-General's call", Mr. Meyer said. He said that the Conference had let the pursuit of short-term, parochial interests override the collective long-term interest in sustaining the Treaty's authority and integrity. It had seen precious time that might have been devoted to exchanges on substance and the development of common ground "squandered by procedural brinkmanship". It had witnessed intransigency from more than one State on the pressing issues of the day, coupled with the hubris that demanded the priorities of the many be subordinate to the preferences of the few. The community had been weakened by the refusal of the delinquent to be held to account by its peers and by the defection from that community of a State, without suffering any sanction. The Conference had been hampered, frankly, by a lack of imagination and will to break with the status quo and adopt new ways of conducting business, he said. Despite the scenes those rooms had witnessed over the month, the Review Conference must not be reduced to a theatre where the parties played at nuclear non-proliferation or disarmament. He said that, if there was a silver lining in the otherwise dark cloud of this Review Conference, it lay in the hope that leaders and citizens would be so concerned by its failure that they mobilized behind prompt remedial action. In that regard, it was important to realize that what happened here reflected a larger reality. The world was confronting many of the same disarmament and non-proliferation challenges in other forums as well. If the Treaty's authority was to be sustained, it was essential to tackle, on an urgent basis, some of those core challenges and resolve them in ways that generated real-world benefits for States and their citizens. To begin with, States parties must demonstrate support for, and implementation of, political commitments undertaken as part of the Treaty's process, he said. To deny or denigrate the agreements of the past was to undermine all the political commitments made in the Treaty's implementation and to cast doubt on the credibility of engagements entered into by governments. If governments simply ignored or discarded commitments whenever they proved inconvenient, it would never be possible to build an edifice of international cooperation and confidence in the security realm. In the field of nuclear disarmament, he said, his country believed that the reactivation of multilateral activity was a key priority. The impasse at the Conference on Disarmament must be overcome "in short order", so that crucial NPT-related issues, such as the proposed fissile material cut-off treaty, could be advanced. If that proved impossible, delegations needed to consider taking forward some of their work through other multilateral institutions. The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty's (CTBT) entry into force, the top priority of successive Review Conferences, could not be denied to the international community indefinitely. He would consult with concerned States in preparation for September's "entry-into-force" conference to ensure that that powerful instrument to counter horizontal and vertical proliferation was fully activated. He said that, in the realm of nuclear non-proliferation, Canada would consistently promote adoption of the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) comprehensive safeguards agreement and the Additional Protocol. It would lend practical support to strengthening national export controls, especially on proliferation-sensitive technologies, and to international cooperation on ensuring their effectiveness. That would yield an environment conducive to encouraging legitimate nuclear trade among States and putting an end to clandestine supply networks. He would support the development of new multilateral nuclear fuel cycle initiatives that addressed non-proliferation concerns, while reinforcing the benefits to all States of the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Canada would endeavour to work with like-minded partners from all regions to come to grips with and overcome the real-world problems and crises confronting the NPT, he said. Hopefully, the other States parties would be similarly motivated by the disappointed showing of this Conference and would join in a collective effort to ensure that it could continue to avoid the apocalyptic fate that the Secretary-General reminded parties was ever latent in the nuclear threat. He said that the Treaty was worth fighting for, and he was not prepared to stand idly by, while its crucial supports were undermined. Towards that goal, the health and implementation of the Treaty deserved to be the focus of an authoritative meeting for at least one week each year, empowering States parties to discuss and decide on matters more frequently than allowed by the current five-year cycle. The issues that divided parties here should be addressed by the respective political leaders. One opportunity was the upcoming United Nations September summit. It was important to recognize the existence of the disarmament and non-proliferation problems and work harder to produce the necessary political will. "Rather than looking back on where we have fallen short, we must look ahead to what we can and must accomplish", he said. YOSHIKI MINE (Japan) said it was extremely regrettable that the Conference had been unable to adopt a final consensus document. States Parties to the Treaty should take the undesirable result seriously and renew their determination to explore ways to maintain and strengthen the credibility and authority of the NPT regime. He was not implying, however, that the Conference had not brought about anything fruitful. High-level delegates from many States parties had gathered in New York, seriously exchanging views to address the challenges that the NPT regime was facing today. Many States Parties had taken the view that the Democratic Republic of Korea's nuclear issue was a serious threat to international community as a whole. The validity of the NPT regime, therefore, had not decreased. The NPT regime, now more than ever, was of immense importance to international peace and security. In light of the serious challenges facing the international community, further universalizing and reinforcing the Treaty was imperative and a benefit to all States. Each State Party should redouble its efforts to strengthen the NPT regimes, so that the lack of an agreed document would not erode the Treaty's authority and credibility, he said. The period leading up to the next Review Conference was crucial. All States Parties should fulfil their obligations under the Treaty in good faith, thereby reinforcing the NPT regime. For its part, Japan would intensify its efforts towards that end and would take, among other things, several measures leading up the next Regime Conference. The Democratic Republic of Korea's nuclear issue posed a serious threat to the Treaty regime's authority and credibility. Japan called on the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to completely dismantle all of its nuclear programmes including its uranium enrichment programmes, in a permanent, thorough and transparent manner subject to credible international verification. Japan would continue to work with other partners to peacefully resolve the issue through the six-party talks. Iran's nuclear issue was no doubt a matter of concern for the international community, he added. Japan considered it extremely important that Iran, through its negotiations with the EU3/EU, agree to provide sufficient "objective guarantees" that its nuclear programme was exclusively for peaceful purposes. Japan would continue to work intensively, on a collective and individual basis, for the common goal -- the total elimination of nuclear weapons. To that end, Japan would continue to submit to the General Assembly a draft resolution, which identified practical and implemental steps for the total elimination of nuclear weapons. Japan would also make utmost efforts for the early entry into force of the CTBT and the immediate commencement of negotiations on the fissile material cut-off treaty. Japan attached importance to strengthening of IAEA safeguards, particularly by promoting the universalization of the IAEA Additional Protocol, and the strengthening of export controls. The Asian Senior-Level Talks on Non-Proliferation, ASTOP, had contributed to the strengthening of the non-proliferation regime in Asia, and Japan would continue such efforts. Japan would continue to promote disarmament and non-proliferation education to gain the understanding and support of young people, as well as civil society as a whole, he said. Japan would make collaborative efforts to effectively prevent nuclear terrorism by promoting full implementation of Security Council resolution 1540, by working towards strengthening the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material by amendment, and by bringing into effect the Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. As for the 1995 resolution on the Middle East, Japan would actively engage in dialogue and cooperation with the countries in the region in order to promote its implementation. In that regard, Japan would work toward further universalization of the NPT. Japan, again, called upon India, Pakistan and Israel to accede to the NPT as non-nuclear States promptly and without conditions. He hoped that as many countries as possible would join the endeavour, thereby overcoming difference for the sake of the greater common goal of achieving a peaceful and safe world free from nuclear weapons. RASTAM MOHD ISA (Malaysia), on behalf of the non-aligned movement (NAM), said that the movement had come to the Conference with a great sense of hope, although it had been fully aware of the uncertainty. It had been hopeful, however, that the Conference could reach consensus on outstanding procedural aspects emanating from the preparatory process. It had also been hopeful that the Conference could reach consensus on the outstanding issues of the Treaty's three pillars. Today, it had become obvious that questions would continue to be raised about the NPT's future. Those notwithstanding, the Non-Aligned Movement remained committed to the Treaty, which was a cornerstone in the global disarmament framework. He said that throughout the Conference, the Movement parties had acted in good faith and remained constructive and flexible. They had also been consistent in defending and advancing its long-established principles positions on all of the issues. It had maintained that nuclear disarmament, non-proliferation and the peaceful use of nuclear technology should be approached in a balanced manner, and he reiterated that position today. It had also held the importance of full and non-selective implementation of the Treaty. Lack of balance on implementation of its provisions threatened to unravel the NPT regime. It was also necessary to universalize the treaty. And, he believed in the indispensable need to preserve the decisions and resolutions of the 1995 Review and Extension Conference and the Final Document of the 2000 Review Conference. Those were the fundamental and principled positions, on which the NAM had remained steadfast since the NPT's entry into force 35 years ago. The Movement's States parties had sought to defend and advance their concerns at the review and had formally presented their views in a comprehensive manner on various questions, which were contained in their five working papers and reiterated in statements delivered by his delegation, on the Movement's behalf. The movement had worked very hard in advancing and defending its positions and concerns, just as others had. It had made concessions, compromises and it had continued to work towards consensus, consistent with its concerns and positions. It had reaffirmed its commitment to implement, in good faith, its Treaty obligations, as well as the consensual agreements of 1995 and 2000. The outcomes of those Conferences must be preserved and defended. He said he had also expected other States parties to implement their obligations, in good faith. Regrettably, efforts to secure a consensus outcome text had not produced the desired result. Clearly, divergent views on fundamental questions had been the cause. Hopefully, the Movement's views would provide others, particularly the nuclear-weapon States, with a better appreciation of where the non-nuclear-weapon States stood. He continued to have faith in the NPT regime and its review process, through the Conferences. In looking ahead, States parties should begin thinking about what needed to be done before the 2010 review. AHMED FATHALLAH, Assistant Foreign Minister for Multilateral Relations of Egypt, stressed that it was truly regrettable that the Review Conference had been unable to achieve an agreed outcome that reflected a commitment of States parties to strengthening the Treaty's objectives, as it represented the cornerstone of the global non-proliferation regime and the essential foundation for nuclear disarmament. To help achieve consensus during the Conference, Egypt had stressed at the outset the need to adopt an agenda that would constitute a road map, and, consequently, contribute to ensuring that the Conference encompassed all the issues with which it was seized in a fair, balanced and impartial manner. The accurate and balanced implementation of Treaty provisions required a proper balance of the implementation of its three pillars, as well as equality in the fulfilment of obligations and rights of States Parties to the treaty. In that connection, he had emphasized the importance of full and non-selective implementation of the Treaty in nuclear disarmament, non-proliferation and the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Subsequently, Egypt had called on the Conference to engage in a just, impartial yet comprehensive review of the Treaty's operation and implementation, reiterating that the guiding principles leading its work consist of several elements, including review of the fulfilment of State parties under the Treaty and their efforts to achieve its objectives and the review of the implementation of the decisions and resolutions adopted by previous conferences, particularly the 1995 and 2000 Review Conferences. It was incumbent on States Parties to follow upon the implementation of resolutions and decisions and to find ways and means for implementation in the case of non-implementation. Adopting a decision was not an aim in itself -- implementation was the highest priority. The 2000 Conference had followed that path by taking the necessary steps to follow up on decisions and resolutions adopted by States Parties at the 1995 Review Conference. Such a Review Conference would effectively provide for the examination of new developments related directly to the Treaty's provisions. Egypt was confident that what had happened had been a useful experience for States Parties. The Conference's future work should be guided by an objective approach that would pave the way towards success. Mr. PARANHOS (Brazil) said he shared with many others a "deep sense of frustration". He would have undoubtedly preferred a different result for the Review Conference -- one that would have reaffirmed the commitments agreed in previous Conferences and which would have sent a strong message in underlining the centrality of the Treaty and the States parties determination to work towards its balanced implementation. "Unfortunately, we collectively missed a precious opportunity", he said. Lack of political will, combined with inflexibility and selective approached, contributed to the outcome. The absence of significant results called for a thorough reflection about the collective responsibility to uphold the NPT regime. States parties must continue to reaffirm the Treaty's validity. Only a vigorous multilateralism could enable them to deal, in a sustainable manner, with questions related to international peace and security. TIM CAUGHLEY (New Zealand) said the disappointment in the hall that the Conference had been beset by issues of the status of agreed outcomes was palpable. That rules of procedure were not being harnessed also required urgent attention. He was frustrated that no practical means of addressing profound proliferation concerns had been developed during the conference. He was also frustrated that efforts to build on steps taken had also reaped limited returns and he would have wished to have more to show regarding the big concerns of treaty withdrawal. The outcome of the Review Conference needed to be viewed in the broader context of malaise in multilateral disarmament diplomacy, he added. The Treaty would be undermined unless current circumstances were rectified. Civil society must be afforded a greater role in that regard. The outcome of the Conference should serve as an urgent wake-up call. States Parties must be challenged to re-energize efforts to get down to work in the Conference. The lost opportunity that the Conference's outcome represented stemmed from broader circumstances for which the international community must take responsibility. Mr. KAYSER (Luxembourg), on behalf of the European Union, noted, that despite the efforts of the Conference President and the Union, and other States parties, the Conference had been unable to produce a consensus document on substantive questions. The Union had contributed actively to the efforts, with a view to adoption of a consensus text. The common position adopted by its foreign ministers in advance of the Conference had sought a structured and balanced review of the functioning of the NPT at the Review, including implementation of the commitments assumed by States parties in 1995 and 2000 and identification of areas and ways of seeking additional progress. The Union remained convinced that its common position was a document of substance on which consensus could have been established. On that basis, he said that the Union's States parties had not only made proposals for language in the three Main Committee, but had also presented working papers on question of Treaty withdrawal and the world partnership for the reduction of the nuclear threat through cooperation. For the Union, the Treaty's importance lay in its three pillars: nuclear non-proliferation; nuclear disarmament; and the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Other vital concerns were questions concerning Iran, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, South Asia and other regional issues, including in the Middle East. Establishment of a nuclear weapon-free zone in the Middle East, withdrawal, security assurances and the Treaty's universalization required great attention. Thus, he said, the Union had been disappointed that several States parties had prevented substantive proposals of the Main Committees II and III and their subsidiary bodies from receiving the same treatment as the working papers of Main Committee I, although they had the same status as non-agreed papers. That had been particularly regrettable because, as a result, the balance between the Treaty's three pillars was no longer properly reflected in the Conference documents. Throughout the Conference, the Union had displayed flexibility and had made a constructive contribution to all formal and informal discussions. He strongly regretted that that approach had not been more broadly shared, as that would have made it possible to resolve procedural questions more rapidly, leaving more time to produce substantive results. Nevertheless, an in-depth and comprehensive general debate had taken place, as had substantive work in the three Main Committees, on the basis of the submission of many documents. JURG STRENLI (Switzerland) said the stubborn defence of national interests had prevented the Review Conference from focusing on the interests of all. The dangers, as a result of the non-fulfilment of obligations under the Non-Proliferation-Treaty regime, were a threat to all. Slow progress in achieving disarmament was a risk factor not only for non-nuclear-weapon States, but also for the nuclear-weapon States. Nuclear proliferation not only affected the most ardent critics, but also constituted a global menace and weakened efforts towards multilateralism. Proliferation also thwarted efforts towards the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Only an approach that took into the security interests of all would make it possible for the Treaty to move forward, he said. Switzerland hoped that the Conference's failure would provide an impetus for overcoming national views and allowing States parties to agree on the challenges facing the Conference at the global level. The upcoming negotiations for the Conference on Disarmament would constitute a first step in that direction. Mr. PAULSEN (Norway) regretted that the Conference President's tireless and patient efforts had failed. He was profoundly disappointed. At a time when the integrity of the global arms control regime was under severe stress, it was indeed disturbing that the international community had been unable to address issues like non-compliance, defection from the NPT, and terrorists' desire to obtain mass destruction weapons. He also regretted that the substantive deliberations had started "a lot too late" to allow for real negotiations on a final declaration. That had been due to the fact that some delegations had taken an "extraordinary interest" in procedural issues, which seriously delayed, and in effect, undermined, the entire Conference. His Government remained a strong advocate for multilateralism. The Conference's failure should not discourage everyone from revisiting the serious issues it was supposed to have dealt with here in the last four weeks. The next opportunity would be at the September summit. JACKIE W. SANDERS (United States) said that much had changed since the States parties last gathered here, in 2000. North Korea, following numerous violations of its legal obligations, under the Agreed Framework, its IAEA safeguards agreements, and the NPT itself, summarily withdrew from the NPT and declared itself a nuclear-weapon State. Iran's nuclear weapons programme, previously shrouded in secrecy and deceit, had been exposed, as had Iran's violations of its IAEA obligations. Libya had pursued a clandestine nuclear programme, in violation of the NPT, until making the strategic decision in 2003 to give up its weapons ambitions. She said that lurking behind those violators was the A.Q. Khan network -- selling, buying and transferring nuclear technology around the world for profit. While that illicit network had been shut down, the North Korean and Iranian programmes continued and other sources of supply remained open for business in that deadly trade. The world was also confronting today's pre-eminent security challenges of weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of terrorists, "who will not be deterred from using them against us", she warned. The NPT had given rise to a robust non-proliferation regime, which was far-reaching in scope and addressed the proliferation of all mass destruction weapons, their delivery systems and related materials, she said. Hopefully, the talks of the past four weeks would continue in other forums and make a lasting impression on the global non-proliferation regime. The United States was pursuing a robust and comprehensive approach to counter the threat of mass destruction weapons falling into the hands of the world's most dangerous regimes or terrorists. In response to the need to build new barriers to the acquisition of "WMD" materials, technologies and expertise, President Bush announced in May 2003 the Proliferation Security Initiative to deter or impede proliferators by interdicting specific "WMD" shipments en route. On the eve of the Initiative's second anniversary, more than 60 countries had indicated their support, which was growing. The United States was also fully committed to the implementation of the Security Council resolution 1540 (2004), which reflected the steady progress of national and international efforts to address the challenges of "WMD" terrorism, she said. States that had not yet done so should take seriously the requirement to submit comprehensive reports to the "1540" Committee on their efforts to comply with the resolution's operative elements. "We must remain determined in the face of proliferators' efforts to sell of acquire the world's most dangerous weapons", and resolution 1540 is one of the key non-proliferation tools in that effort. Iran's single-mined pursuit of uranium enrichment capability, which was intended to underpin a nuclear weapons programme, raised a key question for NPT States parties. The fact that "ENR" -- for enrichment and reprocessing equipment and technology -- provided access to weapons-usable nuclear material meant that the unnecessary proliferation of such facilities clearly added to the danger of weapons proliferation. That danger motivated President Bush to propose, in February 2004, that States close the so-called "loophole" in the NPT, namely that a State could pursue "ENR" capacity ostensibly for peaceful purposes, while cynically planning all along to use that capacity to manufacture material for nuclear weapons. He also recognized the importance of pursuing peaceful nuclear power and States having reliable access at reasonable cost to fuel for civilian reactors, as long as those States renounced enrichment and reprocessing. She said that, in undertaking to reinforce the global nuclear non-proliferation regime, the United States had also called for universal adherence to the IAEA Additional Protocol and for recognition of that instrument as the new enhanced standard for nuclear safeguards and a criterion for nuclear supply. The Agency should establish a special committee of the Board of Governors to focus intensively on safeguards and prepare a comprehensive plan for strengthened safeguards and verification. Hopefully, the upcoming June IAEA Board of Governors meeting would agree to establish that special committee. The benefits of peaceful nuclear cooperation were important elements of the NPT, as acknowledged in article IV, she said. Through substantial funding and technical cooperation, the United States fully supported peaceful nuclear development in many States, bilaterally and through the IAEA. However, peaceful nuclear programmes pursued by NPT parties must conform to their relevant obligations under articles I, II and III. Clearly, any right to receive benefits under article IV was also conditioned upon the fulfilment of the Treaty's non-proliferation obligations. She said that, while the Review Conference did not reach consensus, it did "break new ground". The Conference had been the first to examine in detail indicators of non-compliance with article II. It had explored article IV's linkage of the exercise of the right to peaceful uses of nuclear energy to the obligations contained in articles I, II, and III of the Treaty. Views were exchanged on the steps that States parties, the IAEA, and the Security Council should consider to hold accountable those in non-compliance with their NPT obligations. Also, for the first time, the Conference discussed seriously how States parties, the IAEA, the Nuclear Suppliers Group, and the Security Council should address notifications of withdrawal. Notwithstanding the inability of the relevant Main Committees to report specific recommendations in those areas, there was a serious consideration of, and often broad agreement on, steps to strengthen the Treaty's implementation. There had been important discussion of the grave challenges to security and to the non-proliferation regime posed by Iran's and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea's non-compliance with their non-proliferation and safeguards obligations. Unfortunately, efforts to bring that discussion forward had been blocked, but the record of the discussion remained. The United States and many others had voiced their support for the efforts of the United Kingdom, France and Germany, with the European Union's support, to reach a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear problem. Given the history of clandestine nuclear weapons work in Iran, that must include the permanent cessation of Iran's enrichment-related and reprocessing efforts, as well as the dismantling of related equipment and facilities. Likewise, she continued, parties supported the six-party talks and efforts to convince Pyongyang that its only viable option was to make the strategic commitment to abandon its nuclear weapons ambitions. She reiterated that the United States had tabled a proposal in those talks that addressed the North's stated concerns and also provided for the complete, verifiable, and irreversible dismantling of North Korean nuclear programmes. Concerning article VI, she said that the Conference had not neglected that important topic. Her country had welcomed the opportunity, over the past four weeks, to make clear its abiding commitment to fulfil its obligations under article VI and its strong record on nuclear disarmament. The United States had reduced the role of nuclear weapons in its deterrence strategy, and it was cutting its nuclear stockpile almost in half, to the lowest level in decades. The Conference might not have succeeded in reaching consensus, but it did discuss those challenges and began the process of addressing them. Building political consensus took time, and that process remained far from complete today. She was convinced, however, that the parties to the NPT had taken important steps here, which needed to continue. The United States would cooperate with all parties committed to strengthening the Treaty and the nuclear non-proliferation regime. Mr. MERIC (Turkey) said it was a source of great disappointment that the Conference had been unable to produce a substantial outcome and had missed the opportunity to restore the Treaty's relevance to current world realities. He hoped the experience in the last month would not be a precedent for upcoming review conferences and their preparatory meetings. The NPT was an irreplaceable multilateral instrument, which continued to play a vital role. States Parties must continue to exert every effort to protect the credibility of the NPT regime. His Government would spare no effort in that regard. YURI ARIEL GALA LOPEZ (Cuba) said his country attached great priority to the question of nuclear non-proliferation and the only way to avoid the proliferation of nuclear weapons was through their total elimination. The question of non-proliferation, in all its aspects, was not an end in itself, but rather a step towards achieving nuclear disarmament. Concerns related to such proliferation should be resolved through political and diplomatic means in the context of international law, including the United Nations Charter. Noting the selective implementation of the NPT, he repeated that it was based on three fundamental pillars, namely non-proliferation, disarmament and cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Cuba had actively participated in the Conferences' work, by seeking to reach agreement on a final document today, which would have enhanced the commitment of the nuclear-weapon States to transparency of their nuclear arsenals. A strange Review Conference was concluding today, having dedicated a large part of its time on procedural matters. In the context of debate on agenda item 16, it was clear that the main nuclear Power was questioning the reference to the consensus agreement at the review conferences in 1995 and 2000, he said. That had been a discouraging element in the discussions, revealing the complexity of the current unipolar world. What had happened was part of a regrettable trend in other disarmament forums, which had also been affected by the hegemony of the main nuclear Power, which used manipulation to disguise its lack of political will to achieve complete disarmament. Given the situation, it was necessary to preserve multilateralism in negotiations, based on strict respect for the principles of international law and the United Nations Charter. ABDALLAH BAALI (Algeria) said he noted with deep regret that, given the numerous challenges and threats facing the Treaty and, despite the efforts of all participants, the Conference had been unable to meet expectations. He would have wished to see the Conference reach a more substantive outcome allowing States parties to carry forward and effective review and providing them with the necessary framework and tools to face the threats and challenges and to pursue the cause of nuclear disarmament. Algeria had taken part with an open and constructive spirit, and with the ambition to contribute to a determined outcome. It had been guided by its long-standing commitment to the NPT as the cornerstone of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, and to the achievements of the 1995 and 2000 reviews. He reiterated his country's full commitment to the Treaty and its determination to spare no efforts with all States parties to preserve that essential instrument. The only way to preserve the Treaty's authority and credibility was to pursue the full implementation of all of its provisions and to ensure its effective universality. He remained hopeful that States parties would continue to show the necessary political will to allow better prospects and conditions for concrete progress in the review process. He looked forward to the 2010 review and its preparatory process, due to start in 2007. Nuclear weapons remained the most dangerous threat to humankind; their elimination, therefore, must remain the main objective. Mr. ANTONOV (Russian Federation) said the Conference had not been successful in producing a consensus final document, which could have been possible, regardless of the serious problems encountered during the Conference. The Russian Federation had done everything it could to resolve substantive problems. The work of the Conference had been useful, however. Members' statements and the numerous working documents submitted had revealed a tremendous spread of views on how to implement obligations under the Treaty. That was natural, as serious changes had taken place in the realm of international security. Several matters of principle had united all participants, including the fact that no one had raised the possibility of producing a document to replace the NPT. On the contrary, everyone had stressed its value. Continuing, he noted that all States parties had confirmed their commitment to strict compliance with the NPT. Recently, there had been new threats to the NPT regime, which must be eliminated. There was also a need to strengthen the IAEA guarantee system to ensure confidence in the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Members had been united in the wish to further promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. For the Russian Federation, the document was an important element in the system of international security. It had proved its worth, particularly in preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. The President of the Russian Federation had pointed out that the country strictly complied with all its obligations in the disarmament field. The Russian Federation was ready to continue to take steps and had presented the Conference concrete evidence in that regard. The Russian Federation would continue to work together in an effort to fulfil the obligations of the NPT regime. PARK IN-KOOK (Republic of Korea) said that, regrettably, he had been an eyewitness to the underlying fundamental gap in perception and approach on substantive matters. The lack of consensus had led the Conference to not properly address the serious and urgent matters before it, such as North Korean nuclear issue. He stressed the importance of the six-party talks as a most suitable and practical means to resolve the nuclear issue, and he called on North Korea to return to the talks without further delay. Also regrettable had been that procedural matters, aimed at facilitating the Conference, had become stumbling blocks. He did not believe, however, that the failure of having a final document was a failure of the NPT itself. In fact, he noted, the NPT's role had increased in recent decades, and he reaffirmed its importance as a cornerstone of the non-proliferation regime. The Conference had provided a good opportunity to hear divergent views of States parties on substantive issues through general statements and the limited, but active, discussions in the Main Committees, as well as the submission of working papers. Partial progress had been made in the debates of the subsidiary bodies on article X, concerning withdrawal. Hopefully, the record of discussion on substantive matters could be constructively utilized for the new review process. Mr. SMITH (Australia) was deeply disappointed that delegates had been unable to reach consensus on a substantive outcome to the Review Conference. It was most regrettable that the Conference had been prevented from commencing substantive discussion by lengthy debate on procedural issues and that, once substantive debate had begun, there had been insufficient time, or in some cases, will to effectively deal with key issues of interest to all States parties. It was truly frustrating that States parties had been denied any opportunity to deal more effectively with the grave proliferation threats facing the world. States parties had also been denied an opportunity to advance nuclear disarmament through such measures as support to the CTBT and a fissile material cut-off treaty. Australia, as informal chair of the Vienna Group of 10, which had submitted six working papers to the Conference, was particularly disappointed that the considerable effort the Group had put into developing what should have been broadly acceptable language on non-proliferation and peaceful use issues had been thwarted. At the same time, it was important to underline that the failure to agree on a substantive outcome did not touch the continuing fundamental value of the NPT to international peace and security. With 189 States Parties, the NPT continued to be the most widely supported multilateral arms control treaty in existence. And it had established an international norm that outlawed the spread of nuclear weapons and provided a framework for their eventual disappearance entirely. Notwithstanding its disappointment at the meeting's outcome, Australia stood ready to redouble its efforts with other States parties to tackle ongoing proliferation challenges, both within associated forums and organizations, such as the IAEA and the United Nations, and in the preparation process for the next Review Conference in 2010. Adoption of Final Document Before turning to adoption of the draft Final Document this afternoon, the Conference decided to honour the requests of the delegations of Angola, Uruguay and Zambia in the list of States parties participating in the Conference. Next, the Conference adopted the schedule of division of costs (document NPT/CONF.2005/51). As the draft Final Document was now available in all official languages, the Conference finalized its adoption of the whole text (document NPT/CONF.2005/DC/1). Statements JUAN ANTONIO YÁÑEZ-BARNUEVO (Spain), fully associating himself with the statement made on behalf of the European Union, added his expression of appreciation to all who had participated constructively in the Conference. He paid special tribute to the President. SYLVESTER EKUNDAYO ROWE (Sierra Leone), associating himself with the statement of Malaysia on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, said the Movement had, in the spirit of multilateralism, conceded far more than was necessary under the circumstances, to ensure that the Conference produced not a perfect document, but a realistic, balanced and forward-looking strategy to advance the safety of all. Each State party would assess the Conference from the perspective of its own national, regional and subregional perspectives. Given the gravity of the threat of nuclear weapons, it was absolutely necessary to assess the Conference's work from a global perspective. Until all States, in particular those who possessed weapons, worked towards both complete disarmament and non-proliferation, no one should be surprised if future review conferences ended in the same manner, he said. Perhaps the Treaty should be renamed the "Treaty on Disarmament and Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons". That could serve to remind members of the three interrelated pillars of the Treaty. While his delegation had not spoken during the general debate, it had listened to every State party and the voice of the people, the potential victims of nuclear weapons, he said. States parties could not escape the subtle, but resolute pleas of civil society and individuals, including one expressed in verse by a survivor of Hiroshima. In his view, those were among the highlights of the 2005 Review Conference. He paid tribute to civil society representatives who reminded delegates not just what the Conference was about, but more importantly about the moral obligation to rid mankind of the threat of nuclear weapons. HU XIAODI (China) said that the Review had been held under a complex security situation, affected by many factors, including that multilateral arms control was at "low tide". The emergence of new situations had posed new challenges to the non-proliferation regime. Nuclear disarmament "still has a long way to go", and the peaceful use of nuclear energy had also been challenged. During the Conference, States parties exchanged their views on all of the issues; however, after four weeks of great efforts, the Conference had not worked out a substantive final document, which was regrettable. At the same time, he said, the exchanges had reflected the high importance the parties attached to the NPT. Those talks had also reflected the political determination of Member States to maintain and strengthen the Treaty. Like other States parties, China firmly believed that the NPT, once universalized, would continue to play a crucial role in maintaining the non-proliferation regime, reducing the nuclear threat and maintaining international peace and security. The Treaty remained a safeguard of world peace and security and a model for the international community to solve security concerns through multilateralism. China, as always, would continue to implement its Treaty obligations and was committed to that instrument's universality. Mr. PARNOHADININGRAT (Indonesia) said people around the world had looked to the Conference to deal with the challenges facing the NPT regime. He noted with regret that the Conference had spent too much time on procedural matters, while derogating substantial matters to the margins of the deliberations. The Conference had, moreover, veered away from its solemn responsibilities and commitments. The adoption of a substantive document had proven elusive. It was a stark reality that much remained to be done in the future. In the interim, States parties had to send a clear message that they remained committed to the Treaty. Renewed commitment was needed to fulfil the high aims of the Treaty. He noted that a summit meeting of the leaders of Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) and African countries, held in Jakarta last month, had adopted a declaration on the new ASEAN-African strategic partnership which addressed, among other things, the issue of weapons of mass destruction. He reaffirmed his country's commitment to the Treaty as the cornerstone and as the essential foundation of disarmament. Indonesia would hold fast to its conviction that, as the world continued to be threatened by weapons of mass destruction, strengthening the Treaty was vital to peace and security. Joining other delegations in expressing his sincere appreciation for the President's untiring efforts to forge consensus, ABDUL SAMAD MINTY (South Africa) said his delegation had been actively working for a positive action, which would build on and strengthen the results of previous reviews. It also had sought to address the important developments and serious challenges to the Treaty that had arisen since 2000, including the illicit Khan network, proposals by the IAEA Expert Group on the fuel cycle and the strengthening of safeguards and export controls. He hoped for a positive outcome of negotiations between the three European Union countries and Iran in the context of the Paris Agreement. He said that, notwithstanding the setback of a failed preparatory process for the Review Conference, the continued vitality and effectiveness of the NPT was dependent on the implementation of the Treaty regime as a whole. He urged States parties to guard against the continual reopening of the debate on obligations, commitments and undertakings, which might also provide the logical foundation for others to also reinterpret, negate or withdraw from other parts of the bargains struck. If agreements arrived at one Conference were allowed to be rolled back at the next, that would undermine the very premise on which the multilateral system was based. He, therefore, called on the nuclear-weapon States to reaffirm their commitments and unequivocal undertakings made at the previous reviews to systematically and progressively eliminate their nuclear arsenals. ANATOLIY SCHERBA (Ukraine) said the Conference was concluding with modest results and without any breakthrough. The debates had demonstrated that States parties were far from a common understanding of today's threats and challenges to the NPT regime and the concrete steps and decisions needed to strengthen its credibility. States Parties should today feel an even stronger sense of urgency about the substantive measures needed to strike a balance between different interests, with the aim of preserving the integrity of the Treaty and to meet the commitments made at the 1995 and 2000 Review Conferences. Ukraine would remain firmly committed to the NPT and would continue to undertake all necessary efforts to strengthen it, he said. Erosion of the NPT would have serious repercussions on the world's security and stability. The case for non-proliferation rested on the primary objective of the NPT to eliminate all nuclear weapons and, hence, the central importance of article VI. It required from those who did not possess, not to acquire, and for those who possessed, to eliminate. Regrettably, the Conference had lost the opportunity to make realistic progress on the most pertinent challenges facing the Treaty. It should make progress, not simply by tinkering with procedures, but by mustering the necessary political will to build on previous undertakings and commitments, which reinforced the NPT, so as to continue on an irreversible path towards achievement of the Treaty's purposes and objectives. Mr. LABBE (Chile) said he, too, felt a sense of frustration and disappointment at the outcome, which, despite the "diplomatic euphemisms", could only be described as a failure. Consensus existed in this room on almost all of the items under discussion, but there was too short a period of time left for substantive debate after the procedural moves. The positive political will of an overwhelming majority of delegations broke down in the face of the paralyzing application of the rule of consensus. Consensus was a general sense of agreement of States parties, and not necessarily unanimity. But, what had happened at the Conference had shown that, despite the rules of procedure, there existed a "de facto" veto and delegations were prepared to use it. As a result, an overwhelming majority of delegations had been crushed and deemed unimportant. He asked, rhetorically, whether it was not possible to have democratic practices in multilateral organs. He said that, despite the lack of a final document, some delegations had said that discussions in the failed Conference had been useful, in that those had made it possible to verify the commitment of States parties and identify the main currents of thought. "Perhaps we will remember and regret the missed opportunities to practice multilateralism", he said. All in all, that "exercise in frustrated multilateral diplomacy" would be useful if delegations were to firmly inscribe it in their professional conscience and extrapolate it to the multilateral universe as a whole, in particular to the United Nations system, which was undergoing reform. He would remember the grave risk represented by the veto. He would also remember that the multilateral mission was not verified in speeches, but in actions and in the generosity to look at the hopes and needs of all nations and adopt them as one's own. JAVAD ZARIF (Iran) said that in 1995, when a consensus had been achieved around the principles and objectives governing the Treaty's indefinite extension, it had been based, among other things, on a solemn undertaking by the nuclear-weapon States to pursue systematic efforts to reduce and eliminate nuclear weapons. The States parties had been assured that, from thereon, accountability would become the cornerstone of the NPT. The 2000 Review Conference, in spite of indications to the contrary, had taken a historic step forward. The 13 distinct demands from non-nuclear weapon States and unequivocal undertaking by nuclear-weapons States had mapped the road towards nuclear disarmament. The expectation, reasonably drawn, had been that come the 50th anniversary of the Treaty, nuclear weapons and stockpiles would only be a part of history. 2005 could, and should, have been a turning point towards a world free from the scourge of nuclear threat. That the 2005 Conference had ended without result, despite the sincere efforts and good intentions of a great majority of States parties, was not by itself detrimental, he continued. The intentions and actions pursued by the presumed remaining super Power, without the slightest regard for the concerns of the rest of the international community, were serious. Policies and practices pursued by the United States in the last five years clearly indicated what lay ahead if they remained unchecked. The United States had adopted its Nuclear Posture Review, incorporating the breach of the obligations on "irreversibility", "diminished role of nuclear weapons" and "lowering the operational status of nuclear weapons" by stressing the essential role of nuclear weapons as an effective tool for achieving security ends and foreign policy objectives; developing new nuclear weapon systems, and constructing new facilities for producing nuclear weapons; resuming efforts to develop and deploy tactical nuclear weapons, despite the commitment to reverse the process and reduce them; and targeting non-nuclear weapon States parties to the Treaty and planning to attack those States. Continuing, he said the United States had replaced the principle of destruction, perceived as the most fundamental element in the process of nuclear disarmament, with a policy of decommissioning. The United States had abrogated the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, recognized by the international community as the cornerstone of global strategic stability, through its unilateral withdrawal from the Treaty, creating a strategic and security gap within the overall global nuclear posture, with grave and long-term consequences for the whole world. The United States had continued the deployment of nuclear forces in other territories, raising serious concerns over the command and control of such weapons. It had continued to provide a nuclear umbrella for non-nuclear weapon States parties to the Treaty, in flagrant violation of articles I and II of the Treaty by the United States and countries hosting such weaponry. He said the United States had also signed an agreement of nuclear cooperation with Israel, whose nuclear arsenal presented the gravest danger to the peace and stability of the Middle East, providing Israeli scientists access to its nuclear facilities, thereby demonstrating its total disregard for its obligations under article I of the Treaty. The United States had rejected the CTBT, not only damaging the prospect for the Treaty's entry into force, but also undermining its promotion in international fora. The United States had also rejected the inclusion of the element of "verifiability" in a future cut-off treaty, thereby breaking a long-standing position of the international community on a consensus over the negotiating mandate in the Conference on Disarmament. The extremist attitude reflected in those documents and practices seemed to have learned no lessons from the nightmare of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If history was any guide, nuclear arms were in the most dangerous hands. It was imperative, therefore, to move now with a concerned and firm resolve to stop and reverse the fast-paced drive. Nuclear weapons should not imply political clout and the capability to shape and influence world events. Holding on and expanding nuclear arsenals should be condemned, rather than condoned or tolerated. Any increase in nuclear capability should equal a reduction in political credibility. The abysmal record, achieved unilaterally by the United States in the short span of five years, testified to a mentality which sought solutions solely through demonstration of power. It was no wonder the United States had tried to create smokescreens in the Conference to deflect attention from its abysmal record. The NPT remained the cornerstone of nuclear disarmament, nuclear non-proliferation and the ability to develop and pursue nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, he said. The United States wanted the Conference to fail, so that it could pursue its own unilateral initiatives through other more exclusive bodies. That should not be allowed. States parties needed to quickly get together, in informal and formal discussions, to reinvigorate the ways and means to achieve the Treaty's objectives. The three pillars of the Treaty were intertwined and needed to be followed, without diminishing the significance and effectiveness of any one pillar against the others. Above all, members needed to ensure full universality of the Treaty without exception; reject any perception which permitted nuclear weapons as a means of achieving individual and collective security; strengthen collective efforts to check proliferation and improve safeguards; and support the IAEA in utilizing advances in technology for better supervision of nuclear activities and enhancing its ability to provide credible guarantees against proliferation. It was also important to emphasize security assurances for non-nuclear-weapon States and thereby remove the concerns of nuclear threats, he said. States parties must be enabled to exercise their full rights for developing and producing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes under appropriate international monitoring and supervision. The NPT must be preserved and strengthened and its longevity guaranteed. No consideration was worth undermining the Treaty. Iran was committed to the NPT and the non-proliferation regime and would spare no effort in that regard. In concluding remarks, Conference President, Mr. DUARTE (Brazil) said he was proud to have been nominated by Brazil for the post of President and even prouder, in the twilight of his diplomatic career, to have been elected to it by States parties. The last few weeks had strengthened his conviction that the Treaty enjoyed the full support of all its parties. He expressed gratitude for the support of members and the Conference secretariat in the discharge of his duties. ---- US State Department Press release 27/5/2005 Created: 27 May 2005 Updated: 27 May 2005 http://usinfo.state.gov/usinfo/Archive/2005/May/27-441042.html Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Ends Without Consensus Sanders says United States is committed to strengthening NPT At the conclusion of the Seventh Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) May 27, the head of the U.S. delegation said participants examined new ground on the subject of treaty noncompliance. Speaking at the United Nations, Ambassador Jackie Sanders said this was the first review to: · Examine in detail indicators of proliferation; · Explore the link between the right to peaceful nuclear energy use and the treaty's nonproliferation obligations; · Exchange views on how NPT members, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and the U.N. Security Council should hold accountable those violating their NPT obligations; and · Seriously discuss how NPT members, the IAEA, the United Nations and the Nuclear Suppliers Group should handle the sensitive issue of treaty withdrawal. Discussions focused on the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea. Sanders, who serves as the president's special representative for the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons, noted that even though consensus was not achieved at the conference there was "often broad agreement" on ways to strengthen treaty implementation as well as the broader nonproliferation regime. Along with many others, Sanders said, the United States supports the efforts of the EU-3 (France, Germany and the United Kingdom with the support of the European Union) to solve the Iranian nuclear problem diplomatically. Such a solution, she said, "must include the permanent cessation of Iran's enrichment-related and reprocessing efforts, as well as its dismantlement of equipment and facilities related to such activity," because of Iran's track record. In similar fashion, she said NPT members supported Six-Party Talks with North Korea to persuade Kim Jong-il to abandon his nuclear weapons programs. Sanders, who also serves as the U.S. ambassador to the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, highlighted the U.S. record of nuclear disarmament accomplishments (including cutting its nuclear stockpile in half) carried out in fulfillment of Article VI of the NPT. (See related article.) She also highlighted multinational efforts to deter and impede those who would proliferate weapons of mass destruction. Speaking on the verge of the second anniversary of the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), Sanders said more than 60 nations have expressed support for the initiative and such support "continues to grow based upon the international consensus that WMD [weapons of mass destruction] proliferation is a threat to global peace and security." The United States, Sanders said, is working with PSI partners "to broaden and deepen international cooperation" and is fully committed to sustaining and building upon the initiative's successes. Following is the text of Sanders' remarks: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE U.S. Mission to the United Nations USUN PRESS RELEASE # 107 (05) May 27, 2005 Closing Statement by Ambassador Jackie W. Sanders, Special Representative of the President for the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons to the 2005 Review Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons [NPT] Thank you, Mr. President. We now are in our concluding session of this Review Conference. Thank you for your efforts over the past year to prepare for, and preside over, this Conference. As the U.S. and others have stated throughout this conference, much has changed since we last gathered here in 2000. Following numerous violations of its legal obligations -- under the Agreed Framework, its IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] safeguards agreements, and the NPT itself -- North Korea summarily withdrew from the NPT and declared itself a nuclear weapons state. Iran's nuclear weapons program, previously shrouded in secrecy and deceit, has been exposed, as have Iran's violations of its IAEA obligations. Libya pursued a clandestine nuclear program in violation of the NPT until making the strategic decision to give up its weapons ambitions in 2003. We welcome this decision. Lurking behind these violators was the A.Q. Khan network; selling, buying and transferring nuclear technology around the world for profit. While this illicit network has been shut down, the North Korean and Iranian programs continue, and other sources of supply remain open for business in this deadly trade. We also confront today's preeminent security challenge of weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of terrorists who will not be deterred from using them against us. We gathered here with the specific purpose of discussing ways to strengthen the NPT and the broader nonproliferation regime. The NPT has given rise to a robust nonproliferation regime that is far-reaching in scope, and that addresses the proliferation of all weapons of mass destruction, their delivery systems and related materials. We are hopeful that our discussions here over the past four weeks will continue in other fora and make a lasting impression on the global nonproliferation regime. The United States is pursuing a robust and comprehensive approach to counter the threat of weapons of mass destruction [WMD] falling into the hands of the world's most dangerous regimes or terrorists, first articulated by President Bush in 2002 in the National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction. In response to the need to build new barriers to the acquisition of WMD materials, technologies and expertise, in May 2003, President Bush announced the Proliferation Security Initiative to deter or impede proliferators by interdicting specific WMD shipments en route. On the eve of the second anniversary of the PSI, more than 60 countries have indicated their support for the PSI, and support continues to grow based upon the international consensus that WMD proliferation is a threat to global peace and security. The U.S. is working with partner countries to broaden and deepen international cooperation. The U.S. is fully committed to sustaining the PSI and building on its successes. The United States is also fully committed to the implementation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1540. Resolution 1540 reflects the steady progress of national and international efforts to address the challenges of WMD terrorism. We hope that states that have not already done so, will take seriously the requirement to submit comprehensive reports to the 1540 Committee on their efforts to comply with the resolution's operative elements. We must remain determined in the face of proliferators' efforts to sell or acquire the world's most dangerous weapons and Resolution 1540 is one of the key nonproliferation tools in this effort. Iran's single-minded pursuit of uranium enrichment capability, which we firmly believe is intended to underpin a nuclear weapons program, raises a key question for NPT states party. The fact that "ENR," our shorthand for enrichment and reprocessing equipment and technology, provides access to weapons-usable nuclear material means that the unnecessary proliferation of such facilities clearly adds to the danger of weapons proliferation. This is a view shared by IAEA Director General [Mohamed] ElBaradei and the panel he convened to study multilateral approaches to the nuclear fuel cycle. This danger motivated President Bush to propose, in February 2004, that states close what some refer to as a "loophole" in the NPT, namely that a state can pursue ENR capacity ostensibly for peaceful purposes while cynically planning all along to use that capacity to manufacture material for nuclear weapons. He also recognized the importance of pursuing peaceful nuclear power and states having "reliable access at reasonable cost to fuel for civilian reactors, so long as those states renounce enrichment and reprocessing." We are discussing this proposal in the Nuclear Suppliers Group and in the G-8 [Group of Eight: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom (U.K.) and the United States], where our concerns are broadly shared. The G-8 has also launched its own initiative, the Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction. The Global Partnership is a promising reflection of growing international commitment to ensure that terrorists and states that support them do not acquire weapons of mass destruction or the materials and capabilities to develop them. The G-8 partners and the EU [European Union] have pledged $18 billion, and 13 more states have joined the Partnership. In undertaking to reinforce the global nuclear nonproliferation regime, the United States also called upon states last year to press for universal adherence to the IAEA Additional Protocol and for recognition of the Protocol as the new enhanced standard for nuclear safeguards and a criterion for nuclear supply. The U.S also believes that the IAEA should establish a special committee of the IAEA Board of Governors to focus intensively on safeguards and prepare a comprehensive plan for strengthened safeguards and verification. We hope that the upcoming June IAEA Board of Governors meeting will agree to establish this special committee. The benefits of peaceful nuclear cooperation comprise an important element of the NPT, as acknowledged in Article IV. Through substantial funding and technical cooperation, the United States fully supports peaceful nuclear development in many states, bilaterally and through the IAEA. However, peaceful nuclear programs pursued by NPT Parties must conform to their relevant obligations under Articles I, II and III. Clearly any right to receive benefits under Article IV is also conditioned upon the fulfillment of the Treaty's nonproliferation obligations. This brings us full circle to the reason we are gathered here -- to strengthen the NPT. While this Review Conference did not reach consensus, we did break new ground. This Review Conference is the first to examine in detail indicators of noncompliance with Article II. We explored Article IV's linkage of the exercise of the right to peaceful uses of nuclear energy to the obligations contained in Articles I, II, and III of the Treaty. We exchanged views on the steps that States Parties, the IAEA, and the U.N. Security Council [UNSC] should consider to hold accountable those in noncompliance with their NPT obligations. We also, for the first time, discussed seriously how States Parties, the IAEA, the Nuclear Suppliers Group, and the UNSC should address notifications of withdrawal. Furthermore, notwithstanding the inability of the relevant Main Committees to report specific recommendations in these areas, there was serious consideration of, and often broad agreement on, steps to strengthen the Treaty's implementation. There was important discussion of the grave challenges to security and to the nonproliferation regime posed by Iran's and the DPRK's noncompliance with their nonproliferation and safeguards obligations. It is unfortunate that efforts to bring this discussion forward to this body were blocked, but the record of our discussions remains. The United States and many other states voiced their support for the efforts by the U.K. , France and Germany, with the support of the European Union, to reach a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear problem. Given the history of clandestine nuclear weapons work in that country, that must include the permanent cessation of Iran's enrichment-related and reprocessing efforts, as well as its dismantlement of equipment and facilities related to such activity. Likewise, Parties supported the Six-Party Talks and efforts to convince Pyongyang that its only viable option is to make the strategic commitment to abandon its nuclear weapons ambitions. I reiterate that the United States has tabled a proposal in those talks that addresses the North's stated concerns and also provides for the complete, verifiable, and irreversible dismantlement of North Korean nuclear programs. This Review Conference, Mr. President, has not neglected the important topic of Article VI. The United States welcomed the opportunity over the past four weeks to make clear our abiding commitment to fulfill our obligations under Article VI and our strong record on nuclear disarmament. The United States has reduced the role of nuclear weapons in our deterrence strategy, and we are cutting our nuclear stockpile almost in half, to the lowest level in decades. Mr. President, this Conference may not have reached consensus, but we did discuss these challenges and began the process of addressing them. Building political consensus takes time, and that process remains far from complete on May 27, 2005. Our Delegation, however, is convinced that we, the Parties to the NPT, have taken important steps here, which need to continue. The United States will cooperate with all Parties committed to strengthening the Treaty and the nuclear nonproliferation regime so that we can pass on to future generations a better and more secure world and an NPT regime that remains strong and vibrant. Thank you, Mr. President. -------- u.s. nuc weapons A Revolution in American Nuclear Policy Jonathan Schell May 27, 2005 TomPaine.com http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050527/a_revolution_in_american_nuclear_policy.php Jonathan Schell, author of The Unconquerable World, is the Nation Institute's Harold Willens Peace Fellow. The Jonathan Schell Reader was recently published by Nation Books. This article originally appeared on TomDispatch. A metaphorical "nuclear option"—the cutoff of debate in the Senate on judicial nominees—has just been defused, but a literal nuclear option, called "global strike," has been created in its place. In a shocking innovation in American nuclear policy, recently disclosed in the Washington Post by military analyst William Arkin, the administration has created and placed on continuous high alert a force whereby the president can launch a pinpoint strike, including a nuclear strike, anywhere on earth with a few hours' notice. The senatorial "nuclear option" was covered extensively, but somehow this actual nuclear option—a "full-spectrum" capability (in the words of the presidential order) with "precision kinetic" (nuclear and conventional) and "non-kinetic" (elements of space and information operations)—was almost entirely ignored. The order to enable the force, Arkin writes, was given by George W. Bush in January 2003. In July 2004, Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated to Adm. James Ellis Jr., then-commander of Stratcom, "the president charged you to ‘be ready to strike at any moment's notice in any dark corner of the world' [and] that's exactly what you've done." And last fall, Lieut. Gen. Bruce Carlson, commander of the 8th Air Force, stated, "We have the capacity to plan and execute global strikes." These actions make operational a revolution in U.S. nuclear policy. It was foreshadowed by the Nuclear Posture Review Report of 2002, also widely ignored, which announced nuclear targeting of, among others, China, North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria and Libya. The review also recommended new facilities for the manufacture of nuclear bombs and the study of an array of new delivery vehicles, including a new ICBM in 2020, a new submarine-launched ballistic missile in 2029, and a new heavy bomber in 2040. The review, in turn, grew out of Bush's broader new military strategy of pre-emptive war, articulated in the 2002 White House document, the National Security Strategy of the United States of America , which states, "We cannot let our enemies strike first." The extraordinary ambition of the Bush policy is suggested by a comment made in a Senate hearing in April by Linton Brooks, head of the National Nuclear Security Administration, who explained that the Defense Secretary wanted "bunker buster" nuclear bombs because "it is unwise for there to be anything that's beyond the reach of U.S. power." The incorporation of nuclear weapons into the global strike option, casting a new shadow of nuclear danger over the entire planet, raises fundamental questions. Perhaps the most important is why the United States, which now possesses the strongest conventional military forces in the world, feels the need to add to them a new global nuclear threat. The mystery deepens when you reflect that nothing could be more calculated to goad other nations into nuclear proliferation. Could it be that the United States, now routinely called the greatest empire since Rome, simply feels the need to assert its dominance in the nuclear sphere? History suggests a different explanation. In the past, reliance on nuclear arms has in fact varied inversely with reliance on conventional arms. In the very first weeks of the nuclear age, when the American public was demanding demobilization of U.S. forces in Europe after World War II, the U.S. monopoly on the bomb gave it the confidence to adopt a bold stance in postwar negotiations with the Soviet Union over Europe. The practice of offsetting conventional weakness with nuclear strength was soon embodied in the policy of "first use" of nuclear weapons, which has remained in effect to this day. The threat of first use under the auspices of the global strike option is indeed the latest incarnation of a policy born at that time. This compensatory role for nuclear weapons emerged in a new context when, after the protracted, unpopular conventional war in Korea, President Eisenhower adopted the doctrine of nuclear "massive retaliation," intended to prevent limited communist challenges from ever arising. And it was in reaction to the imbalance between local "peripheral" threats and the world-menacing "massive" nuclear threats designed to contain them that, in the Kennedy years, the pendulum swung back in the direction of conventional arms and a theory of "limited war" to go with them. Meanwhile, nuclear arms were officially assigned the more restricted role of deterring attacks by other nuclear weapons—the posture of "mutual assured destruction." Today, though the Cold War is over, the riddle of the relationship between nuclear and conventional force still vexes official minds. Once again, the United States has assigned itself global ambitions. (Then it was containing communism, now it is stopping "terrorism" and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.) Once again, the United States is fighting a limited war—the war in Iraq—and other limited wars are under discussion (against Iran, North Korea, Syria, etc.). And once again, nuclear arms appear to offer an all too tempting alternative. Arkin comments that a prime virtue of the global strike option in the eyes of the Pentagon is that it requires no "boots on the ground." And Everett Dolman, a professor at the Air Force School at Maxwell Air Force Base, recently commented to the San Francisco Chronicle that without space weaponry, "we'd face a Vietnam-style buildup if we wanted to remain a force in the world." For just as in the 1950s, the boots on the ground are running low. The global New Rome turns out to have exhausted its conventional power holding down just one country, Iraq. But the 2000s are not the 1950s. Eisenhower's overall goal was mainly defensive. He wanted no war, nuclear or conventional, and never came close to ordering a nuclear strike. By contrast, Bush's policy of preventive war is inherently activist and aggressive: The global strike option is not only for deterrence; it is for use. A clash between the triumphal rhetoric of global domination and the sordid reality of failure in practice lies ahead. The Senate, on the brink of its metaphorical Armageddon, backed down. Would the president, facing defeat of his policies somewhere in the world, do likewise? Or might he actually reach for his nuclear option? ---- William Anspacher dies; Helped Develop Weapons for Navy Washington Post Friday, May 27, 2005; B05 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/26/AR2005052601643_pf.html William B. Anspacher, 93, a former head of underwater weapons development at the Naval Ordnance Laboratory, died May 20 of congestive heart failure at the Rockville Nursing Home. He was a longtime Silver Spring resident, a former faculty member of the University of Maryland's School of Engineering and former acting technical director of the Naval Ordnance Laboratory. Mr. Anspacher was born in St. Louis. In 1936, he graduated second in his class from Washington University in St. Louis with a degree in electrical engineering and went to work for Union Electric Co. of Missouri as an electric power engineer. In 1940, Union Electric gave him a year's leave of absence to move to Washington and work for the Naval Ordnance Laboratory as a power engineer on the design of a degaussing system, which reduces a ship's effect on the earth's magnetic field. After Japan attacked Pearl Harbor the next year, the laboratory extended the leave for the duration of World War II. Mr. Anspacher ended up staying 33 years. In 1950, he received a master's degree in electrical engineering from the University of Maryland. Mr. Anspacher advanced from project engineer working in electronics to program chief in air and surface weapons and then to associate technical director and head of underwater systems development. He served as acting technical director from August 1973 until his retirement in December 1974. His projects at the Naval Ordnance Laboratory included development of the guidance system for the Polaris missile, the Captor deep-water mine and the antisubmarine SUBROC nuclear missile. At the end of World War II, he was a U.S. government representative assigned to interview German engineers about their torpedo exploder designs. After he retired, Mr. Anspacher became director of engineering laboratories, electric product division, for AMF Inc. Later he became a research associate at George Washington University, then a faculty member in the School of Electrical Engineering at the University of Maryland, where he remained until 1998. In 2000, he co-authored "The Legacy of White Oak Laboratory." He held numerous patents related to his work in weapons design and development and received several awards, including the Navy's Distinguished Civilian Service Award. Survivors include his wife of 66 years, Helen Anspacher of Rockville; three children, Lynne Spivak of Potomac, John M. Anspacher of Yardley, Pa., and Jeffrey C. Anspacher of Takoma Park; six grandchildren; and a great-granddaughter. -------- u.s. nuc facilities Sick Weapons Workers to Be Compensated By HILARY ROXE The Associated Press Friday, May 27, 2005; 4:28 PM http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/27/AR2005052700818_pf.html WASHINGTON -- Tens of thousands of former nuclear weapons workers exposed to radiation and other industrial toxins at government facilities can soon start filing for compensation. The Labor Department's compensation program is one of two designed to pay workers who got sick while helping to build Cold War-era bombs or clean up the waste left behind. "We are totally committed to ensuring that workers who are eligible for this program receive compensation as quickly as possible," Labor Secretary Elaine L. Chao said before the rules were released late Thursday night. Earlier this year, the Labor Department began giving lump-sum checks of $125,000 to survivors of workers who died from job-related illnesses. So far, it has paid more than $53 million for 430 claims. But living workers had to wait for officials to develop a payout formula that accounts for permanent impairments and lost wages. Payouts in the new program are capped at $250,000, but compensation to workers who were paid through another program is not. The Labor Department will start processing claims within a week, Chao said. Most of the people covered by the program worked at facilities in Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, New Mexico, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee and Washington. Critics point to several problems, including how impairments are measured and the burden of proof required for claimants. Congress concluded in a report on the law that the American Medical Association Guides might not list all illnesses caused by exposure to toxic substances, including certain mental impairments. But the new rules say people whose illnesses can't be assessed through the AMA Guides won't qualify for impairment payments. People may lose compensation "because of a bureaucratic determination that their illness doesn't fall into a particular book that the Department of Labor is using," said Richard Miller, a policy analyst for the Government Accountability Project, a Washington-based watchdog group. In their claims, workers must prove that they came in contact with toxins while on the job at government facilities. But Miller said the Energy Department didn't always monitor toxic exposure, and "in the absence of monitoring records, workers are facing an insurmountable burden of proof." Congress last year gave the Labor Department authority over the revamped compensation program after lawmakers criticized how the Energy Department was managing it. On the Net: Labor Department: http://www.dol.gov -------- nevada CONTRACTOR DROPS LOS ALAMOS BID May 27, 2005 (AP) http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/27/national/27brfs.html?pagewanted=print The Northrop Grumman Corporation said it had decided not to pursue the contract to run the Los Alamos nuclear weapons laboratory. The University of California has run the laboratory, the birthplace of the atomic bomb, since it was created in 1943. After a series of financial and security lapses, the government said it would put the contract up for bid for the first time. On the same day that Northrop Grumman pulled out, the University of California regents voted 11 to 1 to join with the Bechtel Corporation to submit a bid. The University of Texas and Lockheed Martin are also planning a joint bid. -------- new mexico UC faces just one challenger in fight for lab Regents back Los Alamos bid; Northrop team out, Lockheed still in By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER 05/27/2005 Oakland Tribune Inside Bay Area http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/localnews/ci_2763820 SAN FRANCISCO — The fight is on for the dominant scientific voice on U.S. nuclear weapons as far as 20 years into future. With a third contender dropping out, two teams of academics and industrial firms were left Thursday bidding to run Los Alamos nuclear-weapons lab, which sprawls over New Mexico canyon lands and high desert almost the size of San Francisco. The contest pits the nation's largest research university and largest privately held engineering firm against the nation's largest defense contractor and second-largest university system. Beyond Los Alamos itself, with a multitude of defense and civilian science projects and WMD intelligence analysis, the stakes include the balance of power inside the U.S. nuclear-weapons establishment. The winner will be responsible for maintaining 90 percent of the U.S. nuclear arsenal kept on alert status and will have the ear of senior U.S. policy-makers on such matters as the need for nuclear testing and new or modified nuclear weapons. Regents governing the University of California voted 11-1 to join Bechtel National and two nuclear-operations and infrastructure firms in an effort to remain at the helm of Los Alamos, operated by the university since 1943. Regents also agreed Thursday to pay Lawrence Livermore Lab Director Michael Anastasio $100,000 a year above his current $357,500 salary if he leads the UC-Bechtel team to win the Los Alamos contract and becomes director of Los Alamos. The sole challenger, Lockheed Martin, is teamed up with the University of Texas and, in an alliance expected to be announced today, the engineering and nuclear-operations firm CH2M Hill. A third team led by defense contractor Northrop Grumman never coalesced, and Northrop dropped out of the competition late Wednesday, saying it would look for "other future opportunities with the Department of Energy." The UC-Bechtel vs. Lockheed-UT matchup presents nuclear-weapons officials at the U.S. Department of Energy with a clear choice: a defense contractor of extensive nuclear-weapons experience and business savvy plus an academic partner versus an academic entity with more extensive nuclear-weapons experience plus partners experienced in heavy industry and business. If the UC-Bechtel team wins, the university would remain the nation's pre-eminent player in the design and maintenance of U.S. nuclear arms. Every year, its directors at Los Alamos and Livermore sign a letter advising the president on whether U.S. nuclear weapons need testing. A Lockheed-UT win would give the defense firm a dominant hand in nuclear-weapons science and engineering for two Western nations, because Lockheed already operates Sandia weapons engineering labs in New Mexico and California and is part of a team running Britain's Atomic Weapons Establishment near the town of Aldermaston. Nuclear-weapons executives of both UC and Lockheed say they don't dictate U.S. nuclear policy but rather follow the policy decisions of the administration in power and Congress. At various times, weapons executives of both teams have exerted influence directly on domestic arms-control policies and indirectly on international policy. In the late 1970s, UC scientists who led Los Alamos and Livermore labs — Harold Agnew and the late Roger Batzel — flew to Washington and cautioned President Carter against entering into a nuclear test-ban treaty. It was another 15 years before the Clinton administration restarted those negotiations. When Clinton forwarded the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to the Senate for ratification in 1999, directors of all three weapons labs voiced some misgivings, none stronger than Sandia labs president C. Paul Robinson, now leading Lockheed's bid for Los Alamos. "If the United States scrupulously restricts itself to zero yield (as stipulated in the treaty) while other nations may conduct experiments up to the threshold of international detectability, we will be at an intolerable disadvantage," Robinson told senators. "I would advise against accepting limitations that permit such asymmetry." Likewise, Robinson and former Los Alamos weapons chief Steve Younger, a UC physicist, have argued in speeches, testimony or policy papers for a new generation of tougher, low-yield nuclear weapons, based on older, tested weapons designs. "They have ways of being invited to express their personal opinions," said Hugh Gusterson, an MIT cultural anthropologist who studies weapons scientists. "They're not allowed to lobby, but in essence that's what they do." Contact Ian Hoffman at ihoffman@angnewspapers.com. -------- ohio Keep leash on Davis-Besse Friday, May 27, 2005 Toledo Blade http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050527/OPINION02/505270310 OFFICIALS of the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission insist they aren't loosening the leash on the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Plant, but disbanding the agency's special oversight panel sure makes it look that way. The three-year-old panel, which held its final meeting Tuesday, was supposed to keep close watch over operations of the Ottawa County facility for three to five years, or so NRC chairman Nils Diaz indicated in March, 2004. Now, however, the panel is giving up the ghost, barely a month after the NRC levied a record $5.45 million fine against FirstEnergy Corp., the plant's owner, for safety lapses that led to a brush with meltdown in 2002. A troubling history of safety concerns with Davis-Besse since it opened in 1977, and the NRC's own sometimes laissez faire attitude toward regulation, together suggest that more oversight is due, not less. The NRC promised to keep Davis-Besse under close scrutiny as it was restarted last year, which makes early dissolution of the special panel all the more questionable. Just six months ago, NRC officials were still expressing concern that while FirstEnergy had improved its operation of the plant to the "adequate" level, the utility still had a long way to go. Three months ago, the NRC said a poor workplace atmosphere at the plant remained an obstacle to proper operation. Then in late April came the $5.45 million fine for allowing corrosion to eat dangerously into the plant's steel reactor head in 2002, a situation the NRC characterized as the nation's closest brush with a meltdown since Three Mile Island in 1979. The fine was followed two weeks ago by yet another safety citation, this time for a computer problem that rendered emergency notification sirens near the plant inoperable for a month in 2004. An NRC spokesman says that disbanding the oversight panel does not mean operation of Davis-Besse is "perfect. It just means that the plant is on the right track." To those who live and work in northwest Ohio, such statements are less than reassuring. Even though this newspaper has supported nuclear power in general and Davis-Besse specifically over the years, we recognize that to be safe a nuclear power plant must indeed be pretty much perfect in its design, construction, and operation. It does not make much sense, therefore, to disband the safety panel, especially when all the problems arising from the plant's two-year shutdown apparently have not been entirely resolved. Davis-Besse operated safely and efficiently for a long period in the 1990s. It's up to the NRC and FirstEnergy, to ensure that that promise is fulfilled once again. ---- Feds plan to keep close eye on Ohio's Perry nuclear plant Friday, May 27, 2005 John Mangels Cleveland Plain Dealer Science Writer http://www.cleveland.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/business/111718658695880.xml&coll=2 Concord Township - Federal regulators said Thursday that they will continue their stepped-up monitoring of the Perry nuclear plant based on the less than satisfactory results of an intensive special inspection of the troubled facility. Though the Nuclear Regulatory Commission believes that Perry is operating safely and doesn't pose a threat, the plant failed to improve in key areas of problem-solving and worker performance during the agency's five-month review. The lack of progress came despite a plantwide improvement program that Perry owner FirstEnergy Corp. launched several months ago. The reactor remains one step from a mandatory NRC shutdown, a distinction shared by only three other plants. "The facility has some work to do," said Mark Satorius, director of the division of reactor projects in the NRC's Midwest office. The litany of bad news during a public meeting to go over the NRC inspection findings was a familiar drill for FirstEnergy officials, who endured two years of even stricter oversight at Perry's sister plant, Davis-Besse. Perry has been under the NRC's second-highest level of scrutiny since August. "It's entirely up to Perry how long they remain" in the agency's doghouse, Satorius said. The NRC will review Perry's status quarterly. "We're going to work diligently to move out," said FirstEnergy spokesman Todd Schneider, echoing what Perry executives told the NRC during the meeting. Perry's difficulties stem largely from workers' and managers' inadequate responses to a series of cooling pump failures between October 2002 and May 2004. Because plant personnel didn't follow maintenance or operating procedures, pumps that keep reactor components from overheating either stopped working or wouldn't start. Individually, the pump problems had a low to moderate effect on the plant's ability to operate safely, in the NRC's judgment. Taken together, though, and with FirstEnergy's failure to make comprehensive corrections and turn the plant around, Perry earned the added NRC oversight. The plant's troubles continued early this year, when faulty reactor pump controls and workers' rushed attempts to fix them led to an unplanned reactor shutdown for most of January. During that month, the first of three special teams of NRC inspectors arrived at Perry to conduct more than 2,000 hours of reviews. The squads, drawn from NRC offices across the country, pored over Perry's responses to its equipment and performance lapses. The inspectors focused on how personnel find, evaluate and fix problems; the plant's operating rules; staff and management performance; engineering work; and emergency planning. Overall, said inspection team leader Eric Duncan, Perry's programs and processes are adequate. But the inspections showed that workers and managers don't always stick to those dictates, and they aren't rigorous and thorough enough when trying to get to the bottom of why equipment is failing or other things are going wrong. Perry's corrective action program - intended to diagnose and fix breakdowns - has shown "no substantial improvement" since the NRC's increased oversight began in August, the agency concluded. Fixes are too narrowly focused, problems aren't given the right priorities, workers don't always spot problem trends, and too few people review the proposed solutions. "The same people review the same issues over and over," Duncan said. Perry's human performance also failed to make major improvement, the inspectors found, concluding that workers lacked focus and a "questioning attitude" and had inadequate supervision. FirstEnergy's program to turn Perry around - the so-called "Performance Improvement Initiative" - has been implemented slowly and hasn't yet made things substantially better, the NRC determined. The agency is so far unable to tell whether the improvement plan will be effective and will continue to review it. Perry officials insist that they have made considerable progress, particularly during the unusually long 74-day refueling shutdown this spring. During the shutdown, workers made about $40 million in repairs and improvements, including installing new digital controls on the reactor's feedwater system to make it more reliable and to reduce the chances of accidental "trips," or shutdowns. "I assure you Perry's management team has a sense of urgency for this continued improvement," said plant Vice President Richard Anderson. To reach this Plain Dealer reporter: jmangels@plaind.com, 216-999-4842 -------- south carolina SRS named finalist for new nuclear plant Aiken site among six in running for nation’s first nuclear energy facility in 30 years By LAUREN MARKOE Fri, May. 27, 2005 The State http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/local/11750014.htm Washington Bureau The Savannah River Site is among six finalists that could be home to one of the first two nuclear power plants built in the United States in nearly 30 years. NuStart Energy — the consortium of energy companies that wants to build the plants — will announce its final choices in September, and the plants could begin operations in 2015. “There is no better time for a renaissance in nuclear power in this country than today,” deputy secretary of energy Clay Sell said in Washington at a press conference to unveil details of plans to build the new plants. And there is no better place than SRS, say South Carolina nuclear power boosters. “We want this power generated here,” said Fred Humes, director the Economic Development Partnership of Aiken and Edgefield Counties. “If you want to grow, and you’re going to need power, why don’t we do it in this isolated and secure site at Savannah River?” SRS, built in the 1950s to produce the key components of the United States’ nuclear arsenal, is now a nuclear storage and research facility owned by the U.S. Department of Energy. Aiken and competing communities have until Aug. 15 to present proposals to NuStart. General Electric and the Westinghouse Electric Co. each would build a plant, estimated to cost $1.5 billion to $2 billion apiece. Westinghouse Electric is a separate company from Westinghouse Savannah River Co., which operates SRS. NuStart president Marilyn Kray estimated each new plant would mean 2,000 to 3,000 construction jobs for the chosen community, and 250 to 400 permanent jobs. NuStart and the federal government are touting nuclear power as an answer to the nation’s burgeoning energy needs, the growing problem of greenhouse gases, and Americans’ heavy reliance on oil. The Bush administration has agreed to offset some of the startup costs for new plants and is backing streamlined plant licensing — historically a drawn-out process. The 103 nuclear plants operating in the United States today supply 20 percent of electricity produced. But those plants will be obsolete in a few decades. Opponents of nuclear power, in South Carolina and across the nation, say that if building a new nuclear plant were a good economic investment, government subsidies wouldn’t be necessary. What worries them most, though, is the seeming lack of solid plans to dispose of the waste created by nuclear reactors. The federal high-level nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada is years behind on its construction schedule. “I have the same fears I’ve had throughout my entire life about nuclear power,” said Dell Isham, director of the S.C. chapter of the Sierra Club. “What do you do with the waste? We have to safeguard it from all other living organisms for 10,000 years. That’s a crucial and moral issue we haven’t seemed much concerned about in the last decade or so.” James Riccio, a nuclear policy analyst with Greenpeace, said the consortium should worry about how nuclear plants make the nation more vulnerable to terrorism. “Did the people in that room sleep through 9/11?” he asked. But Mal McKibben, executive director of Aiken-based Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness, said security is one of the things that distinguishes SRS from its five competitors. SRS is 310 square miles, McKibben said, and a reactor would sit about five miles inside its gates. “You have all these wonderful guns and gates and guards and high-tech security equipment. You don’t have to worry about terrorists or any other goofy people trying to blow it up.” Reach Markoe at (202) 383-6023 or lmarkoe@krwashington.com -------- vermont Agreement is reached on VY waste By ROSS SNEYD Associated Press Friday, May 27, 2005 - 2:15:56 AM EST http://www.reformer.com/Stories/0,1413,102~8860~2890935,00.html MONTPELIER -- A deal has been reached that negotiators said Thursday should mean the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant, source of a third of the state's electricity, will continue operating at least through 2012. State government would get as much as $28 million in return that it would use to encourage creation of renewable energy generators. The agreement will "provide an economic benefit for the people of Vermont and allow us to operate this station safely through the end of this license," said Ken Theobald, a regional executive for plant owner Entergy Nuclear. The issue has been closely watched by utilities, credit rating agencies and businesses because Vermont Yankee provides a third of the state's entire energy supply at a cost that's lower than the current market price for electricity. The agreement, reached after weeks of talks among Entergy, state lawmakers and the Douglas administration, calls for the Legislature to grant Entergy authority to store its spent nuclear fuel above ground at its plant in Vernon, as long as the state Public Service Board approves the specific storage plan. In return, Entergy would increase the amount it already has agreed to pay the state in connection with its plan for boosting electricity production at Yankee by 20 percent. That payment would rise from $2 million a year to $4.5 million a year. The estimated $28 million that would be collected would be deposited in a "clean energy fund" that would be used to encourage development of new renewable energy generators. "It leads us toward a Vermont where increased energy efficiency is a priority in Vermont, where good jobs are created," said House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Robert Dostis, D-Waterbury, who was the Legislature's lead negotiator on the deal. Gov. James Douglas was cautiously supportive of the deal. "I've said if they can work it out that would be fine with me," he said in a brief interview. He was somewhat critical of putting all of the money into the clean energy fund instead of his initiative to clean up Lake Champlain and other polluted waterways. "They're both important," he said. "Given the fact the Legislature seems to be reducing the appropriation from my Clean and Clear (Initiative). I'm disappointed to see that erode even further." Advocates for renewable energy were thrilled with the deal. Andrew Perchlik of Renewable Energy Vermont said the clean energy fund would provide a pot of money that could be used as an incentive to developing alternatives to Vermont Yankee and Hydro-Quebec, which combined provide two-thirds of the state's energy supply. Contracts with both begin to expire in 2012. "We're making investments now so we're avoiding problems in the future," Perchlik said. "We can't wait until we run out of oil or Vermont Yankee closes to make this transition." A bill allowing Entergy to apply to the Public Service Board for what's known as dry cask storage of its spent nuclear fuel has been drafted and must work its way through the Legislature before adjournment, which leaders could come as early as next week. Passage appears likely because House Speaker Gaye Symington was intimately involved in the negotiations and Senate President Pro Tem Peter Welch was involved, as well. They both said they were satisfied with the deal and they organized a news conference announcing it. "Did we get as much as we wanted? No," Welch said. "Did we get more than was originally offered? Yes." -------- MILITARY -------- africa Donors pledge 292 million dollars for aid to AU Darfur mission ADDIS ABABA (AFP) May 27, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050527141138.28g2c1qf.html International donors pledged almost 292 million dollars in further aid to an African Union (AU) peace mission in Sudan's troubled western Darfur region in a meeting here Thursday, an AU official said. "Adding up the whole of the contributions that were announced, we have arrived at 291,585,000 dollars (some 233 million euros) for the moment," spokesman Adam Thiam told AFP on Friday. "It is a provisional figure, there are contributions in kind which are being evaluated," he added. The AU wants more than 460 million dollars (365 million euros) in cash, military equipment and logistical support to boost its current 2,700-strong truce monitoring operation in Darfur to more than 7,700 by September. "We are running a race against time, indeed it is a race against time," United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan told Thursday's meeting at AU headquarters here. He urged the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, the European Union and individual countries to help the AU expand its Darfur operation. Canada pledged the equivalent of 134 million dollars (107 million euros), the United States 50 million dollars (40 million euros), Britain 12 million dollars (9.5 million euros) and France and Germany each 2.5 million dollars (two million euros). Annan said expanding the mission was critical to ensuring stability in Darfur, where a two-year old conflict has killed between 180,000 and 300,000 people and displaced two 2.4 million, 200,000 of whom are refugees mainly in neighbouring Chad. "The situation remains unacceptable on the ground," he said. "The violence is targetted at aid workers (but) where the AU is deployed these things do not happen." The 53-member AU presented a lengthy wishlist for potential contributions, including 116 armored personnel carriers, 24 armored ambulances, maintenance and recovery vehicles, 10 transport and six attack helicopters. NATO and EU officials said they would be making specific contributions of air transport for troops, materiel, logistical and training support in the coming days and weeks. The AU mission is monitoring a shaky April 2004 ceasefire between Khartoum, government-backed militias and the two rebel groups, the Sudan Liberation Movement (SLM) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM). Amid persistent violations of that truce, peace talks between the rebels and Khartoum were suspended in December but will resume on June 10 in the Nigerian capital Abuja. The JEM has already said it will go back to the negotiating table. -------- arms 46 companies vie to supply armored tanks to Czech army PRAGUE (AFP) May 27, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050527142706.cntjsemf.html Forty-six companies including Austria's Steyr-Daimler-Puch and Finnish arms maker Patria are in the running for a contract to supply the Czech army with 234 tanks, valued at about 25 billion korunas (820 million euros), the defense ministry said Friday. "Among the bidders, there are armored vehicle makers, their eventual sub-contractors, as well as commercial and consulting enterprises," said a ministry spokesman after the call for bids closed. The contract was expected to be signed next year with delivery between 2007 and 2012 of 199 tanks, with the option for additional 35 vehicles. The deal would be the most expensive in Czech army history since the former Soviet bloc country declared independence in 1993. A lease-purchase contract for 14 Swedish fighter jets JAS-39 Gripen, signed last year, was worth 650 million euros. The new tanks will replace amphibious vehicles that have been in service since 1960. The Czech army still has several hundred of these machines, but most of them are no longer operational. ---- LockMart Converts Anti-Tank Missile To Urban Applications In 2004, Lockheed Martin received a contract to refit all remaining Predators to SRAW-MPV (Multi-Purpose Variant) configuration with a new multi-purpose blast-fragmentation warhead. This will convert the missile from an anti-armour to a direct-fire urban assault weapon, which better fulfills the needs of the USMC. Orlando FL (SPX) May 27, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/news/missiles-05zi.html Responding to an urgent request from warfighters, Lockheed Martin expanded the capabilities of its Predator anti-tank weapon and delivered 400 rounds to the U.S. Marine Corps. The U.S. Marine Corps requested Lockheed Martin to modify the shoulder- fired, short-range Predator anti-tank weapon into a direct-attack urban assault weapon. Renamed the Short-Range Assault Weapon-Multiple Purpose Variant (SRAW-MPV), the new urban assault missile has a multiple-purpose blast warhead, enabling it to defeat a variety of targets such as buildings and bunkers, as well as light-armored vehicles. "The ability of the SRAW team to field the SRAW-MPV in less than six months in response to an urgent requirement is testimony to the professionalism and dedication of every member of the team," said Michael Woodson, SRAW project officer for the Marine Corps Systems Command in Quantico, VA. "I am confident that SRAW-MPV will provide a needed capability to our Marines who are engaged almost daily in urban combat operations in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom." "The conversion of Predator from a top-down anti-armor weapon to a direct- fire urban assault weapon was prompted by the need for fire-from-enclosure assault weapons, which has become paramount to support current actions," said Andy Hawkins, SRAW-MPV program manager at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control. "Other current short-range assault weapon systems cannot meet the requirement." "This variant of the Predator weapon system is uniquely suited to the urban warfare environment that is prevalent in military operations today," Hawkins added. "The SRAW-MPV is the only short-range soft-launch assault weapon in the world. It can be safely fired from buildings with single hearing protection, which protects the gunner by minimizing exposure to enemy counter-fire. In addition, its point-and-shoot, fire-and-forget inertial guidance system minimizes gunner operations and corrects for in-flight disturbances such as cross-wind." The new weapon passed an acceptance test at the Naval Air Warfare Center (NAWC), China Lake, CA, in November, as well as successful man firings last December, demonstrating it can be fired safely even with minimal prior training. The flight tests included two rounds that successfully breached a triple- brick target, leaving a gap wide enough for troop entry, and another round that disabled an armored personnel carrier. All shots were at a range of 200 meters. Lockheed Martin previously delivered 344 Predator rounds under a Low-Rate Initial Production-I contract. Both the Predator and SRAW-MPV weapons are fully man-rated (all qualification, safety certification and gunner hazard tests are complete, any limitations on the use of the weapon are quantified and documented, and the weapon is tested as safe to fire within the defined limitations) - ready to deploy. The U.S. Army is evaluating options for upgrading its urban assault weapon capabilities for fire from enclosure and improved performance over the next few years, and SRAW-MPV, in its current configuration, will meet most of these upgrade requirements. U.S. allies also have urban warfare requirements that SRAW-MPV will meet. ---- Report: U.S. Routinely Sends Arms to Undemocratic Nations Friday, May 27th, 2005 Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/27/1410251 A new report from the World Policy Institute has found that the U.S. is routinely funneling military aid and arms to undemocratic nations. In 2003 more than half of the top 25 recipients of U.S. arms transfers in the developing world were defined as undemocratic by the State Department. [includes rush transcript] The political climate in Uzbekistan continues to be unstable after government troops opened fire on demonstrators last week, killing an estimated 500 people. Human Rights Watch reporters say Uzbek citizens are afraid to speak to journalists or other "outsiders" due to fear of government retribution. In Egypt, anti-government protesters were recently beaten during demonstrations calling for greater political reform. The State Department's latest human rights report says torture and abuse of detainees in Egypt is "common and persistent." In Saudi Arabia, petitioners were recently arrested after calling for political reform. Amnesty International has long called for reform of Saudi Arabia's criminal justice system, where defendants face convictions based on confessions obtained under torture or deception. So how are these three countries connected? They all receive military aid from the United States. A new report from the World Policy Institute has found that the U.S. is routinely funneling military aid and arms to undemocratic nations. The report titled "US Weapons at War" finds that in 2003 more than half of the top 25 recipients of U.S. arms transfers in the developing world were defined as undemocratic by the State Department. * Frida Berrigan, Senior Research Associate with the Arms Trade Resource Center of the World Policy Institute. Read the report: U.S. WEAPONS AT WAR 2005: PROMOTING FREEDOM OR FUELING CONFLICT? RUSH TRANSCRIPT AMY GOODMAN: We're joined now in the studio by Frida Berrigan, Senior Research Associate with the Arms Trade Resource Center of the World Policy Institute. She’s author of the new report. Welcome to Democracy Now!, Frida. FRIDA BERRIGAN: Thank you. Thank you. It’s good to be here. AMY GOODMAN: Before we talk about the countries we just mentioned, let's start following up on this pipeline in Georgia. FRIDA BERRIGAN: So, Georgia received no military aid just a couple of years ago, and now it's become a major recipient of military aid. Candace mentioned the Train and Equip Program, the $64 million that Georgia has received. It’s also receiving under the Foreign Military Financing Program millions in military aid. In fact, that whole region, Azerbaijan, Turkey and Georgia, in 2001 they collectively received $4 million in military aid from the United States. We have seen that increase tenfold over the last number of years, and this year they received – or actually, next year, fiscal year 2006, they’ll receive $42 million collectively. AMY GOODMAN: What's Georgia's record? FRIDA BERRIGAN: Georgia has a horrible human rights record. It's actively involved in a number of conflicts putting down secessionist movements. Candace mentioned the Pankisi Gorge where they have made a lot of the fact there are terrorists, al Qaeda connected terrorists there, but there's also a secessionist movement. A small part of that country wants to be independent, wants to separate from Georgia, and you had soldiers, Georgian soldiers, who were being trained by the United States saying, ‘Oh, Pankisi doesn't really matter. There's no al Qaeda there. There's no threat there. What we really want is we want this region back that Russia took from us a number of years ago.’ So, you see Georgia manipulating the war on terrorism for its own gain. And we see this pattern repeated throughout the world. AMY GOODMAN: Uzbekistan? FRIDA BERRIGAN: And Uzbekistan is another great example of that. We have -- the United States has troops in Uzbekistan at the K2 base, and that base is a staging ground for the war against terrorism in Afghanistan, where supposedly we're bringing peace and democracy, freedom and democracy, and yet, we couldn't even muster the political courage to forthrightly condemn the murder of civilians carried out by Uzbek military, Uzbek police. We have a credible report saying the Uzbek military went through and executed wounded civilians throughout the square there, where that violence erupted, and it took the United States days to condemn. Only after Britain and other western governments condemned the violence did the United States follow suit. But you had members of the United States government early on saying, ‘Oh, well, they have to do what they have to do. You know, those are terrorists, and we're not going to interfere.’ And yet, we have increased military aid to Uzbekistan by many times over and have been doing training programs with their military, and we have the Uzbek government boiling people alive. The human rights record there is extraordinarily bad, and the United States has again and again turned away from that, and only just recently minorly punishing the Karimov regime, but not even because of their human rights record, but because Karimov cracked down on non-governmental organizations like the Open Society that have been acting in Uzbekistan. So, we withdrew some military aid, but to protect U.S.-based N.G.O.s, not to protect the rights of citizens of that country. JUAN GONZALEZ: Take us through some of the other top recipients that have non-democratic governments. I'm sure that some of them might come as a surprise to some of our listeners, although our listeners are pretty well informed about what's going on in the world. FRIDA BERRIGAN: We have a surprisingly large amount of military aid to Nepal, which your listeners will know. The government there, the king, the monarchy, basically cut off the entire country from the rest of the world recently. We didn't withdraw the U.S. ambassador there. We didn't withdraw military aid. We continue to back that country. Indonesia is another place where for a long time, the United States has been forced to -- has been forced to hold off on military aid because of pressure by grassroots organizations in this country, because of the Indonesian military's horrible record of human rights abuses and extra-judicial killings. There's a number of criteria that Congress has put into place saying, well, they won't receive military aid again until these criteria are all met, but Condoleezza Rice's first act, or one of her first acts as the new Secretary of State was to certify Indonesia for IMET training, for military training once again, just pushing aside the fact that none of those criteria that Congress set into place have been met. And then just this week, the Indonesian president was in Washington, met with President Bush. They had a joint press conference. They were very chummy. The press conference was actually -- most of the questions weren't about Indonesia, but about stem cell research, which is sort of strange, but at that press conference, President Vush said, ‘Well, we're really pushing for normalization of full military ties.’ And that word normalization really stuck with me, because I thought, well, the Indonesian people's relationship with the Indonesian military is far from normal. In fact, it's marked by extraordinary violence and, you know, the United States government wins, U.S. weapons manufacturers win, but the Indonesian people really lose with normalization of ties. AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Frida Berrigan, who has done the report, "U.S. Weapons at War,” looking at countries around the world that receive U.S. military aid. I know human rights groups now are calling for the U.S. government not to normalize relations with Indonesia. Paul Wolfowitz, who has now been named President of the World Bank, after the tsunami went to the whole Aceh area and came back and called for that, even though the U.S. had now for years not given aid to the Indonesian military because of what they did in Timor, the brutality there. I think human rights groups don't see it as a done deal or that it can be stopped. FRIDA BERRIGAN: Right. Yeah, there is still a lot of pressure that can be mounted against the United States government, and allies in Congress who have seen what the Indonesian military's capable of. So, it's not a done deal, but I think the tsunami created this huge opening of space for something that the Bush administration really wanted for a long time, which is restoration of ties with what they call again and again the world's largest Muslim democracy, and that relationship against the backdrop of the war on terrorism is so important that they're willing to turn a blind eye to the Indonesian military's ongoing abuses. JUAN GONZALEZ: What about Egypt, which has long been a recipient of U.S. foreign aid, in general, and one of the biggest historically. There's a recent election there, another in a series of charade elections there. There's really virtually no ability of any opposition candidates to mount a credible campaign against President Mubarak. What's the state of the military aid there? FRIDA BERRIGAN: Right. Egypt is our second largest military aid client. They receive billions in military aid every year. AMY GOODMAN: Number one is? FRIDA BERRIGAN: Number one is Israel. And those two go together, actually, and together account for the lion's share of United States military aid. Egypt, as a relatively wealthy country, also purchases millions of dollars in U.S.-manufactured weaponry every year. And so, it's a very valuable client and actually pays for U.S. weaponry, unlike many other countries that purchase it, purchase it with loans that the United States then writes off regularly. But, I mean, the whole specter of Egyptian elections is kind of like Iraqi elections or elections in Saudi Arabia where no one is really voting. The whole idea of democracy there is complete fiction, and yet, it makes President Bush look good. And then the State Department might change its classification, but right now, it's listed as an autocratic, undemocratic regime. AMY GOODMAN: Very quickly, Saudi Arabia. FRIDA BERRIGAN: Saudi Arabia is also a huge recipient of military aid. We have a bargain with them to allow them -- allow the United States to remain -- have a military base there, and carry out operations from Saudi Arabia and so we pay for that with foreign military financing. AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Frida Berrigan, she wrote the report, “U.S. Weapons at War,” as Senior Research Fellow at the World Policy Institute. -------- business Orbital Says Subject Of Federal Probe By REUTERS May 27, 2005 Filed at 9:55 a.m. ET http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/business/business-arms-orbital.html?pagewanted=print NEW YORK (Reuters) - Orbital Sciences Corp. (ORB.N), which makes satellites, launch vehicles and missile defense systems, on Friday said it was the subject of a federal probe into government contracting procedures, sending its shares spiraling downward. U.S. government agents on Thursday searched Orbital's facilities at Dulles, Virginia, and Chandler, Arizona, the company said, as part of what it believes to be an investigation into contracting procedures on some U.S. government launch vehicle programs. Orbital shares were down $1.16, or 11 percent, to $9.41 in early trade on the New York Stock Exchange. -------- china China Makes Its Move By Richard Holbrooke Friday, May 27, 2005 Washington Post; A27 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/26/AR2005052601540_pf.html "The storm center of the world has shifted . . . to China," Secretary of State John Hay said in 1899. "Whoever understands that mighty Empire . . . has a key to world politics for the next five hundred years." Well, everything is different and nothing has changed since Hay announced the famous Open Door policy, which demanded American commercial access in China equal to that of other major nations. A century of Sino-American ups and downs -- with far more of the latter -- followed, but today, in very different ways, the United States still seeks an open door; the secretary of the Treasury and an enraged Congress are hammering China to revalue its currency to give U.S. companies a better chance to compete with the world's fastest-growing major economy. Arguments over the exchange rate are a small part of what goes on these days between the two most important nations in the world. Washington and Beijing have several vital common interests, notably in the war against terrorism and the desire for strategic stability in the Pacific and South Asia. And the two nations are still making an effort to work together; on the American side, responsibility for what Washington calls "the global dialogue" is primarily in the hands of Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick, who is planning a visit to Beijing soon. But although both sides officially deny it, Sino-American ties are slowly fraying while other issues take up the attention of senior American officials. Beyond the never-ending Taiwan issue and Washington's concern over China's growing military muscle, two huge factors put the relationship under constant pressure: first, substantially different attitudes toward the rights of people to express themselves freely and, second, the massive trade imbalance. What vastly complicates U.S. relations with China is that every major foreign policy issue between the two countries is also a domestic matter, with its own lobbying groups and nongovernmental organizations ranging across the entire American political spectrum, from human rights to pro-life, from pro-Tibet to organized labor. The bilateral agenda, even a partial one, is daunting: Taiwan, Tibet, human rights, religious freedom, press freedom, the Falun Gong, slave labor, North Korea, Iran, trade, the exchange rate, intellectual property rights, access to Chinese markets, export of sensitive technology and the arms embargo. In Washington, where different parts of the executive branch dominate on each issue and Congress plays a major role, it can be difficult to stick to a coherent overall policy. China, on the other hand, with its highly secretive, tightly disciplined and undemocratic system, can establish long-term policy goals and then work slowly toward them: The Chinese, are, as they like to remind visitors, a patient people. China's advance toward long-term goals has produced extraordinary economic results since Deng Xiaoping's reforms began in 1979, notwithstanding the terrible 1989 crackdown in Tiananmen Square. In foreign policy, however, things had been different until recently. After its war against Vietnam in 1979, China became defensive, even passive, on the world stage. But China's new leaders have begun to match their economic power with a more assertive foreign policy. Taken individually, Chinese actions may look like a series of unrelated events. But they are part of a long-term strategy. Some recent examples: · Premier Wen Jiabao's self-proclaimed "historic visit" to India in April, during which the world's two largest nations announced a "strategic partnership" -- vague words, of course, that could mean almost anything, but quite different from those that have, over the past 50 years, characterized this tense rivalry (which included one war). · President Hu Jintao's stunning meetings in late April and early May with two top Taiwanese political leaders, marking the first such face-to-face meeting since Mao Zedong and Chiang Kai-shek met in 1945. · The anti-Japanese riots in April, which could not have taken place without the acquiescence of the government. Ostensibly meant to protest Japanese schoolbook misrepresentations of World War II atrocities, the demonstrations were in fact a crude signal that no matter what China's official position is, it does not really want Japan to become a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council. · The highly unusual public criticism on May 12 by a Chinese Foreign Ministry official of American policy toward North Korea. Beijing is just plain tired of being called upon by Washington to salvage the six-party talks that North Korea has boycotted for almost a year, when, China says, there has been a "lack of cooperation from the U.S. side." · China's intent -- for the first time since Beijing took over the Chinese seat in the United Nations -- to play a central role in the choice of the next U.N. secretary general, who is slated, by regional rotation, to be from Asia. The new secretary general, who takes office Jan. 1, 2007, cannot be Chinese (no permanent member of the Security Council can have one of its own in that post). One leading candidate called on Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice this month, but Washington has not yet paid the issue enough attention. · Finally, China has begun buying oil fields in such remote areas as Sudan and Angola, part of a long-term strategy to address its rapidly growing energy needs. With energy policy come major foreign policy interests; this is probably related, for example, to China's reluctant attitude toward strong U.N. action in the Darfur region of Sudan. China's gradual emergence as a political player on the world stage comes when there is a growing impression among other countries in East Asia that Washington is not paying the region sufficient attention. (Ironically, this is in sharp contrast to India, where relations with the United States are at their historical best.) If we lose interest and political influence in the Asia-Pacific region just as it grows in economic importance, the imbalance will surely return later to haunt a new generation of policymakers -- and the nation. The challenge is obvious, but the lack of clear focus at the highest levels in Washington on our vital national security interests in the region is disturbing. Richard Holbrooke, who served as assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs at the time of normalization of relations with China, writes a monthly column for The Post. -------- pacific MARSHALLS TAKE NUKE REDRESS TO U.S. CONGRESS By Aenet Rowa PACIFIC ISLANDS REPORT, May 27, 2005 Pacific Islands Development Program/East-West Center With Support From Center for Pacific Islands Studies/University of Hawai‘i http://pidp.eastwestcenter.org/pireport/2005/May/05-27-06.htm MAJURO, Marshall Islands (Yokwe, May 26) – "We are sitting here talking about numbers, policies, and science, yet for all of us in the Marshall Islands, the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Testing Program is a profoundly human experience," testified Marshall Islands Foreign Affairs Minister Gerald Zackios in Washington, D.C. yesterday. "We experience the broad-reaching effects of the testing program on the most intimate and personal levels: from our home islands that we can no longer inhabit, to the sickness and death of our friends and family." After a five-year wait, the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) was able to present its case before U.S. Congressional committees for additional compensation and medical treatment for Marshallese affected by 67 U.S. nuclear tests in the Marshalls about 50 years ago. The May 25 Joint Hearing of the Full Committee Resources and International Relations Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific of the United States House of Representatives was to consider the RMI's Changed Circumstances Petition, first submitted in 2000. Jack Niedenthal, Bikini Atoll Liaison, attended the hearings with Senator Tomaki Juda and Mayor Eldon Note. Also in the audience, coming from the Marshall Islands, were Iroijlaplap Senator Michael Kabua, representatives of the four atolls most-impacted by the nuclear testing, and RMI Health Ministry officials. About thirteen House representatives were present at times during the hearing, which ran from 2:00 to 6:30 p.m. with a 40-minute break for voting. Testimony was heard from eight witnesses on three panels. The United States was represented by the State Department's Howard Krawitz, Director of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, and Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health Steven V. Cary, of the Department of Energy. While the Bush Administration's rejection of the petition was reiterated in testimony, Director Krawitz, many of the Congressional representatives spoke out in support of the Marshall Islands' right to request further consideration and were critical of the Administration's stance. In his remarks, Resources Chairman Richard Pombo (R-California) said of the 30 Marshall Islands-related hearings held over the years, none had examined the specific issues of this request. Rep. Jim Leach, (R-Iowa) Chairman of the International Relations Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific testing said that America should have a bit of an open mind on these kinds of issues since the health consequences of nuclear testing are so new to human existence. Leach said that it was a "fair conclusion" that the issue should be examined due to scientific advancement since the testing. "We do know that we are responsible," he said regarding nuclear testing in the Marshalls, but he noted that the consequences are unknown. "The level of these damages was not known and could not have been known at the time the Section 177 Agreement came into effect. Based upon the NCI study it is clear that exposures during the testing program have had and will continue to have a long lasting impact on the health of the Marshallese people," said Marshall Islands' Nuclear Claims Tribunal Judge James Plasman. The Bush administration’s position is that the recently renewed Compact of Free Association between the Marshalls and the U.S. constitutes the full settlement of all claims, past, present, and future. During questioning of panel one, Congressman Dale Rohrabacher (R-California) noted that the Marshallese had paid a tremendous price for the ultimate security of the US compared to the average American citizen. The United States has a moral obligation to the Marshall Islands, said Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, (D-American Samoa). Rep. Faleomavaega who questioned the Administration's position, objected in what he felt was comparison of the US dollars to the tremendous sacrifice of Marshall Islanders. Yokwe: http://www.yokwe.net -------- prisoners of war Navy SEAL acquitted of abusing Iraqi prisoner 5/27/2005 (AP) http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-05-27-seal-acquitted_x.htm SAN DIEGO — A military jury acquitted a Navy SEAL lieutenant Friday of beating an Iraqi prisoner who later died. Jurors deliberated about three hours before finding Lt. Andrew Ledford not guilty of all charges. The 32-year-old SEAL had faced up to 11 years in military prison if he had been convicted of assault, dereliction of duty, conduct unbecoming an officer and making false statements. Ledford, who had stood at attention for the verdict's reading, burst into a huge smile and embraced his attorney upon hearing he was acquitted. "I think that's what makes this country great is that there is a system in place and it works," he said outside court. Ledford's family, including his pregnant wife, wiped away tears as several SEALs who had served with him in Iraq applauded. Navy prosecutors left the courtroom without commenting. "I hope that someone receives a message from this outcome," Ledford's civilian attorney, Frank Spinner, told reporters. "That we have valiant warriors, brave SEALs, who put their lives on the line and they're human." Prosecutors said that Ledford failed as a leader on a November 2003 mission after he and his men captured Manadel al-Jamadi, a suspect in the bombing of Red Cross offices in Baghdad that killed 12. During a brief stop at an Army base, members of Ledford's SEAL platoon testified that they punched, kicked and struck al-Jamadi with muzzles of their rifles. Instead of ordering his men to halt the beating, Ledford accepted a subordinate's offer to "give this turd a knock" and punched the bound prisoner in the arm, Navy prosecutor Lt. Chad Olcott said. No witness who appeared during the four-day court martial testified that they saw Ledford strike al-Jamadi. The only evidence of the punch came in Ledford's own sworn statement last year to Navy criminal investigators. On the witness stand Thursday, Ledford denied punching the detainee. Eight SEALs and one sailor who served under Ledford have received administrative punishments for abusing al-Jamadi and other detainees. Al-Jamadi died shortly after the SEALs turned him over to the CIA while he was being interrogated in Abu Ghraib prison. Spinner said the CIA should fully disclose its role in the case. Documents obtained by The Associated Press show al-Jamadi died while suspended by his wrists, which were handcuffed behind his back. The CIA has forwarded its investigation to the Justice Department for possible prosecution. No charges have been filed against anyone at the CIA. Ledford also had posed for a picture hoisting a can of Red Bull energy drink as he and his men gathered around al-Jamadi in the back of a Humvee, and he testified that he regretted having done so. "This case represents nothing more than prosecutorial excess as a result of the pictures and abuses that occurred at Abu Ghraib," Spinner told the jury during his closing argument. Through his attorney, Ledford said he plans to continue serving as a SEAL. He has been selected for the rank of lieutenant commander, a promotion that was placed on hold pending the trial's outcome. -------- russia / chechnya Poll Says Russian Spin Doctors Bracing for “Velvet Revolution” Created: 27.05.2005 MosNews http://www.mosnews.com/news/2005/05/27/russiarevolution.shtml 58 percent of Russian experts, who have taken part in the latest poll, believe that the country may soon face a regime change similar to the recent “velvet revolutions” in former Soviet states, Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan. Less than a year ago only 28 percent of analysts shared this view, Nezavisimaya Gazeta daily reported. Center of Public Opinion Studies Glas Naroda (Voice of the People) polled 42 Moscow political scientists and 120 experts from Russian regions. Most of them said the revolution may happen even before the 2008 presidential elections, but at the same time express concern that radical nationalists may come to power after the collapse of Putin’s regime. In December 2004, by the time Georgia’s charismatic Mikhail Saakashvili had forced former Soviet-era leader Eduard Shvarnadze to resign and Ukraine’s “Orange Revolution” was in full swing, more than a half of experts from Moscow and 69 percent of regional specialists insisted that a similar developments would never happen in Russia. But Ukraine, Glas Naroda says, has proved that the revolution is possible even in the country where economical situation is quite stable, and power clans are mighty. Moreover, Kyrgyzstan has shown that even a weak opposition can succeed. Presenting the poll, Glas Naroda, however, underlined that it shows only the opinions of experts, but not Russian citizens. -------- ENERGY -------- energy U.S. Energy, Agriculture Heads Sign Biomass to Hydrogen Pact WASHINGTON, DC, May 27, 2005 (ENS) http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/may2005/2005-05-27-09.asp#anchor5 The top officials of federal agencies that oversee energy and agriculture have signed an agreement to develop hydrogen technologies, particularly the more cost-effective production of hydrogen from biomass, which is plant material, vegetation or agricultural waste used as an energy source. Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman and Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns signed a memorandum of understanding Wednesday between the Department of Energy (DOE) and Department of Agriculture (USDA) that commits officials of the two departments to work together to develop cost effect technologies to convert biomass to hydrogen. "Biomass technologies hold great promise for our rural communities and are a promising route to renewable hydrogen production," Bodman said. Biomass sources that could be used for hydrogen production include ethanol, crop and forest residues, and dedicated energy crops such as switchgrass or willow. "This partnership will hasten the day when hydrogen and fuel cell technologies are providing affordable domestic energy throughout our rural communities and the agriculture and forestry industries," said Johanns. The agreement calls for experts from both departments to meet regularly to share information on technologies and activities related to reducing the cost of chemically converting biomass to hydrogen. ---- Senate Committee Approves Energy Bill; Now to the Floor May 27, 2005 http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/05/senate_committe_1.html The Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee wrapped up its work on the energy bill, approving it by a bipartisan vote of 21–1. It appears to be more aggressive than its counterpart from the House in a number of areas such as appliance efficiency standards and building codes. Although tax-incentive provisions that could further reduce consumption are not yet in the bill, an analysis by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy calculated that energy savings resulting from the Senate bill in its current form would reduce energy use in 2020 by 3.0 quads (quadrillion BTUs of energy), compared to projected savings from the House version of 1.4 quads. The savings from the Senate bill work out to about a 2.4% reduction in energy use compared to the baseline projections of 127.92 quads of consumption for 2020. (The 127.92 quads in 2020 represents a 31% increase from the 97.72 quads consumed in 2002. Figures from the EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2004.) The most aggressive single conservation proposal in the bill is a directive to the President to develop and implement measures to save 1 million barrels of oil per day by 2015. Since there is no enforcement mechanism proposed as part of this measure, however, ACEEE for one discounts the savings to 600K per day (if that). (A similar proposal in the House version did not survive committee, and at some point, the Senate and House bills need to be reconciled into one.) The bill contains a number of provisions on LNG terminals, offshore oil and gas production, and nuclear power that are certain to stir controversy. Specifically on the transportation side, the bill does not strengthen fuel efficiency rules (earlier post). It does: * Set an 8-billion gallon renewable fuels standard (RFS) by 2012 * Strengthen the requirement that federal vehicle fleets use alternate fuels in those vehicles that are capable of using such fuels and requires the Secretary of Energy report to the congress on the use of alternative fuels. * Sunset the alternate fuel vehicle requirements for covered vehicle fleets in 2015. The program was originally conceived as a means of reducing petroleum consumption by substituting alternative fuels in large fleets of vehicles in large fleets. * Authorize appropriations for implementation and enforcement of federal fuel economy standards. * Establish a program to promote the reduction of engine idling in heavy vehicles to reduce fuel consumption and air emissions. * Direct the Secretary of Energy to develop a program to encourage energy conservation through the use of bicycles as a substitute for vehicular transportation. * Create a federal/industry research partnership to improve railroad engine fuel efficiency and environmental performance. * Establishes a program to encourage the purchase of stationary and vehicular hydrogen fuel cell systems. Hydrogen programs receive support from a number of angles. The language in the bill: * Directs the Secretary to conduct a broad-based research program supporting private sector efforts in hydrogen and fuel cell development, including production, storage, distribution and use of hydrogen; and fuel cell applications for transportation and stationary uses. * Sets a goal of enabling the private sector to make a commercialization decision on fuel cell vehicle production hydrogen for transportation by 2015. * Requires enhanced public education and university research in fundamental sciences, application design and systems concepts, including materials, subsystems, manufacturability, maintenance and safety. * Directs the Secretary to transfer critical hydrogen and fuel cell technologies to the private sector and to foster the exchange of non-proprietary information. * Establishes demonstration programs for hydrogen technologies and fuel cell vehicles for light-duty and heavy-duty vehicles. * Supports the timely development of safety codes and standards related to fuel cell vehicles, hydrogen energy systems, and stationary fuel cells. Energy production received a great deal of attention, some of it already controversial. The bill affirms that FERC will have siting control over LNG terminals. Already a bipartisan group of governors is pushing to at least have a say in the process. Nuclear power is revitalized as a permanent component of the energy mix in the bill, which also contains provisions requiring that DOE propose a permanent waste solution to Congress. The bill directs the Interior Department to study how much natural gas is contained in the outer continental shelf—a controversial step toward lifting the federal moratorium on offshore energy drilling. Senators are jockeying for an increase in royalties that would flow to their states in return for lifting the moratorium. The bill provides the possibility of the suspension of royalties paid by companies producing from offshore rigs in Alaska “to promote increased production and encourage production of marginal resources.” Increasing the financial reward, in other words, to continue to produce from difficult or depleting reserves. The bill also moves ahead with provisions supporting the development of oil shale and tar sands resources. The provisions in the bill will be debated and amended as it moves into consideration by the full Senate. Later in the summer, the Senate bill and the House bill will need to be reconciled. ---- Who will power the future? May 27, 2005 By Patrick J. Michaels http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20050526-085732-4753r.htm When pitching private choice in Social Security, President Bush often speaks of an "ownership society." So why can't he and his party do the same on cars and energy? Instead, the administration is big on the omnibus energy bill, passed by the House with more pork in it than all the barbecues in Carolina. At least $23 billion is devoted to automotive fuel cells and the hydrogen to power them. Fuel cells combine hydrogen and oxygen to form water, producing electricity as a byproduct. That electricity then runs a motor, which can propel a car. Fuel-cell cars are quite the rage now because they can be designed to produce no carbon-dioxide emissions, the main cause of global warming. Twenty-one percent of the Earth's atmosphere is composed of oxygen, so there's enough in the air to easily supply one side of the fuel cell. Hydrogen's the problem. There's hardly any in the air we breathe -- less than half of 1 part-per-million. To power fuel cells, concentrated hydrogen has to come from somewhere. Two candidates are obvious. One is water. The other is fossil fuels. Since the fuel-cell car is meant to reduce oil use, we're stuck with water, which can be split into hydrogen and oxygen, a common high school chemistry experiment. Extracting hydrogen from water takes energy. So whatever electricity source is employed had better also not be based on the combustion of fossil fuels. Otherwise, the overall-fuel cell cycle will dramatically increase the rate at which carbon dioxide accumulates in the atmosphere. Solar power to split water would require state-sized arrays and transmission from sunny places to the rest of the country. Wind has similar problems, and the turbines are quite ugly. Nuclear is politically incorrect and more expansive than the coal-fired plants that produce more than half of our power (and a third of our carbon dioxide). And there might even not be enough uranium to power a highly nuclear U.S. electrical grid. A highly cited, but controversial, paper published in Science three years ago claimed we may only have six to 30 years worth of uranium if we switched to intensive nuclear. "[H]ardly a basis for energy policy", wrote the author, Marty Hoffert of New York University. But the theory is, if you legislate it, it will come. The current energy bill requires a commitment by automakers "no later than 2015" to have a fuel-cell powered vehicle for commercial sale, and promises a hydrogen infrastructure by 2020. You would think conservatives would have learned from the saga of hybrid car development. In 1993, Bill Clinton and Al Gore started the "Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles," which paid about $ 1 billion to GM, Ford and Chrysler to produce a high-mileage family car. They didn't. Toyota and Honda, two nonpartners, did, the latter offering the first for sale in the U.S. in December 1999. Ford recently put some hybrid technology in its small Escape SUV. Meanwhile, Toyota, Honda and the Once-Big Three all are working on their own fuel cell cars. So the obvious question is: Who needs the government to assist in this process? When it "helped" with hybrids, not one car hit the road. There's a better, more efficient way to foster development (or failure) of fuel-cell powered cars: Let investors choose which company they believe will prosper most in the future. Otherwise we may get a substantial chunk of taxpayer's change sunk into a failing GM or a foundering Ford. It would be ironic if one of those two actually developed an economically viable fuel cell car but went bankrupt before it could be marketed. Meanwhile, the hydrogen problem will remain. But is it again necessary for taxpayers to pay for the infrastructure? This was once a country where no gasoline was sold, and individuals and businesses figured out how to get this very flammable and volatile fuel everywhere it was needed. None of this logic will stop the energy bill. Automotive engineers from one of the above companies recently told me a commercially viable fuel cell car is at least 10, more likely 15 years away. Funny, that's what I heard almost five years ago. Perhaps "15" is a synonym for "never" in engineering-ese. Patrick J. Michaels is senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute and author of "Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media." ---- New Climate Stewardship Bill Would Subsidize Nuclear Development WASHINGTON, DC, May 27, 2005 (ENS) http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/may2005/2005-05-27-03.asp A new version of the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Bill includes financial subsidies for development of nuclear power, a provision that has drained environmentalist support from the measure to limit the emission of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide in the United States. With about five percent of the world's population, the United States emits roughly one-quarter of the world's climate warming greenhouse gases. Senators John McCain, an Arizona Republican, and Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut Democrat, introduced a modified version of their climate change bill, the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act on Thursday. It includes the provisions of the Climate Stewardship Act of 2005 introduced in February, along with new provisions to promote the development and deployment of low or zero greenhouse gas emitting technologies. “This new title, when combined with the cap and trade provisions of the previously introduced bill, will promote the commercialization of technologies that can significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, mitigate the impacts of climate change, and increase the nation’s energy independence,” McCain said. “And, it will help to keep America at the cutting edge of innovation where the jobs and trade opportunities of the new economy are to be found.” Both the earlier version of the bill and this latest version would provide for the trading of emission allowances and reductions for the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. The system would be based on a greenhouse gas database provided by the government which would contain an inventory of emissions and a registry of reductions. It would require a reduction in carbon dioxide emission levels to 2000 levels by the year 2010 by capping the overall greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity generation, transportation, industrial, and commercial economic sectors, and creating a market for individual companies to trade pollution credits. The bill would establish a target for the year 2010 setting the U.S. emissions level for the affected sectors at levels emitted in the year 2000 measured in units of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalents. The bill’s emission limits would not apply to the agricultural and the residential sectors, but the economic sectors that are affected represent approximately 85 percent of the overall U.S. greenhouse gas emissions for the year 2000. These provisions are similar to the carbon dioxide trading market established by countries that must meet their emissions targets under the Kyoto Protocol, which the Bush administration has declined to join. But the new Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act would use the financial resources generated by this emissions trading program to provide incentives for the development of alternatives to conventional fossil fuel power production - including nuclear power. These alternatives also would include solar and coal gasification combined cycle technologies, as well as more efficient products and vehicles, and a variety of alternative vehicle fuels that result in lower overall emissions. “We face an urgent and complex challenge - cutting emissions of climate-changing gases like CO2 while growing our economy. Every technology, every innovation has to be on the table so that the market can choose the best ideas and inventions,” Lieberman said. “Senator McCain and I have developed a bill that shuns picking winners and losers between and among different technologies – we want the market to do that. Instead, our bill would create a system that puts every technological option on the menu to ensure that there will be viable low greenhouse gas emitting products and energy services available to face the challenge of climate change.” The bill specifies that funding would be provided for development of three nuclear reactors demonstrating new technology - one of each new certified design. Environmentalists are concerned about the dangers of nuclear power - the lack of secure long term storage for the tons of radioactive wastes, and the possibility of accidents or terrorist strikes that would releases large amounts of radiation. “There is no need to jeopardize our health, safety, and economy with increased nuclear power when we have cleaner, cheaper, and safer solutions to reduce global warming pollution,” said Emily Rusch of the New Jersey Public Research Interest Group. Rusch said Americans "can meet our future electricity needs and reduce global warming pollution far beyond the goals in the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act without increasing our reliance on nuclear power." She cites a 2004 study by Synapse Energy Economics which found America could reduce its emissions of carbon dioxide from electricity generation by 47 percent by 2025 compared to business as usual and meet projected electricity demand, while saving $36 billion annually in electricity costs and cutting our reliance on nuclear power by nearly half. “We continue to support the original Climate Stewardship Act, as a good first step in tackling the challenge of global warming. We do not support this new bill, which adds expensive and unnecessary subsidies for dangerous nuclear power plants,” said Rusch. In addition, environmentalists point out, substantial greenhouse gas generation occurs across the nuclear fuel cycle. Carbon dioxide emissions per unit energy from nuclear power are about one-third of those from large gas fired electricity plants. The carbon dioxide emissions arise from burning fossil fuels to mine the uranium bearing ore used to manufacture fuel rods and in the manufacture of all the components of the power plants, including the fuel rods. Lieberman and McCain say they crafted the Climate Stewardship Act "in close consultation with industry leaders and the environmental community," modeling it after the successful acid rain trading program of the 1990 Clean Air Act. McCain and Lieberman first introduced the legislation in 2002 and despite strong Senate support, the legislation fell short of passage in a vote in October 2003 on the Senate floor. The senators have pledged to bring the legislation to another vote this year. A summary of the newly introduced bill is available at: http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=238307 Questions or Comments: editor@ens-news.com ---- PROPOSAL ON EMISSIONS TRADING SYSTEM May 27, 2005 (AP) http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/27/national/27brfs.html?pagewanted=print In a new twist to a proposal to combat climate change, Senators John McCain and Joseph I. Lieberman introduced a proposal to create an emissions-trading system for industries that emit heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide. Like previous measures offered by Mr. McCain, an Arizona Republican, and Mr. Lieberman, a Connecticut Democrat, the bill intends to cut carbon emissions to their 2000 level by 2010. It also includes up to $1 billion in subsidies for the development of cleaner energy technologies. The subsidies for nuclear power caused Greenpeace U.S.A. and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group to abandon their support for the measure. Felicity Barringer (NYT) ---- FACTBOX - Key Provisions of US Senate Asbestos Bill REUTERS USA: May 27, 2005 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/30997/story.htm WASHINGTON - Key provisions of a US Senate bill to take asbestos injury claims out of the courts and pay them from a $140 billion privately-financed fund. FUNDING - Companies will pay $90 billion over 30 years based on prior asbestos expenditures and revenues. Insurers will pay $46 billion over 27 years. The bill assumes $4 billion will come from existing asbestos bankruptcy trusts. MANAGEMENT - The Asbestos Injury Claims Resolution Fund will be managed by the Office of Asbestos Disease Compensation in the US Department of Labor. AWARDS -- There are nine levels of awards, based on severity of illness. Payments range from $25,000 for breathing impairment up to $1.1 million for victims of mesothelioma, a particularly lethal cancer of the membrane lining the chest and abdominal cavities. Lung cancers start at $300,000. Medical monitoring is provided for claimants with asbestos exposure but no symptoms. CRITERIA - Claimants must have at least five years of cumulative occupational exposure to asbestos, or "take-home" exposure of the same length of time. Cash recipients must have characteristic "markers" of asbestos exposure in their lungs. Claims must be filed within five years of diagnosis. There are no limits on additional awards if the disease progresses. COURTS - Asbestos claims that have not progressed to trial must go to the fund. People with urgent claims can choose to seek a court settlement, but cannot recover more than 150 percent of the equivalent fund award. If the fund is not up and running in nine months, urgent claims can return to court. Other claims can return to court if the fund is not up and running in two years. EXCEPTIONS - A claimant who does not meet the medical criteria can still apply. A medical panel would review the claim. The final decision is made by the administrator. WORKERS COMPENSATION -- A fund payment will not affect a claim relating to workers' compensation or insurance payments. MONTANA CLAUSE -- Residents of Libby, Montana, are exempted from having to show exposure if they have lived in the town or within 20 miles of it for 12 months prior to Dec. 31, 2004. Libby residents who meet certain medical criteria would automatically be awarded at least $400,000 each. ATTORNEYS FEES -- Capped at 5 percent of final fund awards. END OF THE FUND - The program cannot terminate before a review and the fund administrator has been given a chance to revise the program, such as by proposing new medical criteria. Upon termination, claims can return to court. ASBESTOS BAN - Within a year of enactment, the fund administrator will develop regulations prohibiting the manufacture, processing or distribution of asbestos-containing products. The Department of Defense can exempt asbestos products important to national security. ---- Coca-Cola to replace vending machines in Japan to go eco-friendly TOKYO (AFP) May 27, 2005 http://www.terradaily.com/2005/050527120346.8uowjkor.html The emblematic US firm Coca-Cola said Friday it will replace all its 980,000 drink vending machines across Japan in a bid to reduce gas emissions in line with the landmark Kyoto Protocol. It will take the US beverage giant's Japanese unit at least 15 years to install vending machines without hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, across all the streets and lobbies of Japan. The United States and Australia are the main holdouts against the Kyoto treaty, which sets targets for industrialized nations to slash their greenhouse gas emissions that lead to global warming. By the end of the year, Coca-Cola will install 1,500 machines in Japan without HFCs, a coolant that produces greenhouse gasses. As of 2008, Coca-Cola Japan will only buy next-generation eco-friendly vending machines, which are between 20 and 30 percent more costly, it said in a statement. Coca-Cola said it and its industrial partners invested more than 30 million dollars over the past four years to build HFC-free vending machines. The company estimated that by 2010 Coca-Cola will reduce greenhouse emissions by 70,000 tons from current rates across the world. US President George W. Bush pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol as one of his first acts when taking office in 2001, saying the treaty was unfair as there were no emissions targets set for growing developing countries such as China and India. -------- ACTIVISTS A Nun Prays as Diplomats Bicker Over Nuclear Arms Story by Louis Charbonneau REUTERS WORLD: May 27, 2005 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/31003/story.htm UNITED NATIONS - A thin Japanese woman beats a prayer drum for peace day after day in front of UN headquarters while diplomats from 188 nations bicker about the future of the world's 30,000 nuclear weapons. "Why do we keep destroying this earth?" asked Jun Yasuda, a 56-year-old Buddhist nun born in Tokyo. For the past month, diplomats from states that signed the 1970 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty have been taking stock of the landmark pact against the spread of atomic weapons. They have been unable to agree on any measures that could strengthen the treaty. "It's basically a failure," said one senior diplomat at the conference. Hundreds of delegates from across the globe have heard the steady beat of Yasuda's drum as they entered the United Nations every day since the NPT review meeting began on May 2. Yasuda has friends who suffered in the US atomic bombings of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. But she says her presence outside the UN building is a "peace vigil" in support of the NPT, not a protest. Yasuda's drumming will cease on Friday, the last day of the 2005 NPT Review Conference. Inside the United Nations, diplomats use words like "failure," "collapse," and "disaster" to describe the conference. Participants had hoped to agree on steps to stop countries with nuclear weapons ambitions from getting sensitive technology and to persuade the five NPT members with nuclear arms to scrap their stockpiles of the world's deadliest weapons. Diplomats from developing countries and nuclear activists place the burden of the blame on the United States, which they accuse of reneging on previous disarmament commitments. Several diplomats said France was Washington's main ally in blocking references to the disarmament pledges the weapon states made at the last NPT review meetings in 1995 and 2000. Under the treaty, the United States, Russia, China, France and Britain pledged to eventually disarm, while the other signatories agreed to pursue only peaceful nuclear technology. US SAYS BELIEVES IN NPT State Department spokesman Richard Boucher denied the conference had been a failure and said Washington was committed to nonproliferation. "The United States has shown by its actions and by its efforts ... we do believe in the (NPT), and we're focused on the specific steps to carry it out," he said. "I suppose pointing fingers at the United States is a popular thing to do," Boucher said. A recent arms reduction agreement with Moscow showed Washington was committed to reducing its weapons arsenal "down to very low levels," he said. Participants said Egypt and Iran also helped prevent the conference from accomplishing much of anything. Iran did not want any critical statements about its own NPT breaches, while Egypt wanted the conference to demand Israel sign the NPT and give up its assumed nuclear arsenal. Israel, like nuclear-armed Pakistan and India, has never signed the treaty. It has an estimated 200 nuclear warheads. North Korea, which says it has the bomb, withdraw from the treaty in 2002. Since Cairo could not achieve its goal, it forged what one arms expert called an "unholy alliance" with Tehran, Washington and Paris to block any hard outcome from the review. Failure of the conference "doesn't mean the NPT has failed or that the process has failed," the senior diplomat said. "It means people don't have the political will." The Buddhist nun said the world could only get rid of nuclear weapons by building more trust. "Where does this nuclear bomb come from? From fear, not trust," Yasuda said. "You have to trust." (Additional reporting by Paul Eckert in Washington) ---- "Martha Stewart is Totally Against the War in Iraq," Says Activist Nun Imprisoned With Her Friday, May 27th, 2005 Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/27/1410256 Antiwar activist Sister Carol Gilbert returned home from prison this week after serving a 33-month sentence for a Plowshares disarmament action. During her time behind bars, she became friends with a high-profile prisoner at Alderson Federal Prison--Martha Stewart. In an interview on Democracy Now!, Gilbert says, "Martha [Stewart] is totally against the war in Iraq, there is no question about it...we need to understand that Martha is still under house arrest right now, and so, she still is very limited by what she is allowed to do and not do by this government.." [includes rush transcript] Sister Carol Gilbert has been released from prison after serving a 33-month sentence in a federal prison. She was jailed along with two other Dominican sisters -- Sister Ardeth Platte and Sister Jackie Hudson. They were arrested for destroying government property during a Plowshares action at the N-8 Minuteman silo in Colorado. RUSH TRANSCRIPT AMY GOODMAN: As we wrap up this week and today's show, we thought we would go down to Baltimore to your home, Frida, where you were just a few days ago, to Jonah House for the return home of Sister Carol Gilbert, one of three women, one of three nuns who several years ago hammered on warheads in Colorado, protesting the invasion of Iraq, were sentenced to a number of years in prison. She has just come out of prison now, and joins us on the phone from your home, Carol Gilbert, and Frida Berrigan's home. Welcome to Democracy Now! SISTER CAROL GILBERT: Thank you, Amy. AMY GOODMAN: It’s good to have you with us. We played a clip when you came out of jail on Monday, but wanted to ask about the controversy around Jonah House and the questions that were raised about you being allowed to return to your home after you served out your prison sentence. SISTER CAROL GILBERT: That's correct, Amy. I understand I have two probation officers, one in Maryland and one in Colorado. The problem with Maryland is that they did not want me to return to Jonah House and be living with felons. And there's the question of restitution. And it's clear that the war making continues, and I will not pay any money, any kind of restitution, and so therefore, my travel, it appears, at least for the next three years, could be that I cannot travel outside the State of Maryland. We have done alternative restitution, in that we have collected in our names over $120,000 to all kinds of wonderful charitable organizations and social justice organizations, and each of us has made our own contribution to the work of the prison, in the sense that I made over 25 pairs of mittens and sweaters in that for the poor of Alderson. Whether or not the judge will accept that remains to be seen. AMY GOODMAN: Can you explain briefly what it is you did? SISTER CAROL GILBERT: On the morning of October 6, 2002, the three of us entered a Minuteman three missile silo in northern Colorado to inspect, expose and symbolically disarm this weapon. We were trying to prevent the war in Iraq and felt that under international law, we had a responsibility to try to draw attention and to show the world that these are our weapons of mass destruction and for that the government chose to charge us with felonies similar to a sabotage charge. AMY GOODMAN: You had a well-known inmate with you at Alderson, Martha Stewart. Did you come to know her? SISTER CAROL GILBERT: I did come to know Martha very well, and I think she totally understands now the injustice of the system and hopefully will continue to speak out and work to see that the system really needs to collapse. We're not even sure it can be reformed at this point. JUAN GONZALEZ: And your feeling, having spent that time in jail, protesting the war, to find that it's still going on, it's still -- it's still, the resistance is stronger than ever, and the determination of President Bush to continue prosecuting this war seems to be stronger than ever? SISTER CAROL GILBERT: Absolutely. Just, in fact, what I would say is even clearer to me is just as the war continues on the international front and the corruption of the corporations such as Halliburton, we have the same thing happening on the domestic scene, only in this country it's the prisons and the corruption and the illegalities of Unicore, and so many things go on in the prisons. So we’ve got prisons in this country and war on the international scene, and both soldiers and prisoners are disposable people. AMY GOODMAN: And on the issue of Martha Stewart, since she could have such tremendous impact if she spoke out around prison conditions, did she express an opinion on the occupation in Iraq? SISTER CAROL GILBERT: Martha is totally against the war in Iraq. There's no question about it. And I think we need to understand that Martha is still under house arrest right now, and so, she still is very limited by what she is allowed to do and not do by this government. AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank you very much for joining us, Sister Carol Gilbert. SISTER CAROL GILBERT: Thank you so much, Amy. AMY GOODMAN: Speaking to us from her home in Jonah House, and Frida Berrigan of World Policy Institute.