NucNews - June 14, 2005


-------- NUCLEAR 


-------- accidents and safety

DOE Cites Safety and Ecology Corp. for Violating Nuclear Safety Rules

June 14, 2005 Department of Energy

http://www.energy.gov/engine/content.do?PUBLIC_ID=18062&BT_CODE=PR_PRESSRELEASES&TT_CODE=PRESSRELEASE

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Department of Energy (DOE) today notified Safety and Ecology Corporation, the contractor responsible for radiological safety at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Project in Portsmouth, Ohio, that it will fine the company $55,000 for violating the department's regulations prohibiting retaliation against employees who raise nuclear safety concerns. 

“We take safety very seriously at the Department of Energy,” said Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health John Shaw.  “Today’s action illustrates the department’s commitment to ensuring that any and all valid safety concerns can be raised by our workers without retaliation.”

The Preliminary Notice of Violation (PNOV) issued today follows a decision by DOE’s Office of Hearings and Appeals that an employee was fired after raising nuclear safety concerns at the Portsmouth site.  This is the first enforcement action involving “whistleblowers” covered under nuclear safety rules.  A finding of contractor retaliation by the DOE Office of Hearings and Appeals or the U.S. Department of Labor is automatically considered a nuclear safety violation.

The decision by the Office of Hearings and Appeals was affirmed by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.  As a result of the finding, the employee was reinstated to her position, provided back pay and reimbursed all costs associated with her case.  The penalty announced today will be above and beyond the actions required by the Office of Hearings and Appeals decision.

The Price-Anderson Act of 1988 authorizes the Energy Department to undertake enforcement actions against contractors for violations of its nuclear safety requirements. 

Safety and Ecology Corporation will have 30 days to respond to DOE's concerns and identify corrective actions it has taken.  Unless the contractor denies the violations with sufficient justification, the PNOV will become final and the contractor will have to pay the $55,000 fine.

Additional details on this and other enforcement actions are available on the Internet at http://www.eh.doe.gov/enforce.

Media contacts:
Jeff Sherwood, 202/586-5806



-------- australia

No future in N-power: Garrett

June 14, 2005 The Australian

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,15609431%255E1702,00.html

NUCLEAR power was not a viable energy replacement source for coal-fired power stations, Labor backbencher Peter Garrett said today.

But the former prominent environmentalist said this did not mean a national debate should not take place on the controversial issue.

"I think that the current state of nuclear power means that it's not a viable energy replacement source for coal-fired power stations," Mr Garrett said.

"There are too many costs to the environment and political obstacles that are in the way of nuclear power.

"Sure, we should have a debate about it but we should be clear what the problems are."

Mr Garrett said he did not think there was a chance that nuclear power would become a viable option in the future, even if perceived problems with cost and safety were addressed and appropriate safeguards introduced.

"I think that if you look seriously from the point of view of public cost, long-term radioactive waste disposal problems, and the contribution to nuclear weapons proliferation ... it will not stack up over time," he said.

"And finally, and most importantly, nuclear power stations don't employ a lot of Aussies.

"Renewable energy and looking at the mix and suite of energy sources that we have in the country can employ a lot more Australians and we'd have much cleaner energy." 

----

Nuclear power not the way, says Greenpeace (Australia)

Drew Warne-Smith
June 14, 2005 The Australian

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,15606421%255E30417,00.html

IF nuclear energy supplied 75 per cent of the world's electricity, it would result in only a 25 per cent reduction in harmful carbon emissions, the global head of Greenpeace has warned.

In Sydney to address the Lowy Institute think tank tonight, Greenpeace International executive director Gerd Leipold told The Australian that he was surprised at the timidity of debate in Australia about energy supply, which has seen Liberal and Labor leaders support a renewed focus on nuclear power as a green-friendly alternative to coal.

Mr Leipold will tell the Lowy Institute that nuclear energy is an expensive, dangerous and finite option that has slowed the development of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power.

"It's good that people are taking climate change seriously and understand that we need to take drastic measures," Mr Leipold, 54, said. "But it's simply not the answer that we need at this moment."

Mr Leipold said nuclear power produced by 450 reactors currently supplied about 17 per cent of the world's power.

It would take up to 10,000 reactors worldwide to increase supply to 50 to 75 per cent by 2100, he said.

But for all the accompanying problems of sourcing uranium, disposing of waste safely and finding new sites for reactors, it would result in only a 25 per cent reduction of carbon emissions.

Countries that rely heavily on nuclear power - such as France and the US - still struggle to meet their carbon dioxide emission targets, Mr Leipold said.

"It's not the case that those countries who have developed nuclear power have low CO2 (carbon dioxide) emissions," he said.

Mr Leipold warned that if nuclear technology and know-how were spread, it would also increase the danger of terrorists and rogue states acquiring nuclear weapons.

He will also spell out the economic arguments in favour of renewable energy sources, which he said have enjoyed "serious" development work for only the past 10 years.

The global nuclear industry receives $US300billion ($392.8billion) a year in government subsidies and provides few jobs compared to decentralised energy sources such as wind farms. China has also committed to 10per cent of its electricity being supplied by renewable energy by 2020, he said.

But while Mr Leipold remains optimistic that growing public awareness will help steer governments towards renewable energy sources, he said that finding ways to use our available energy more efficiency would alleviate the need to develop new energy sources in the short term.

"If Australia had the energy efficiency that Japan has, we wouldn't even be talking about nuclear energy," he said.

"Our research shows that every $1 spent on energy efficiency is seven times more effective in cutting carbon than nuclear power." 


-------- britain

Legal threat over Sellafield leak
The leak is thought to have began last August

File On 4: BBC Radio 4, Tuesday 14 June, 2005 at 2000 BST, and repeated on Sunday 19 June, 2005 at 1700 BST.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/cumbria/4085224.stm

Investigators are continuing to examine the cause of a leak of highly radioactive material at part of the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant.

The Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant (Thorp) stopped production in April when the leak was discovered.

The Nuclear Installations Inspectorate is compiling a report before a decision on any prosecutions is taken.

Investigations are focusing in part on how long the leak had lain undetected and reliability of monitoring systems.

A clean-up operation is continuing and similar pipework elsewhere in the plant has been checked.

Sellafield's managing director, Barry Snelson, admitted to the BBC that the plant may remain closed for months.

Waste warning

Safety regulators have claimed that the discharge could result in criminal charges.

The accident happened when a narrow pipe fractured, spewing nitric acid onto the floor of a concrete-lined cell in the Thorp reprocessing complex.

The acid contained 20 tonnes of uranium and 160kg of plutonium.

It is thought the pipe may have fractured in August, but the leak was not discovered until eight months later due to a combination of a faulty gauge and human error.

No staff were contaminated.

Last week, Sellafield was told to improve the way it discharged low level radioactive waste water into the Irish Sea.

Environment Agency inspectors issued an enforcement notice after finding its filtering system needed to be improved.

Operators British Nuclear Group said no discharge limits had been breached and it was "committed" to improvements.


-------- canada

AECL eyes sending technology to China
To be part of sales push for Candu reactors

By SIMON TUCK
Tuesday, June 14, 2005 Page B1, Toronto Globe and Mail

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/freeheadlines/LAC/20050614/RAECL14/business/ROB

OTTAWA -- Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. is in talks to transfer key elements of its nuclear energy technology to China, part of a bid to boost sales in the world's fastest-growing market.

The technology transfer, which was discussed by federal officials during Prime Minister Paul Martin's trip to China earlier this year, would be intended to eliminate a key advantage held by AECL's competitors. Those companies are exploring further technology transfers with Chinese authorities.

"AECL is committed to transferring technology to China and that will be an asset to our sales program," said Ken Petrunik, AECL's chief operating officer.

Dr. Petrunik said a deal could be reached "very soon," although he wouldn't provide specifics on the extent of the technology transfer or the timing. "We'll see progress in the next year."

Advertisements

China plans to add two multibillion-dollar reactors to the Qinshan plant in Zhejiang province, but has indicated that AECL's advanced Candu reactor is not in the running, even though the two existing Candus at Qinshan have performed well and were built on time and on budget.

The Chinese decision to opt for another technology is seen as a setback for AECL. The Crown corporation, like its competitors, has been counting on the world's most populous country to boost sales in an industry that continues to suffer from spotty sales and public relations challenges.

The Chinese have said, instead, that they will choose from three other reactor companies, each of which use pressurized-water technology. AECL's Candus create energy through heavy-water technology, which relies on natural uranium.

The 1997 deal to sell the two existing Candus did not include technology transfer, but Canada and China signed a memorandum of understanding this year to work more closely on nuclear energy. That agreement was signed in the presence of Mr. Martin and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao.

AECL officials say they remain hopeful that China will provide them with a lucrative market over the next 10 to 20 years, as its energy demands continue to soar.

The Chinese authorities' plan to boost the country's energy supplies relies heavily on nuclear technology, particularly in the eastern and southern coastal regions where the economy is strong but there is a lack of natural energy resources.

China expects the share of its power supplied by nuclear generation to grow to 4 per cent by 2020 from 2.3 per cent today, which is expected to mean the addition of at least 30 new plants. Only two are under constructions.

The bill for those facilities will be an estimated $60-billion.

Nuclear energy experts say technology transfer is often a key in reactor sales because the buyer wants to be able to improve their own ability to manage and even build the energy-producing plants.

Per Peterson, a professor of nuclear engineering at the University of California at Berkeley, said technology transfer deals will help AECL increase its sales in China and that he expects the Chinese to follow the path developed by Japan more than a generation ago. Japan bought nuclear reactors -- and the transfer of the technology -- from Western companies and increasingly was able to operate its own facilities, he said.

AECL is competing against such industry heavyweights as Britain-based Westinghouse Electric Co., Russia's AtomStroyExport, and Paris-based Areva, the world's largest nuclear reactor builder. Areva has already supplied four of China's nine working nuclear plants. Each reactor sells for about $5-billion.

Dr. Peterson said pressurized water and heavy-water reactors -- as well as a third type, boiling water reactors -- are strong performers with cutting-edge technology. All three types of reactors, he said, will win contracts in the coming years. "I don't expect any of them to dominate the world market."

Fred Singer, a professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia, said the Candus are an excellent reactor, in part because they have fewer problems than many of their competitors. "It should be more widely used." 



-------- china 

China National Nuclear aims to double its power generation - report

Xinhua Financial News, Jun 14, 2005 (XFN-ASIA via COMTEX) 

http://pepei.pennnet.com/news/display_news_story.cfm?Section=WIREN&Category=HOME&NewsID=120657

BEIJING -- China National Nuclear Corp (CNNC) aims to build two 650-megawatt reactors and two 1,000-megawatt reactors at its Qinshan nuclear power plant, which will more than double its generation capacity, the China Daily reported, citing sources from the company. Total investment for the two planned expansion projects is expected to reach 4.33 bln usd. CNNC, the country's largest nuclear reactor constructor, will fund the projects itself. CNNC said the installed capacity of the Qinshan plant in the eastern Zhejiang province will rise to 6,200 megawatts from the current 2,900 megawatts upon completion of the two projects. The two 650-megawatt reactors have already won final approval from the central government, and will be installed at the phase II project of the Qinshan plant. The two 1,000-megawatt reactors will be installed in Fangjiashan, 650 meters away from the Qinshan phase I project, which already has one 300-megawatt reactor in operation.

The two 1,000-megawatt reactors have yet to win central government approval. "We aren't sure when the approval will come - it may be in the next four or five years," said Ma Mingze, deputy general manager of the Qinshan Nuclear Power Co, a unit of CNNC. China plans to invest 400 bln yuan by 2020 in the construction of new nuclear power plants, the China Daily reported, citing Kang Rixin, president of China National Nuclear Corporation. Kang said the government plans to increase the amount of installed nuclear power capacity from the current 16 gigawatts to 40 gigawatts - or four pct of total installed capacity - within 15 years. (1 usd = 8.3 yuan) sharon.wu@xinhuafinance.com

---

China to build four new nuclear reactors at Qinshan plant

BEIJING (AFP) Jun 14, 2005

http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050614043436.rxctw4u1.html
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050614/bs_afp/chinaenergynuclear_050614060856

China National Nuclear Corp (CNNC) plans to double generating capacity at its Qinshan plant by building four new reactors for a total investment of 4.3 billion dollars, state media said Tuesday.

CNNC, the country's largest nuclear reactor constructor, will build two 650-megawatt reactors and two 1,000-megawatt reactors, funding the projects itself, the China Daily reported, citing the company.

CNNC said the installed capacity of the Qinshan plant in the eastern province of Zhejiang would rise to 6,200 megawatts from the current 2,900 megawatts upon completion of the projects.

The two 650-megawatt reactors have already won final approval from the central government although the 1,000-megawatt reactors are still awaiting the green light, the report said.

China currently gets just 2.3 percent of its energy from nuclear power plants and is hoping to increase that to 4.0 percent by 2020, which will make it the world's fastest developer of nuclear power.

To achieve this, China plans to increase its nuclear generating capacity from the current 8,700 megawatts to 36,000 megawatts by 2020.


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

-------- depleted uranium

Ecologists Reject US and Australia Joint Military Exercises

Canberra, Jun 14, 2005 (Prensa Latina) 

http://www.plenglish.com/article.asp?ID=%7B0FDC0655-C6EE-41B5-B5FB-451D7607F1CB%7D&language=EN

Ecology groups denounced Tuesday damage to public health and environment because of the joint US and Australia military exercises in Australian national territory.

The exercises are being held in Shoalwater Bay on the Queensland coast, and in the Coral Sea, with the participation of 6,000 Australian and 11,000 US soldiers.

Scores of Shoalwater Bay residents are unable to sleep, and warned the exercises put sea-life in risk, particularly groups of whales, which may be disoriented by low frequency sounds, and they denounced the danger to public health, especially when depleted uranium ammunition is used.

These are the biggest military exercises carried out by the two countries, and include combined operations of special forces, parachute launches, artillery and infantry manoeuvres, amphibious disembarkations, and air and sea combat operations.

The Australian government has strengthened its military alliance with the US in recent years, and was the only Asia-Pacific country to get directly involved in the invasion of Iraq, despite the majority disapproval by the Australian people.

The government of Canberra also decided to join the Pentagon"s Anti-Missile Shield project, and allow Washington to use Australian territory as a testing zone for new generation weapons, which has caused great concern in the area. 

----

Activists set rally, forum on Iraq, uranium use

Tuesday, June 14, 2005
St. Tammany bureau
Louisiana Times-Picayune

http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/metro/index.ssf?/base/news-9/1118732234105650.xml

A forum on the use of depleted uranium in military munitions and potential related health problems will be held Wednesday at Sally Dunn Studios in Covington, preceded by an anti-Iraq war rally at Boston and Columbia streets.

Sponsored by the Louisiana Activist Network headed by Covington lawyer Buddy Spell, the rally will begin at 6 p.m. followed by the forum at 7 p.m. at 317 N. Columbia.

The forum will be hosted by Bob Smith, depleted uranium awareness chairman of the Louisiana Activist Network.

Also speaking will be Dennis Kyne, a Gulf War veteran and activist against the use of depleted uranium in the manufacture of military munitions.

Music will be provided by guitarist Brian Stoltz of Slidell, who played with the Neville Brothers and now with the Funky Meters.

The Louisiana Activist Network is part of a worldwide effort launched in 1999 called The Campaign Against Depleted Uranium, which is seeking a global ban on the use of depleted uranium in military weapons because of research showing it has dangerous effects on vital human organs. 

----

Flattering the popinjays

Journalists are letting our leaders get away with murder

AL Kennedy
Tuesday June 14, 2005
The Guardian

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,9115,1505943,00.html

Nostalgia's a grand thing. Hearing my former MP, Gorgeous George, berating those bewildered senators took me back. We both hail from Dundee and it was great to hear the old dialect again. Hardly a school day went by without me calling someone a "Trotskyite popinjay", and the cries of "You throw like a big lickspittle" were frequent.

Another Scottish firebrand, James Maxton, once lost his parliamentary privileges for calling Winston Churchill "a murderer". Which would constitute another rare sign of life from a world where arms deals, pre-emptive invasions, environmental rape and moral collapse are coddled in an atmosphere of courteous restraint. Churchill, for example, said Maxton was "the greatest gentleman in the House of Commons" - because Maxton was dead by then and nothing aids the status quo more than politesse.

But back in the 70s it seemed that things were set to change. Woodward and Bernstein, Bill Moyers, Seymour Hersh, Sidney Schanberg - all were emerging as top-notch investigative reporters. Plus the thought of those sexy informants: mysterious Deep Throat and dashing Daniel Ellsberg. It seemed that steadfast reporting and public protest could change the world, unseat corrupt leaders, even end an unjust war. The popinjays were getting no respect.

Today, of course, we have Vietnam II, the BBC is in tatters, Deep Throat turns out to be a mad-eyed geezer with a book deal and Ellsberg is still appealing for whistleblowers when no one will print their revelations unless they involve pierced labia, or Castro having sex with a dog. While all other public figures cannot appear in any format without being at least partially naked, sexually reassigned and/or masturbating a farm animal, our politicians are cocooned by embedded sycophancy. Not that I'd want to see Blair stripped with his parts in a jar and laying hands on a helpless donkey, but equally I am very tired of bombshells such as the Downing Street memo bringing us no nearer a transatlantic war crimes tribunal.

Around the globe popinjays both roundly condemn and unflinchingly support terrorism, torture, ethnic cleansing, the deployment of WMDs, the possession of WMDs and the imposition of chaos upon areas to be announced. This mental effort would be immensely tiring without the kind support of the mainstream media. Mugging Galloway on Newsnight or hounding Clinton were much safer options than rocking the boat over the massive fraud in the last two presidential elections, or the much-discussed possibilities of fraud in our last election, which seemed to evaporate as soon as the polls closed.

Not that I blame journalists for being cautious - 28 were killed this year already, 53 in 2004. During our occupation of Iraq, where journalists may or may not be specifically targeted by US troops, 63 journalists have been killed so far.

Then again, we are supposed to be living in a democracy where we can speak our minds. So why do we largely inhabit a popinjay-friendly limbo of weasel words and porn? Serbian television risks airing footage of Serbian war crimes; we get investigations revealing that the BNP don't like foreigners. Dahr Jamail, Greg Palast, Aaron Glantz and others are doing their bit, but why is it so hard to find out what's really happening in Falluja, in al-Qa'im, in Guantánamo? Shouldn't we have access to all the facts about depleted uranium deaths, 9/11, Iraq deaths and casualties, ID cards, the corporate-driven EU constitution, expansion of the Patriot Act? Shouldn't the truth be more important than flattering the popinjays, the murderers?



-------- korea

Nuclear test by North Korea may trigger chain reaction

Published: Tuesday, 14 June, 2005, Gulf Times 
By Teruaki Ueno

http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=40532&version=1&template_id=46&parent_id=26

TOKYO:  A move by North Korea to test a nuclear bomb would prompt its Asian neighbours to seriously debate arming themselves with nuclear weapons, experts say.

But Japan’s experience as the only nation ever to suffer a nuclear attack could make it difficult for policy-makers in Tokyo to actually take that step.

Pyongyang declared in February that it had some atomic weapons and has hinted it may be on the verge of conducting a weapons test. Last week, North Korean Vice Foreign Minister Kim Gye-gwan told ABC news that his country had enough atomic bombs to defend itself against a US attack and was making more.

Japan, South Korea and Taiwan — key players in Northeast Asia along with nuclear power China — could consider joining the club of nuclear powers if North Korea conducted a test.

“If North Korea did carry out a nuclear test, South Korea and Japan could start debating seriously whether to arm themselves with nuclear weapons,” said Yasuhiko Yoshida, a professor at Osaka University of Economics and Law.

“It’s possible that a North Korean nuclear test could trigger a chain reaction. If Japan and South Korea decided to become nuclear powers, Taiwan could also want to take a similar path,” added Yoshida, a former official at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Some experts believe Japan could produce a nuclear bomb in a matter of months, but that it would take a couple of years to build a nuclear weapons system.

“Japan has lots of plutonium, the technology to enrich uranium, and missile or rocket technology, so Japan has enough technology to produce nuclear arms,” said Toshihiro Inoue, deputy head of the Japan Congress Against A- and H-Bombs, a major anti-nuclear group.

Some experts and activists say, however, that it would not be easy for Japan and other Asian countries to take the step, given likely opposition from their own citizens, neighbouring countries and the United States.

“Hawkish politicians and people in Japan want to take advantage of the North Korean nuclear threat to try to demonstrate the need for nuclear weapons,” said Haruo Fujii, an independent defence analyst.

“But it would be difficult for the government to press ahead to go nuclear because most Japanese citizens would certainly stand against such a move,” he added.

A Japanese taboo on debating the topic has been broken in recent years, but resistance to becoming a nuclear power remains.

A 1971 parliamentary resolution bans Japan from possessing nuclear weapons and successive Japanese governments have repeatedly vowed to stick to that principle.

Host to nearly 50,000 US military personnel, Japan instead relies on America’s “nuclear umbrella” for a deterrent.

North Korea’s nuclear policy risks drastically altering the security landscape in Northeast Asia, ushering in an era of regional instability and conflict, analysts said.

“If North Korea takes an adventurous nuclear policy, the military balance in Northeast Asia would be in deep disarray and fall into grave instability,” Fujii said.

Some analysts doubt if Pyongyang is willing to run the risk that conducting a nuclear test would entail.

“The question is, will North Korea benefit from a nuclear test?” Yoshida said.

“If North Korea actually did it, then the United States could launch pinpoint attacks on the North, so North Korea is faced with that risk.” – Reuters

----

'One way or another' N.Korea to lose nukes - U.S.

Tue Jun 14, 2005 02:53 PM ET
By Carol Giacomo, Diplomatic Correspondent (Reuters)

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=8789167

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration, under fire for what critics call its failed North Korea policy, expressed confidence on Tuesday that "one way or another" Pyongyang ultimately would give up its nuclear weapons.

"One way or another they're not going to have these systems," said Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, the top U.S. diplomat dealing with Pyongyang.

"And so the real issue for them is what are the terms under which they'll give them up," he added.

Hill's two-hour appearance before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations panel kept the focus on unsuccessful U.S. diplomatic efforts to revive six-party negotiations on the North's nuclear program, which Pyongyang has boycotted for one year.

But he reiterated the U.S. position that other options remain under discussion and added a dose of reality to recent optimism that Pyongyang may soon come back to the table.

"North Korea's unwillingness to return to the table casts increasing doubts on how serious it really is about ending its decades-old nuclear ambitions," he said.

Hill said Pyongyang seems to be "testing our mettle ... testing to see whether we're going to get into endless arguments with our partners. They're waiting to see whether we're going to start negotiating with each other and with ourselves to sweeten the pot for them. And so they feel there's some advantage in waiting."

Leading opposition, Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware said U.S. policy was a failure.

The North bore prime responsibility for the nuclear crisis, he said, but "this administration has also made a series of poor choices, in my view, and has not ... pursued the policies that stand a realistic chance of mitigating and ultimately reversing North Korea's threat."

On President Bush's watch the North "declared itself a nuclear power, produced enough plutonium to build at least six or eight nuclear weapons, and made vague threats about testing and on the verge of testing a weapon," undermining non-proliferation efforts and confidence in America's ability to ensure peace in Asia, Biden added.

Republican Richard Lugar of Indiana, the panel's chairman, expressed concern that U.S. goals were being sabotaged by internal administration divisions over policy, confusing both Pyongyang and U.S. allies.

Hill disagreed that a year-long impasse in six-party negotiations on the North's nuclear ambitions should prompt change in the U.S. negotiating proposal, unveiled during the last six-party round in June 2004.

"This is a time when we have to be a little stubborn on this," he said.

Hill repeated administration complaints that China had not exerted enough pressure on Pyongyang to bring it back into negotiations but said he was confident U.S. ally South Korea had made clear its economic and political cooperation would be "minimal" until the North resumed the talks.

With U.S. frustration building over the nuclear stalemate, a senior Pentagon official last week suggested the administration would soon decide whether to escalate pressure on Pyongyang and take the case to the U.N. Security Council.

Hill said the United States reserves the right to do so in the future "but it is not something we're planning to do now."

He said the administration was considering other options for dealing with the nuclear crisis but did not give details.

----

Dealing With North Korea's Nuclear Programs

Press Release: US State Department
Christopher R. Hill, Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs
June 14, 2005 Statement to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Washington, DC

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0506/S00233.htm

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to discuss with the Committee the efforts of the United States and like-minded countries to deal with the threat of North Korea's nuclear programs. The Special Envoy for Six-Party Talks, Ambassador Joseph DeTrani, is with me for this important discussion. Ambassador DeTrani does not have a separate statement, but would welcome the opportunity to respond to your questions. I want to emphasize two points today.

First, the President's policy is to achieve the full denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula by peaceful multilateral diplomacy, through the Six-Party Talks. The substantive and comprehensive proposal we made at the last round of Six-Party Talks, almost one year ago, remains on the table, and we are prepared to discuss it when the D.P.R.K. returns to the talks.

Second, the D.P.R.K. has an historic opportunity now to improve its relations with the international community and to reap the full rewards of trade, aid, and investment. But to change its place in the world, it must address the concerns of its neighbors and the international community. To date, the D.P.R.K. has not demonstrated any readiness to do so.

Six-Party Talks The United States has adhered to three basic principles to resolve the North's nuclear threat. First, we seek the dismantlement, verifiably and irreversibly, of all D.P.R.K. nuclear programs -- nothing less. We cannot accept a partial solution that does not deal with the entirety of the problem, allowing North Korea to threaten others continually with a revival of its nuclear program. Second, because the North's nuclear programs threaten its neighbors and the integrity of the global nuclear non-proliferation regime, the threat can best be dealt with through multilateral diplomacy. Third, we will not reward North Korea for coming into compliance with its past obligations.

While the D.P.R.K.'s nuclear ambition is a decades-old problem, our effort to deal with it in a comprehensive manner through multilateral means began only a few years ago. We worked closely with all of North Korea's neighbors to lay the groundwork for the Six-Party Talks, and the first round was held in Beijing, August 27-29, 2003. All six parties at that first meeting agreed on the objective of a denuclearized Korean Peninsula.

The second round of Six-Party Talks was in February 2004. The parties agreed to regularize the talks, and to establish a working group to set issues up for resolution at the plenary meetings. At the second round of talks, the R.O.K. offered fuel aid to the D.P.R.K., if there were a comprehensive and verifiable halt of its nuclear programs as a first step toward complete nuclear dismantlement. Other non-U.S. parties subsequently expressed a willingness to do so as well.

The third working group and plenary sessions at the third round of talks, held nearly a year ago in Beijing, were useful and constructive. The U.S. tabled a comprehensive and substantive proposal, which the D.P.R.K. at the time called "serious," which it certainly was. All parties agreed to meet again by end-September 2004.

During each of the working group and plenary meetings, the U.S. met separately and directly with all of the parties, including the D.P.R.K. delegation. Despite its commitment to rejoin the talks by end-September, and its vague statements that it remains committed to the Six-Party process, the D.P.R.K. has not yet agreed to return to the table. While the D.P.R.K. has made public statements about our June proposal, it has not responded formally to us.

We have had meetings with all the parties since June 2004, including the North Koreans. These meetings are important to ensure communication, but they are not negotiations. They cannot take the place of the negotiations in the Six-Party Talks to achieve the dismantlement of the North's nuclear programs or end the North's international isolation.

Ambassador DeTrani has met with the D.P.R.K. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Ambassador Pak Gil-yon, five times in the so-called New York Channel, in August, November, and December of last year, and in May and June 2005. We engaged in those meetings because we wanted the North Koreans to hear the U.S. position directly from us. The North Koreans indicated they are committed to the Six-Party process, but did not agree to return to the table by a date certain.

I'll quote what the President said last month on the North Korea nuclear issue to make that position crystal clear: "We want diplomacy to be given the chance to work." As Secretary Rice said recently, we have no intention to invade or attack. We deal with North Korea as a sovereign nation, in the Six-Party Talks and at the United Nations.

While of course there is a range of options to deal with the North's nuclear threat, simply ignoring it is not one of them. Our policy is to pursue a peaceful, diplomatic solution, but we need to see results from the diplomacy.

Since becoming Assistant Secretary in March, I have traveled to East Asia three times, meeting with my counterparts in Japan, the Republic of Korea, and China, to consult on how to move the Six-Party process forward. I also met with the Russian senior official in Brussels in May. My colleagues from those governments have made frequent visits to Washington. All five parties have called on the North to return to the talks and negotiate seriously to end its nuclear programs and its international isolation. The North has cited a variety of pretexts for refusing to rejoin the talks, even as it restates its commitment to the Six-Party process and the goal of a denuclearized Korean Peninsula. That casts increasing doubt on how serious the D.P.R.K. really is about ending its nuclear ambitions. Frankly, we don't at this point know the answers.

Certainly, the developments we have seen on the part of the North Koreans have not been encouraging. Since the last round of Six-Party Talks just a year ago, the D.P.R.K. has failed to abide by its commitment to another round of talks by September 2004; announced that it had manufactured nuclear weapons and was indefinitely suspending participation in the Six-Party Talks; declared itself to be a nuclear weapons state; announced that its self-declared missile test moratorium was no longer binding; conducted a short-range ballistic missile test; reportedly threatened to transfer nuclear material; and announced that it was reprocessing another load of plutonium from spent fuel rods from the Yongbyon reactor.

The other parties are unwavering in their opposition to North Korea's possession of nuclear weapons. China has the closest relationship with North Korea of any of the Six Parties, and it is for this reason that we continue to engage the Chinese leadership on the North's lack of willingness to make a non-nuclear Korean Peninsula a reality. The Chinese leadership at the most senior levels has -- in recognition of the destabilizing effect a nuclear Korea could have on its own security interests -- delivered pointed messages to the North on denuclearization and returning to the talks. We believe China can and should do more. China should do whatever is necessary to get its neighbor back to the table.

We have excellent coordination with Japan and the Republic of Korea. President Bush and President Roh at their June 10 summit in Washington agreed to continue to work closely together for the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. We are also in regular touch at the highest levels with the Government of Japan, a valued partner in the Six-Party process. Russia too has expressed opposition to the possession of nuclear weapons by the D.P.R.K.

North Korea's Opportunity To succeed in achieving the peaceful resolution of the North Korea nuclear issue, the North has got to return to the Six-Party Talks and stay there for serious negotiations. Against the backdrop of the Six-Party Talks, the D.P.R.K. appears to be trying to undertake some measures in response to its disastrous economic situation. The door is open for the D.P.R.K., by addressing the concerns of the international community, to vastly improve the lives of its people, enhance its own security, move toward normalizing its relations with the United States and others, and raise its stature in the world.

The United States, working with our allies and others, remains committed to resolving the nuclear issue through peaceful, diplomatic means. While we are not prepared to reward the D.P.R.K. for coming back into compliance with its international obligations, we have laid out the path to a peaceful resolution of the nuclear issue.

Of course, to achieve a wholly transformed relationship with the United States, North Korea must address other issues of concern to us and the international community as well. It must change its behavior on human rights, address the issues underlying its appearance on the U.S. list of state-sponsored terrorism, eliminate all its weapons of mass destruction programs and missile technology proliferation, and adopt a less provocative conventional force disposition. It must put an end to such illegal activities as counterfeiting, narcotics smuggling, and money laundering.

The starting point is the strategic decision now by Pyongyang to recognize that its nuclear programs make it less, not more, secure, and to decide to eliminate them permanently, thoroughly, and transparently, subject to effective verification. We are working together with the other parties to bring the D.P.R.K. to understand that it is in its own self-interest to make that decision. We will continue to work closely with the Congress and this Committee as we proceed.

That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. DeTrani and I look forward to responding to your questions.

Released on June 14, 2005



-------- security

Radiation Monitors Placed at Busiest U.S. Seaports

WASHINGTON, DC, June 13, 2005 (ENS)

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2005/2005-06-13-09.asp#anchor3

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff says the nation’s busiest seaports - Los Angeles and Long Beach, California - will have complete Radiation Portal Monitor (RPM) coverage by the end of this year.

Three terminal locations, at Piers 400, 300 and Trans Pacific, within the Port of Los Angeles are scheduled to go on-line by the end of June.

By the end of December, a total of 90 monitors will screen all international container traffic and vehicles leaving the facility for nuclear materials or hidden sources of radiation, Chertoff said earlier this month.

Radiation Portal Monitors are detection devices that provide U.S. Customs & Border Protection officers with a passive, non-intrusive means to screen containers, vessels or vehicles for the presence of nuclear and radiological materials.

These systems do not emit radiation but are capable of detecting various types of radiation emanating from nuclear devices, dirty bombs, special nuclear materials, natural sources, and isotopes used in medicine and industry.

On April 26, Oakland’s Seaport became the first in the country to have complete coverage. RPMs at the LA/Long Beach Seaports will complement existing cargo security measures to include, five mobile gamma-ray and two X-Ray scanners, personal radiation detectors, and isotope identification devices.

“By applying advanced technology, we will soon be able to screen every vehicle and container entering the nation’s busiest seaports for nuclear and radiological materials, without disrupting the free flow of trade," said Chertoff.

"Complete and efficient coverage at the LA/Long Beach Seaports is a major step forward for national security and a model for other ports,” he said.

The Los Angeles and Long Beach Seaports receive about 44 percent of all sea cargo destined for the United States. More than 4.3 million foreign cargo containers arrived at the the two seaports last year - an average of one container every seven seconds.

The Department of Homeland Security implements a multi-layered strategy for screening cargo shipped into the United States. One layer is the installation of RPMs at seaports, land border ports of entry and crossings nationwide.

The RPM coverage is planned to include rail crossings, international airports, and international mail and express consignment courier facilities, in an effort to screen 100 percent of all incoming goods, people, and conveyances for radiation. 


-------- treaties

Undermining the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty
It didn’t start with the Bush administration

Tue, 14 Jun 2005 02:38:52 -0700
By Stephen Zunes, GNN

http://www.gnn.tv/articles/1463/Undermining_the_Nuclear_Non_proliferation_Treaty

Most of the international community and arms control advocates here in the United States have correctly blamed the Bush administration for the failure of the recently-completed review conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In the course of the four-week meeting of representatives of the 188 countries which have signed and ratified the treaty, the United States refused to uphold its previous arms control pledges, blocked consideration of the establishment of a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East, refused to rule out U.S. nuclear attacks against non-nuclear states, and demanded that Iran and North Korea—but not U.S. allies like Israel, Pakistan, and India—be singled out for UN sanctions for their nuclear programs. Thomas Graham, who served as a U.S. envoy to disarmament talks in the Clinton administration noted that the Bush administration’s demands resulted in what appears to be “the most acute failure in the treaty’s history.”1

However, though the Bush administration may have brought U.S. non-proliferation policy to new lows, the seeds of this defeat were planted way back.

Non-proliferation: Some History

The 1954 Atomic Energy Act allowed the United States to engage in the widespread dissemination of nuclear reactors and fuel to other countries, with certain safeguards to supposedly prevent them from being used to make nuclear weapons. Largely a government subsidy for the nuclear power industry, the so-called Atoms for Peace program grossly overestimated the economic benefits of nuclear power and underestimated its environmental dangers as well as the risks of weapons proliferation. In subsequent decades, recipients of American nuclear technology included such nascent nuclear weapons states as Israel, Iran, India, and South Africa. By 1968, these risks were apparent enough that the international community attempted to create a nonproliferation regime through the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

While publicly endorsing the treaty, President Richard Nixon in fact undermined it with National Security Decision Memorandum No. 6, which stated that “there should be no efforts by the United States to pressure other nations … to follow suit. … The government, in its public posture, should reflect a tone of optimism that other countries will sign or ratify, while clearly disassociating itself [in private] from any plan to bring pressure on these countries to sign or ratify.”2

Though the Carter administration showed some initial signs of concern over the spread of nuclear weapons beyond the two Cold War arsenals, it took little concrete action. Under Carter, the U.S. increased its transfer of civilian nuclear technology to Third World countries, despite increased evidence of the lack of adequate safeguards. Carter’s National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski was not an enthusiastic supporter of non-proliferation efforts.3 The administration dramatically increased the development of new American nuclear weapons systems and refused to formally submit the SALT II treaty to the Senate for ratification, allowing Third World countries to correctly observe that the United States was not living up to its own commitment to the NPT as an existing nuclear power to engage in serious efforts to negotiate nuclear disarmament.

The Reagan administration discontinued Carter’s half-hearted non-proliferation efforts, lifting the ban on the export of plutonium, and adding dangerously destabilizing counterforce weapons systems.

The end of the Cold War allowed the senior Bush administration and the Clinton administration to reduce some of the United States’ own nuclear weapons arsenal. At the same time these post-Cold War administrations became focused on the prospects of radical Third World regimes developing their own nuclear weapons and contemplated possible unilateral military actions in response.

U.S. Policy toward Emerging Nuclear Powers

India successfully tested a nuclear device in 1974 and subsequently developed short- and long-range nuclear-capable missile systems. The United States delivered a mild rebuke. But, with the exception of a belated embargo against the Indian Space Research Organization, there was never much pressure until the Clinton administration supported tougher sanctions following a series of nuclear tests in 1998. Those sanctions were repealed by President George W. Bush with bipartisan Congressional support in 2001 when India—along with its historic rival Pakistan—was deemed to be an ally in the “War on Terrorism.” Throughout the 1980s, the Reagan and the senior Bush administrations formally denied that Pakistan was engaging in nuclear weapons development despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. In addition, the United States was supplying Pakistan with F-16 aircraft even as nuclear analysts concluded that Pakistan would likely use these fighter planes as its primary delivery system for its nuclear arsenal.4 

Publicly acknowledging what virtually every authority on nuclear proliferation knew about Pakistan’s nuclear capability would require the United States to cut off aid to Pakistan, as required by U.S. laws designed to enforce the non-proliferation regime. However, Pakistan was the vehicle through which the United States supplied radical Islamic opponents of the Soviet-backed regime in Afghanistan, and a cut-off of aid to the Zia al-Huq dictatorship could have jeopardized Reagan’s Afghan policy. The annual certification of Pakistan’s supposed non-nuclear status was halted only in 1990, when the Soviet-backed Afghan regime was finally collapsing. However, the senior Bush administration insisted that the cut-off of aid did not include military sales, so the transfer of spare parts for the nuclear-capable F-16s aircraft to Pakistan continued. President Clinton finally imposed sanctions when Pakistan engaged in a series of nuclear weapons tests in 1998. But that too was repealed by Congress and the Bush administration three years later.

With respect to apartheid South Africa, the Carter administration publicly accepted the regime’s denial that it was planning a nuclear test in the Kalahari Desert when both Soviet and American satellite reconnaissance revealed clear evidence that such a plan was in process in August 1977. The two superpowers did apply strong pressure against South Africa to get the test canceled. When the South Africans did explode a nuclear device over the Indian Ocean in September 1979, the Carter administration scrambled to hide the satellite evidence from the American public, particularly when Israeli involvement became apparent. U.S. law and Carter’s public commitment to non-proliferation would have forced him to impose sanctions against these two pro-Western states, had the evidence become public. Seymour Hersh has quoted a top Carter administration official as saying “There was a very immediate strategic imperative to make this thing go away. Our capturing it fortuitously was an embarrassment, a big political problem, and there were a lot of people who wanted to obscure the event.”5 As a result, when the initial cover-up failed, the Carter administration both denied that such a test had taken place and then formed a commission to complete the whitewash a few months later.

The most obvious case of American protection of nuclear weapons development by its allies is Israel. Israel has long stated that it would not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East, which is technically true, since U.S. planes and warships began bringing nuclear weapons into the region back in the 1950s. Israel is generally believed to have become a nuclear power by 1969. The Israeli nuclear program was privately endorsed by the newly-elected President Nixon and his chief foreign policy adviser, Kissinger. They immediately ended the regular, if inconsequential, U.S. inspections of Israeli’s Dimona nuclear center. (Indeed, President Lyndon Johnson demonstrated his lack of concern over the prospects of Israel becoming a nuclear power by rejecting calls that one of the early major weapons sales to Israel be conditioned on Israel signing the NPT.) The Nixon administration went to great lengths to keep nuclear issues out of any talks on the Middle East. Information on Israeli nuclear capabilities was routinely suppressed; the United States even supplied Israel with krytrons and supercomputers which were bound for the Israeli nuclear program.6

The Carter administration, which took the nuclear proliferation issue somewhat more seriously than the administrations that preceded and followed it, did not publicly raise the issue of Israel’s development of nuclear weaponry, either. Even when satellite footage of the aborted nuclear test in South Africa’s Kalahari desert gave evidence of the large-scale presence of Israeli personnel at the test site, the Carter administration kept it quiet,7 just as they did with the successful test in the Indian Ocean two years later. According to Joseph Nye, Deputy Under Secretary of State, the Carter administration considered the Israeli bomb a low priority.8

The Reagan administration made an effort to keep information on Israel’s nuclear capability from the State Department and other government agencies which might have concerns over nuclear proliferation issues.9 Meanwhile, Congress had made it clear to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and other responsible parties that they did not want to have anything revealed in an open hearing related to Israel’s nuclear capability. While most restrictions against foreign aid to new nuclear states had been written so as to exempt Israel, a public acknowledgment might still have jeopardized U.S. economic and military assistance. Outside of Washington, top Israeli nuclear scientists had open access to American institutions and many top American nuclear scientists had extended visits with their counterparts in Israel, in what has been called “informational promiscuity” in the seepage of nuclear intelligence.10 In addition, given the enormous costs of any nuclear program of the magnitude of Israel’s, it would have been very difficult to develop such a large and advanced arsenal (now estimated at up to 200 weapons11 with sophisticated medium-range missiles) without the tens of billions of dollars of direct and unrestricted American financial support to the Israeli government prior to the current administration; in effect, the United States has subsidized nuclear proliferation in the Middle East.

Support for Unilateral Military Action

The Bush administration has taken the unprecedented step of making the option of preventive war a centerpiece of its national security strategy. Yet the belief that it is legitimate for the United States or an ally to maintain its regional nuclear monopoly through force support pre-dates the current Bush administration. The Israeli attack on Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981 was made possible only by the U.S. decision to supply Israel with high-resolution photographs of Iraq from the KH-11 satellite, data to which no other nation was allowed access, as well as through U.S.-supplied F-16 fighter planes. Though the United States publicly condemned the bombing, in private, Seymour Hersh reports that in fact “Reagan was delighted … [and] very satisfied” by the bombing. Publicly, the United States suspended the delivery of four additional F-16s but quietly lifted the suspension two months later.12 By 1992, this support had become public, when a Democratic-majority Congress passed a resolution endorsing the Israeli attack. The irony is that the Osirak reactor was not the focal point of Iraq’s nuclear program and it likely encouraged the Iraqis to take greater efforts to evade detection of their primary nuclear development facilities.13

The 1981 attack by Israel against the Iraqi nuclear facility, however, paled in comparison with the much wider bombing attacks ten years later by the United States, which—like the Israeli bombing—violated both the spirit and the letter of the NPT. This action further undermined law-based approaches to nuclear non-proliferation and lent legitimacy to the notion that regional nuclear powers can launch pre-emptive attacks against potential rivals at will. Tragically, such lawlessness creates the very kind of insecurity which has motivated additional countries to develop their nuclear programs in the first place, and thus is more likely to advance proliferation than retard it.

Opposition to Nuclear-Free Zones

Both Republican and Democratic administrations have been skeptical of efforts to establish nuclear-free zones, since it would require the United States to remove its nuclear weapons from certain strategically-important parts of the globe and require allies, such as Israel and Pakistan, to dismantle their nuclear arsenals. Indeed, even where nuclear-free zones have gone into effect, such as in Latin America through the Tlatelolco Treaty, the United States has developed contingency plans to violate the treaties’ provisions.14 The United States routinely has brought nuclear-armed ships and planes to Japan in violation of that country’s anti-nuclear constitution. When New Zealand announced its decision to become nuclear-free and bar the U.S. Navy from bringing nuclear weapons into its ports, the Reagan administration put enormous pressure on its government. The Clinton administration put even greater economic pressure on the Pacific Island nation of Palau to induce the repeal of its nuclear-free constitution. For years, the United States has strongly opposed proposals for nuclear-free zones in Nordic Europe or the Balkans.

In short, even prior to the current administration, U.S. nuclear policy in recent decades has been based on the following principles:

    The United States and allied powers must maintain a nuclear monopoly in developing regions.

    Any challenge to that monopoly will be vigorously opposed, possibly through military force.

    The existing non-proliferation regime will be imposed only selectively to maintain U.S. dominance.

In other words, U.S. policy has long been, in effect, that it is fine for the United States and its allies to have nuclear weapons in a given region but wrong for any other countries to have nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, this simply will not work. Such double standards create widespread sympathy in the developing world for demagogues who can argue that their nuclear programs are simply a defensive reaction to the nuclear threat from the United States, Israel, or other pro-Western countries.

Both Iran and North Korea have endorsed calls for nuclear-free zones in their regions, as have U.S. allies like Japan, Jordan, South Korea, and Egypt. Even if such pronouncements proved less than sincere, U.S. support for the concept would provide the international community with the legitimacy it now lacks to help control the threat of nuclear proliferation. U.S. opposition to a nuclear free-zone in the Middle East is what prompted Iraq’s nuclear program in the first place. Located near Israel and Pakistan, the Iraqis saw their nuclear program as largely defensive, a program they had offered to end even prior to 1991 if they were no longer faced with a potential nuclear threat from hostile neighbors.

At the end of the Korean War, the United States moved nuclear weapons into South Korea in direct violation of the armistice agreement. These were not removed until 1991 when the high-yield precision-targeted conventional weapons used during the Gulf War were actually seen as more effective than the tactical nuclear weapons then stationed in Korea. Nuclear-capable aircraft and ships continue to move in and out of Korea. Clinton’s appointee to the U.S. Strategic Command, General Lee Cutler, announced in February 1993 that strategic nuclear weapons which had been targeted for the Soviet Union were being re-targeted to North Korea. By March, American forces in Korea were engaging in nuclear war games, with B1-B and B-52 bombers from Guam and naval vessels with cruise missiles taking part.15

One basic tenet of the nonproliferation regime is that nuclear nations not threaten nuclear attacks on non-nuclear nations. With the Soviet Union no longer the feared enemy in northeast Asia, and with China still on good—if somewhat cool—relations with the United States, the North Koreans could only assume that this was exactly what was going on. It was only at this point that North Korea first announced it was pulling out of the NPT and the crisis—initially defused in 1994 by former President Carter’s intervention, began in earnest. Following U.S. preparations for the invasion of Iraq and bellicose rhetoric toward North Korea, the regime again renounced its participation in the NPT in January 2003. The former nuclear aspirations of Iraq and the current ones of North Korea can both be interpreted as a defensive response to the U.S. refusal to denuclearize the region.

Spreading Nuclear Technology

Iraq’s nuclear program in the 1980s was made possible through imports from the West of so-called “dual-use” technology, capable of producing nuclear weapons or delivery systems while also having civilian applications. Clinton’s Secretary of Defense, William Perry, argued before Congress that it was a “hopeless task” to control such dual use technology, stating that “it only interferes with a company’s ability to succeed internationally.” This view directly contradicted the United Nations inspection regime in Iraq which called for “strict maintenance of export controls by the industrialized nations” to prevent the Iraqi regime from once again developing its nuclear program. Indeed, the Clinton administration was even more lax than its Republican predecessors on controlling the exports of nuclear-related technology.16

It is noteworthy that the Clinton administration’s Defense Department introduced the term “counter-proliferation” rather than “non-proliferation,” suggesting a new emphasis on high-tech military responses to nuclear proliferation after the fact, rather than export controls or diplomatic measures to control it. Clinton’s assistant Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter put forth proposals in violation of both the NPT and U.S. law regarding the transfers of American nuclear technology to India and Pakistan.17

Similarly, the current Bush administration did not invent the double standard of pushing for stricter inspection of nuclear facilities by the International Atomic Energy Agency while still denying the right of such inspection of any American facilities. This standard was alive and well during all three previous administrations, as was the withholding of the necessary financial contributions to the United Nations to make such increased and effective IAEA inspections possible anywhere.

Conclusion

The Bush administration has made contempt for international law, international organizations, international treaties, and other multilateral institutions for arms control into a signature of its foreign policy. Littered throughout the history of post-war efforts at arms control, however, are examples of U.S. neglect of comprehensive nuclear arms control, much less disarmament, and rejection of universal standards in favor of selective applications based upon a given government’s relations with the United States.

Since 1981, Israel has been in violation of UN Security Council resolution 487, which calls on Israel to place its nuclear facilities under the trusteeship of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Since 1998, Pakistan and India have been in violation of UN Security Council resolution 1172, which calls on those two South Asian nations to end their nuclear weapons programs and eliminate their long-range missiles. Yet only Iraq was targeted for strict sanctions and military action for its alleged violations of UN Security Council resolutions calling for the elimination of its nuclear programs, even though those programs no longer existed.

Fear of the charge of “weakness” in the post-911 world propelled nearly all members of the U.S. Congress in March 2003 to allow the administration to reject diplomacy and United Nations inspections of Iraq’s nuclear, chemical, and biological programs, and invade Iraq. The rationale was that such “diplomatic and other peaceful means alone” would not “adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.”18 Similarly, when a protracted British-led diplomatic effort to eliminate Libya’s nascent nuclear program reached a successful conclusion in December 2003, a Congressional majority supported a resolution which declared—in direct contradiction of American diplomats involved in the talks19—that the elimination of Libya’s nuclear program “would not have been possible if not for … the liberation of Iraq by United States and Coalition Forces.”20

More recently, during the final hours of the Nonproliferation Conference in New York at the end of May, Congressional leaders from both parties validated the Bush administration’s double standard of focusing upon Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program while ignoring the already existing nuclear weapons arsenals of U.S. allies like Israel, Pakistan, and India.

Advocates of nuclear disarmament and arms control must recognize that while the successful American effort to derail the recent UN non-proliferation conference is indeed a serious setback in the struggle against the nuclear threat, the problem runs deeper than simply the policies of the current administration. To the extent that the United States attempts to use its nuclear arsenal to pursue its own strategic advantage, and seeks to place the United States and its allies above the law, it does so at the risk of our very survival.

Endnotes:

1. “UN Nuclear Treaty Review Ending in Failure, Japanese Envoy Says,” Bloomberg News, May 27, 2005.
2. Seymour Hersh, The Sampson Option, New York: Random House, 1991, p. 210.
3. Seymour Hersh, op. cit, p. 273.
4. Zachary Davis, “Nuclear Proliferation and Nonproliferation Policy in the 1990s,” in Michael Klare and Daniel Thomas, World Security: Challenges for a New Century, second edition, New York: St, Martin’s Press, 1994, p. 115.
5. Hersh, op. cit., p. 274.
6. Ibid., p. 209-14.
7. Ibid., p. 268.
8. Cited in Ibid., op. cit., p. 283.
9. Ibid., p. 291.
10. Helena Cobban, “Israel’s Nuclear Game: The U.S. Stake,” World Policy, Summer 1988, pp. 427-8.
11. Arms Control Association, “Nuclear Weapons: Who Has What at a Glance,” April 2005.
12. Hersch, op. cit., p. 9.
13. Davis, op. cit., p. 112.
14. New York Times, Feb. 13, 1985.
15. Bruce Cumings, “It’s Time to End the 40-Year War,” The Nation, August 23/30, 1993, p. 207.
16. Gary Milhollin, “The Business of Defense Is Defending Business,” Washington Post National, Weekly Edition, Feb. 14-20, p. 23.
17. Ibid.
18. H. Con. Res. 104, 108 th Congress, 1st session, March 21, 2003.
19. Flynt Leverett, “Why Libya Gave Up on the Bomb,” The New York Times, January 23, 2004, p. A23.
20. H. Amdt.601 (A003), 107 th Congress, 2 nd session, June 23, 2004.

Stephen Zunes is a professor of politics and chair of the peace & justice studies program at the University of San Francisco. He is Middle East editor for the Foreign Policy In Focus Project, where this article is republished from with permission. He is the author of Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism (Common Courage Press, 2003).



-------- u.n.

Reappointed ElBaradei vows to keep impartial

2005-06-14 08:02:17 (Xinhuanet)

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-06/14/content_3081302.htm

    VIENNA, June 13 -- Mohammad ElBaradei, head of UN nuclear watchdog, said on Monday he would continue to hold high impartiality and independence, which are core principals and values of international civil service.

    At a press briefing here after he was reappointed as Secretary General of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), ElBaradei said he was humbled by the unanimous support and confidence he had received by all members of the Agency.

    Earlier on Monday, the Board of Governors offered ElBaradei another four years until November 2009 following US dropped its opposition late last week.

    "In the next four years we have tremendous challenges. We have major issues facing global security; we have major issues facing development. These two issues cut across all our activities," said ElBaradei.

    "My colleagues and I are committed to do our very best to protect ourselves against the dissemination of nuclear weapons; and against poverty. We will continue to work with the members of the international community to see a world free from nuclear weapons," he added.

    The appointment will be submitted for approval at the IAEA General Conference, which opens 26 September 2005 in Vienna.

    ElBaradei, the 62-year-old Egyptian diplomat, is the IAEA's fourth director general since 1957. He was first appointed to the office effective December 1997, and reappointed to a second term in 2001. Enditem

    Mohamed ElBaradei on Monday won his third-term as Director General of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the United Nation's nuclear watchdog.

    As Japanese delegation dropped its objection on the election procedure after nearly a day consultation, the 35-nation Board of Governors of the IAEA reached a consensus on awarding another 4-year term to ElBaradei, said a diplomatic closed to the meeting.

    At the beginning of the meeting, Japanese ambassador Yukiya Takasu unexpectedly blocked the election, citing the procedural reasons. The ballot is technically on the agenda for later in the week.

    Yukiya Takasu said that he did not oppose the re-election of ElBaradei but the IAEA procedure should be respected. The 35-nation board of governors was forced to enter a nearly one-day deadlock since unanimous consensus is normally required for the running of the United Nations (UN) nuclear watchdog. However, withmost of the board members' insisting, the Japanese delegation dropped its objection after several rounds of consultation.

    ElBaradei is set to win his third term since the United States,the only one openly opposed the re-election of ElBaradei, changed its mind late last week. Following a meeting in Washington betweenElBaradei and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Thursday, the US said that it would join the consensus in supporting the this former Egyptian diplomat.

    Diplomats said the move came after the US failed to win supportfrom the majority of board members. The 62-year-old ElBaradei tookover the current post from Swedish diplomat Hans Blix in 1997. He joined the Vienna-based UN institution in 1984.

----

Iran has failed to provide crucial nuclear information - ElBaradei

Tue Jun 14, 2:26 PM ET (AFP)

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050614/wl_mideast_afp/iaeanucleariran_050614182616

VIENNA - The UN atomic agency's investigation of Iran will continue as Tehran has failed to provide sufficient information on crucial questions about uranium-enriching centrifuges and nuclear smuggling, the agency's chief said.

Mohamed ElBaradei, who was named Monday to a third-four year term as head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, outlined the world's major proliferation hotspots in an address to a meeting in Vienna of the IAEA's 35-nation board of governors.

The 62-year-old Egyptian also said that Iran had not given access requested by the IAEA to the Lavizan and Parchin military sites, where diplomats say weaponization work is suspected.

Diplomats told AFP the agency had also requested but been denied access so far to interview key officials such as Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, a brigadier general who has worked at Lavizan.

ElBaradei reiterated his agency's concerns about "the importance and urgency to finding a solution" in North Korea, which kicked IAEA inspectors out in 2002 and now claims to have made atom bombs.

The IAEA chief said his agency was still however "ready to work" with North Korea "to ensure that all nuclear activities (there) are exclusively for peaceful purposes as well as addressing the security needs of" Pyongyang.

He also said a protocol designed to reduce inspections in nations with small nuclear programs has turned into "a weakness in the safeguards system" of controls verified by the IAEA.

Saudi Arabia has turned down a European Union request to allow full international nuclear inspections, saying it will only agree to special investigations if other countries exempted from them do the same, EU diplomats said in Vienna.

Saudi Arabia is insisting on its right to sign at this week's board meeting the Small Quantities Protocol (SPQ), which has been in effect since 1971 and is signed by 86 nations.

Saudi Arabia, a key state in the tense Middle East, is not believed to be a direct nuclear proliferation threat, but diplomats are seeking to calm fears amid a major test of wills with nearby Iran, which US officials suspect of seeking to develop nuclear weapons.

On Iran, ElBaradei said information is lacking over how close the Islamic Republic is to being able to use sophisticated centrifuges for enriching uranium as well as its links to international nuclear smuggling.

"Iran has provided some additional documentation and information, which are not yet sufficient to answer several remaining questions," ElBaradei said.

His comments came as Iran was seeking to have the IAEA's more than two-year-old investigation of its nuclear program closed, especially since it is negotiating with the European Union to guarantee it is not secretly developing atomic weapons and to win trade, security and technology benefits.

Iran says its nuclear program is peaceful and designed to generate electricity but the United States says this civilian effort hides a covert atomic weapons program.

ElBaradei said the IAEA "is making progress on one of the two key remaining issues, namely the origin of the low and high enriched uranium contamination on equipment at various locations in Iran."

ElBaradei, who was elected after the United States dropped its opposition to his candidacy, formally declared Tuesday his support of a US proposal "to establish a committee to consider ways and means to strengthen the safeguards system."

ElBaradei said the IAEA had set up a similar committee in 1996 to fix weaknesses in monitoring Iraq's nuclear program.

Now "revelations such as the discovery of additional undeclared nuclear programs aided by covert nuclear supply networks and the risk associated with nuclear terrorism have confronted the agency's verification system and the non-proliferation regime in general with unprecedented challenges," he said.



-------- u.s. nuc weapons

Nixon's madman strategy

By James Carroll  |  June 14, 2005 Boston Globe

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/06/14/nixons_madman_strategy/

''I CALL IT the madman theory, Bob," Richard Nixon said to Robert Haldeman. With the recent revelation of the identity of ''Deep Throat," the nation's memory has been cast back to the Watergate crisis, which began with a burglary 33 years ago this week. Nixon is remembered as having threatened the US Constitution, but his presidency represented a far graver threat than that. Various published tapes have put on display his vulgarity, pettiness, and prejudice and his regular drunkenness. But what has generated insufficient alarm is Nixon's insane flirtation with the actual use of nuclear weapons.

''I want the North Vietnamese to believe," he went on, ''that I've reached the point that I might do anything to stop the war. We'll just slip the word to them that for God's sake, you know Nixon is obsessed about communism. We can't restrain him when he's angry, and he has his hand on the nuclear button, and Ho Chi Minh himself will be in Paris in two days begging for peace." Six months into his presidency, Nixon's frustration with Hanoi's refusal to budge in its demands at the Paris peace talks was extreme, and he put his madman ploy into gear. For this account, I depend on the political scientists Scott D. Sagan and Jeremi Suir, whose 2003 article in the journal International Security brought the incident to light.

From Oct. 10, 1969, through the rest of the month the US military was ordered to full global war readiness alert, without any provocation, and with no explanation to US commanders as to the alert's purpose. Nuclear armed fighter planes were dispersed to civilian airports, missile countdown procedures were initiated, missile-bearing submarines were dispersed, long-range bombers were launched, targeting was begun. On Oct. 27, in the climactic action designed to make it seem the madman was loose, the Strategic Air Command was ordered to dispatch B-52 bombers, loaded with thermonuclear weapons, toward the Soviet Union. Eighteen of the bombers took off from bases in the United States in an operation named Giant Lance. ''The bombers crossed Alaska," Sagan and Suri wrote, ''were refueled in midair by KC-135 tanker aircraft, and then flew in oval patterns toward the Soviet Union and back, on 18-hour vigils over the northern polar ice cap." The ominous flight of these H-bombers to, and then at, the edge of Soviet territory continued for three days. This was all done in total secrecy -- not from the Soviets, of course, since they knew quite well what was happening, but from the American people.

Unbeknownst to Nixon, his ''madman" gamble coincided with a border dispute simmering just then between China and the Soviet Union. The two communist rivals were themselves approaching war footing, and Moscow already had reasons to be wary of America's tilt toward Beijing. Thus, when signals of an American nuclear countdown were picked up, Moscow would have had every reason to assume that the United States was preparing to attack in support of Beijing, perhaps launching a preemption of Moscow's own contemplated attack against China. The Soviets could have seen the American threat not as ''irrational," as Nixon intended, but as consistent with a reasonable strategic purpose.

As if such accidental complications were not unsettling enough, as Sagan and Suir point out, the entire ''madman theory" of coercion was flawed in its essence, depending as it did on twisted logic that assumed an adversary would respond to a calculated show of irrationality with something other than irrationality of its own. Presumably, Nixon wanted a frightened Moscow to convince a frightened Hanoi to change its behavior in Paris as a way of heading off Washington's insanity. Rational Russians would save the world from crazy Americans. Come again?

If Leonid Brezhnev, that is, behaved as Richard Nixon did in October of 1969, the world would have been plunged into nuclear horror. In the event, the Soviet Union did not respond irrationally to the ploy. The North Vietnamese ignored it. The secrecy of both regimes makes it impossible to know for sure what they made of the aggressive alert. But what do Americans today make of it?

Watergate is a reminder of the primal fact that US presidents are flawed human beings. Because he presides over a nuclear arsenal, this otherwise common fact of the human condition makes each president like every leader of the nuclear-armed nations a threat to the Earth. The ''madman theory" proves the point: Nuclear weapons themselves are mad and must be abolished.

James Carroll's column appears regularly in the Globe.



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

Panel Nixes Interim Nuclear Waste Storage

By ERICA WERNER, Associated Press Writer Tue Jun 14, 5:51 PM ET

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050614/ap_on_go_co/yucca_mountain_2

WASHINGTON - Senators struck a blow for the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump Tuesday as a spending panel rebuffed a House effort to establish temporary storage sites as a backup.

A leading Yucca Mountain supporter, Republican Pete Domenici of New Mexico, joined with a leading opponent, Democrat Harry Reid of Nevada, to criticize the House plan. Domenici called it "totally inadequate," and Reid said it was "half-baked."

The House measure, passed last month as part of a spending bill, called on the Energy Department to produce a plan for aboveground storage for spent reactor fuel from commercial nuclear power plants within four months at one or more federal sites. It also set October 2006 as the date to begin accepting waste and provided $10 million for the program.

The Senate Appropriations subcommittee that funds energy and water projects passed a $31 billion spending bill on a voice vote Tuesday with no money for interim storage. Domenici chairs the panel and Reid is the top-ranking Democrat.

The bill funds the Yucca Mountain project in Nevada at $577 million for 2006, which is the same as the 2005 level but less than President Bush's budget request of $651 million, which the House met.

"We have kept it going," Domenici said of the project.

Domenici told reporters later that while he supports looking for new solutions for nuclear waste disposal, he doesn't like the plan championed by Rep. David Hobson (news, bio, voting record), R-Ohio, chairman of the House Appropriations energy subcommittee.

"It's totally inadequate. You can't start a program of that importance with $10 million and a paragraph," he said. "I'm willing to look at a whole new policy which could involve interim storage, but not this way."

Reid, who supports leaving commercial nuclear waste at reactor sites in more than 30 states, voiced similar criticism.

"All the House has done has been to stir up members in an unproductive way," he said.

Some lawmakers worry that temporary storage could become permanent, and opposition in the House came from lawmakers representing sites mentioned in a report accompanying the House bill. Those included the Hanford complex in Washington state and the Idaho National Laboratory.

Yucca Mountain, approved by President Bush in 2002, is planned as a national repository for 77,000 tons of defense and commercial nuclear waste, to be buried for 10,000 years and beyond in the desert 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. A string of recent setbacks has put the program in doubt.

A federal appeals court rejected the proposed radiation protection plans for the Yucca facility. In March, documents surfaced that alleged that government workers on the project falsified data. The chairman of the House Government Reform committee issued a subpoena Tuesday for testimony from one of those workers.

Yucca Mountain is now projected not to be finished until 2012 and could be delayed further.

----

"Nuclear power plants are the most heavily defended elements of our civilian infrastructure"

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Letter to Time Magazine 
June 14, 2005 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/for-the-record/2005/06-14-05-letter-to-editor.pdf

To the Editor, Time Magazine:

With regard to Time Magazine's story of June 12, nuclear power plants are the most heavily defended elements of our civilian infrastructure. Their defenses - at the NRC's direction and at a cost of roughly $1 billion to the industry - have been upgraded significantly several times since Sept. 11, 2001. Irrespective of other substantive changes, the guard force alone has risen from 5,000 to 8,000, an increase of 60 percent to help deal with the new threat environment. As I said in the article: "Any terrorist who looks at one of these facilities is going to say, 'This is a hardened target, and I'm not going to have any confidence that I am going to be successful (attacking it).'" The article unfortunately relies heavily on opinions without an accurate picture of current plant defenses and strategies. The NRC has ordered these plants to take strong defensive measures that make them well prepared to protect the facilities. Moreover, the NRC has worked closely with law enforcement and security agencies at all levels of government in developing protective measures and an integrated response. The story also cites an out-of-date study conducted for other purposes that does not reflect present knowledge of nuclear plant capabilities and accident scenarios. Such scenarios indicate that the potential consequences are orders of magnitude less than described. The American people should know that these plants are well protected with multiple layers of defenses to ensure safety and security. This agency vigorously monitors plant security to ensure our homeland is well protected.

Nils J. Diaz, Chairman

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission


-------- nevada

Reid praises nuke industry, but pushes Yucca alternative

By Benjamin Grove
<grove@lasvegassun.com>
LAS VEGAS SUN WASHINGTON BUREAU
June 14, 2005

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/text/2005/jun/14/518902513.html

WASHINGTON -- Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, offered rare -- if lukewarm -- words of praise for the nuclear industry Monday.

Reid said there is likely to be a continued "movement" toward constructing more U.S. nuclear power plants, which the nuclear industry has been advocating in recent years.

Even environmentalists have acknowledged that "if it's done right" nuclear power can help protect the environment, Reid said at a Capitol press conference on energy issues.

Reid said that for years he has opposed nuclear power for one reason -- because the nation's plan for dealing with high-level nuclear waste was to permanently bury it at Yucca Mountain, which Nevada officials oppose. Reid has said Yucca will never become a reality, however. The program has long suffered budgetary, regulatory and legal setbacks.

"Yucca Mountain certainly isn't dead, but it's on a breathing machine," Reid said.

Reid said he will continue to push for an alternative to Yucca: leaving waste stored where it is on-site at nuclear plants, although nuclear industry officials say that plan is unacceptable.

"Yucca Mountain has been set back for decades, so I think we'll have to start looking for a different direction as far as nuclear waste goes," Reid said.

Reid has not changed his longtime stance on nuclear power, aides said. Reid has not been an advocate for nuclear power, but he has not opposed nuclear power in general -- just Yucca Mountain, Reid spokeswoman Tessa Hafen said.

Reid made his remarks as the Senate was preparing to begin two weeks of debate today on an $11 billion energy bill. It lays out a comprehensive national plan aimed at raising domestic oil production, improving the electric grid and constructing a new generation of nuclear power plants.

Reid said Democrats intend to pursue legislation aimed at the goal of reducing dependence on foreign oil by 40 percent in 20 years. The goal can be met "without question," Reid said, although some Republicans have been skeptical. House Energy Committee Chairman Joe Barton, R-Texas, has questioned which segment of the U.S. economy was going to give up that much oil.

Reid said Democrats were planning to push for an amendment that offers permanent tax credits for renewable energy resources. The legislation would offer a 1.8 cent tax credit for every kilowatt hour of energy produced by solar and geothermal energy sources, which can be developed in Nevada, Reid noted. The credit is already available to wind energy development.

Critics of Democratic energy plans have said the nation needs a strong focus on oil, coal and gas production and cannot rely on conservation efforts, hybrid fuel cars and renewable energy sources alone to meet soaring energy needs.

The House approved an energy plan bill in April. Skirmishes are expected between the chambers on a number of issues, including offshore oil drilling, drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and over lawsuit protections for companies that make the MTBE gasoline additive. 

----

House Committee to Subpoena Worker in Yucca Mountain Investigation

June 14, 2005 — By Erica Werner, Associated Press

http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=7943

WASHINGTON — A congressional committee will subpoena a former worker on the Yucca Mountain project who is at the center of a controversy over document falsification at the proposed nuclear waste dump.

The House Government Reform Committee will issue a subpoena Tuesday demanding a committee appearance and documents from Joseph Hevesi, a U.S. Geological Survey scientist in Sacramento, Calif., according to an announcement late Monday from Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev.

"Mr. Hevesi has, to date, refused to cooperate with the subcommittee in its congressional investigation," said a statement from the House Government Reform subcommittee on the federal work force, which Porter chairs.

Hevesi, a hydrologist, was a principal author of e-mails written between 1998 and 2000 by scientists studying how water moved through the proposed waste dump 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

In the e-mails to colleagues, Hevesi discussed making up facts, deleting inconvenient data and keeping two sets of files -- "the ones that will keep (quality assurance) happy and the ones that were actually used."

The e-mails were made public by the Energy Department in March, and the inspectors general of the Energy and Interior departments have been investigating. No conclusions have been announced.

Hevesi did not immediately respond Monday to phone messages left at his office and home.

Hevesi is still a USGS hydrologist, but he no longer workers on Energy Department or Yucca Mountain projects.

The subpoena will require Hevesi's appearance at a subcommittee hearing June 29, along with all documents in his possession related to Yucca Mountain.

The e-mail controversy has contributed to delays on the project, which is planned as a national repository for 77,000 tons of high-level commercial and defense nuclear waste, to be buried for 10,000 years and beyond in the Nevada desert. 



-------- ohio

DOE Cites Safety and Ecology Corp. for Violating Nuclear Safety Rules

June 14, 2005 Department of Energy

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2005/06/16/nuclear_reconsidered?mode=PF

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Department of Energy (DOE) today notified Safety and Ecology Corporation, the contractor responsible for radiological safety at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Project in Portsmouth, Ohio, that it will fine the company $55,000 for violating the department's regulations prohibiting retaliation against employees who raise nuclear safety concerns. 

“We take safety very seriously at the Department of Energy,” said Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health John Shaw.  “Today’s action illustrates the department’s commitment to ensuring that any and all valid safety concerns can be raised by our workers without retaliation.”

The Preliminary Notice of Violation (PNOV) issued today follows a decision by DOE’s Office of Hearings and Appeals that an employee was fired after raising nuclear safety concerns at the Portsmouth site.  This is the first enforcement action involving “whistleblowers” covered under nuclear safety rules.  A finding of contractor retaliation by the DOE Office of Hearings and Appeals or the U.S. Department of Labor is automatically considered a nuclear safety violation.

The decision by the Office of Hearings and Appeals was affirmed by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.  As a result of the finding, the employee was reinstated to her position, provided back pay and reimbursed all costs associated with her case.  The penalty announced today will be above and beyond the actions required by the Office of Hearings and Appeals decision.

The Price-Anderson Act of 1988 authorizes the Energy Department to undertake enforcement actions against contractors for violations of its nuclear safety requirements. 

Safety and Ecology Corporation will have 30 days to respond to DOE's concerns and identify corrective actions it has taken.  Unless the contractor denies the violations with sufficient justification, the PNOV will become final and the contractor will have to pay the $55,000 fine.

Additional details on this and other enforcement actions are available on the Internet at http://www.eh.doe.gov/enforce.

Media contacts:
Jeff Sherwood, 202/586-5806



-------- tennessee

Public glimpses machines that fueled bomb

By Duncan Mansfield, Associated Press Writer  |  June 14, 2005

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/06/14/public_glimpses_machines_that_fueled_bomb/?rss_id=Boston.com+%2F+News

OAK RIDGE, Tenn. --The government is offering a rare glimpse of the massive machines used to enrich uranium for the "Little Boy" bomb -- the first atomic weapon used in war, dropped 60 years ago in August on Hiroshima, Japan.

Inside the high-security Y-12 nuclear weapons plant remain the last of 1,152 calutrons that once filled nine buildings. The machinery was part of the top-secret bomb-building Manhattan Project, which turned this rural countryside about 30 miles west of Knoxville into a "secret city" of 75,000 people between 1942 and 1945.

"Don't you know the people in Knoxville wondered what in the world was going on out here," Department of Energy guide Ray Smith said Monday. "All this material was coming in, truckload after truckload, and nothing ever left."

About 50 kilograms of highly enriched uranium were produced in Oak Ridge over a year's time for the Little Boy bomb -- all carried in briefcases by plainclothes couriers to Los Alamos, N.M., where the bomb was partially assembled before being moved to Tinian in the Northern Marianas Islands and loaded onto the B-29 Enola Gay for the bomb run over Hiroshima on Aug. 6, 1945.

Many of those questions remain in this still highly classified environment, where today nuclear warhead parts are dismantled and refurbished and bomb-grade uranium is stockpiled.

For the first time, the public will be allowed to see the old calutron machines -- devices used for separating out fissionable uranium for reactor fuel or bombs -- in tours this weekend as part of Oak Ridge's annual Secret City Festival.

The tours quickly filled in advance with more than 600 people signing up.

Even many who worked here didn't know exactly what they were working on until the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, killing more than 100,000. Japan surrendered less than a month later.

"I wouldn't have known what an atomic bomb was. I had never heard of it," said Gladys Owens, 80, of Harlan, Ky., who was among scores of young women hired to control electric current in the calutrons on orders from the engineers.

The calutrons separated fissile Uranium 235 for the bomb using huge magnets and vast quantities of electricity from the government-owned Tennessee Valley Authority.

Owens, who was 19 and just out of high school when she worked here from January until August 1945, said she didn't piece together her place in history until she attended the festival last year, saw her picture in the historical displays and was given a private tour.

Her reaction?

"Mostly, I thank God the state of Tennessee is still on the map," she said, with a laugh. "Because I was right here at the controls. At 19 years old."

Y-12 plant: http://www.y12.doe.gov/bwxt/y12.html


-------- us nuc waste

Panel Nixes Interim Nuclear Waste Storage

By ERICA WERNER, Associated Press Writer Tue Jun 14, 5:51 PM ET

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050614/ap_on_go_co/yucca_mountain_2

WASHINGTON - Senators struck a blow for the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump Tuesday as a spending panel rebuffed a House effort to establish temporary storage sites as a backup.

A leading Yucca Mountain supporter, Republican Pete Domenici of New Mexico, joined with a leading opponent, Democrat Harry Reid of Nevada, to criticize the House plan. Domenici called it "totally inadequate," and Reid said it was "half-baked."

The House measure, passed last month as part of a spending bill, called on the Energy Department to produce a plan for aboveground storage for spent reactor fuel from commercial nuclear power plants within four months at one or more federal sites. It also set October 2006 as the date to begin accepting waste and provided $10 million for the program.

The Senate Appropriations subcommittee that funds energy and water projects passed a $31 billion spending bill on a voice vote Tuesday with no money for interim storage. Domenici chairs the panel and Reid is the top-ranking Democrat.

The bill funds the Yucca Mountain project in Nevada at $577 million for 2006, which is the same as the 2005 level but less than President Bush's budget request of $651 million, which the House met.

"We have kept it going," Domenici said of the project.

Domenici told reporters later that while he supports looking for new solutions for nuclear waste disposal, he doesn't like the plan championed by Rep. David Hobson (news, bio, voting record), R-Ohio, chairman of the House Appropriations energy subcommittee.

"It's totally inadequate. You can't start a program of that importance with $10 million and a paragraph," he said. "I'm willing to look at a whole new policy which could involve interim storage, but not this way."

Reid, who supports leaving commercial nuclear waste at reactor sites in more than 30 states, voiced similar criticism.

"All the House has done has been to stir up members in an unproductive way," he said.

Some lawmakers worry that temporary storage could become permanent, and opposition in the House came from lawmakers representing sites mentioned in a report accompanying the House bill. Those included the Hanford complex in Washington state and the Idaho National Laboratory.

Yucca Mountain, approved by President Bush in 2002, is planned as a national repository for 77,000 tons of defense and commercial nuclear waste, to be buried for 10,000 years and beyond in the desert 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. A string of recent setbacks has put the program in doubt.

A federal appeals court rejected the proposed radiation protection plans for the Yucca facility. In March, documents surfaced that alleged that government workers on the project falsified data. The chairman of the House Government Reform committee issued a subpoena Tuesday for testimony from one of those workers.

Yucca Mountain is now projected not to be finished until 2012 and could be delayed further.



-------- POLITICS


-------- propaganda wars

Some Things You Need to Know Before the World Ends

by William Blum
www.dissidentvoice.org
June 14, 2005

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/June05/Blum0614.htm

Gee, how can we ever find out why they don't like us?

The Pentagon awarded three contracts this past week, worth up to $300 million, to companies it hopes will inject more creativity into US psychological operations efforts to improve foreign public opinion about the United States, particularly their opinion of the American military. "We would like to be able to use cutting-edge types of media," said Col. James A. Treadwell, director of the Joint Psychological Operations Support Element. Dan Kuehl, a specialist in information warfare at the National Defense University, added: "There are a billion-plus Muslims that are undecided.  How do we move them over to being more supportive of us? If we can do that, we can make progress and improve security." [1]

And so it goes.  And so it has gone since September 11, 2001. The world's only superpower has felt misunderstood, although co-existing with this feeling at times, and expressed more than once by Bush administration officials, has been oderint dum metuant, a favorite phrase of Roman emperor Caligula, also used by Cicero -- "let them hate so long as they fear.

"How do I respond when I see that in some Islamic countries there is vitriolic hatred for America?"  asked George W. (aka jerkus maximus) a month after 9-11. "I'll tell you how I respond: I'm amazed. I'm amazed that there's such misunderstanding of what our country is about that people would hate us.  I am -- like most Americans, I just can't believe it because I know how good we are." [2]

Psychological operations, information warfare, cutting-edge media ... surely there's a high-tech solution.

But what if it's not a misunderstanding? What if the problem is that people in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world understand the Pentagon and US foreign policy only too well? In short, what if they don't know how good we are? What if they -- in their foreign ignorance and al-Jazeera brainwashing -- have come to the bizarre conclusion that saturation bombing, invasion, occupation, destruction of homes, torture, depleted uranium, killing a hundred thousand, and daily humiliation of men, women and children do not indicate good intentions?

Last week, as well, Zalmay Khalilzad, nominated to be US ambassador to Iraq, appeared before the Senate. "The degree of support for our policies, opinion polls indicate, is not very high," he said. It has partly "to do with the perception that what we are about in Iraq is occupation, what we're about is to gain control of Iraqi resources. I think what we need to do is a better job of explaining our goals, the goal of an Iraq that's self-reliant, an Iraq that's successful. We want Iraq for the Iraqis, an Iraq that works for the Iraqi people. It's the insurgents who don't care about the Iraqi people." [3]

Yes, it is remarkable indeed how misinformed some people can be.

The Cold War is dead.  Long live the cold war. 

In last month's report, during the celebration of the 60th anniversary of the end of World War II in Europe, I commented about three enduring tales which the West exploited to win Cold War points against the Soviet Union: the Soviets signing a pact with Nazi Germany in 1939; their occupation of the three Baltic nations in 1940; and their occupation of the rest of Eastern Europe after the war.  My purpose was to show that there were ways of looking at these events radically different from the ways Americans are taught to look at them.

This greatly upset a number of my readers; not because what I wrote was historically incorrect, but because to them it seemed to excuse the crimes of the Soviet Union. The idea that the Russians could have legitimate reasons, self defense for one, for doing some of what they did is too painful to acknowledge for committed anti-communists. To them, any attempt to correct a myth concerning the Soviet Union is tantamount to ignoring -- if not approving -- Stalin's crimes and the sufferings of the people in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.

Progressives of my generation became anti-anti-communists because the powers-that-be in the United States, for decades and decades, used the sins -- real and (often) fabricated -- of the Soviet Union as a justification for US foreign policy.  Thus, the horrors carried out by the US in Korea were justified because "we're fighting communism." Thus, the horrors carried out by the US in Vietnam were justified because "we're fighting communism."  Ditto the horrors of Cambodia, Laos, Indonesia, Chile, Guatemala, Salvador, Nicaragua, etc., etc., etc.  (Now, of course, "we're fighting terrorism," but it's for the exact same imperialist reasons.) It's no wonder that so many people with a social conscience, who suffered over the horrors of US foreign policy, became anti-anti-communists.  And still are.  I've written a concise history of American anti-communism, which can be read online. [4]

Another myth I should have added in last month's report: The Yalta agreement of 1945, in planning for "the establishment of order in Europe," affirmed "the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live." We've been told ever since that it was the evil commies that caused this noble agreement to fall apart. But, in fact, it was the United States and the United Kingdom who cynically violated this affirmation before Stalin did. In Greece.  Before the war in Europe even ended!  By grossly interfering in the civil war, taking the side of those who had supported the Nazis in the war (sic), thus enabling them to defeat those who had fought against the Nazis. The latter, you see, had amongst its number some who could be called (choke, gasp) "communists". [5]

Anti-communism still holds a death grip on the American psyche. Witness the screams of pain -- from Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the media -- over Amnesty International's recent characterization of US torture sites as "the gulag of our times." Could anything be more infuriating and humiliating to an inveterate cold warrior than for the United States to be compared to Stalin's Russia?

Yet another patriotic myth (sorry to burst so many bubbles)

August 6 and 9 will mark the 60th anniversary of the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan. We can expect the usual speeches and editorials telling us how the use of the bombs obviated the need for a land invasion of Japan, thus saving a huge number of US servicemen's lives.

"Omission," wrote George Orwell, "is the most powerful form of lie."  The principal omissions from the a-bomb story is that Japan's military capability had been hopelessly destroyed and the Japanese government had been frantically sending peace feelers to the United States for a long time before those fateful days of August; peace feelers which Washington completely ignored because they wanted to use the atomic bombs.  The full story can be read online. [6]

But to American government and media leaders, it doesn't matter much if the official a-bomb story is only a legend.  It's a higher truth.

Why does NATO exist?

NATO is preparing an "ambitious" expansion into southern Afghanistan next year, announced its Secretary General, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, on June 1.  Eventually, the alliance will take charge of foreign security in "the whole of the country," he said. [7]

NATO has been taking ambitious steps for years -- bombing Yugoslavia; patrolling the Balkans like a Governor-General; training Iraqi security forces; putting itself into the war on terrorism; providing security for the 2004 Olympics in Greece; expanding its membership, which now stands at 26 nations plus 20 others brought into the NATO fold under the reassuring name of Partnership for Peace; and much more.

Time out. Where does NATO get all this authority? What body of citizens has ever voted for them to do any of this? Why does NATO routinely ignore the UN Security Council? Why, indeed, does NATO even exist? 

We were told during the Cold War that NATO was needed to protect Western Europe from a Soviet invasion. As some may have noticed, the Soviet Union no longer exists.  (It's been suggested, plausibly, that NATO was created originally to suppress the left in Italy if the Communist Party came to power through an election.) We were also told that NATO was there to counter the Warsaw Pact. The Warsaw Pact folded its tent in 1991, calling upon NATO to do the same.

If NATO hadn't begun to intervene outside of Europe it would have highlighted its uselessness and lack of mission.  "Out of area or out of business" it was said.

If NATO had never existed, what argument could be given today in favor of creating such an institution? Other than being a very useful handmaiden of US foreign policy.

Reforming the Indonesian military, for 40 years

On May 25, President Bush stated that it makes sense for the United States to maintain close military ties with Indonesia, despite the objections of human rights activists who say such coordination should be withheld until Indonesia does more to address human rights abuses by its military. "We want young officers from Indonesia coming to the United States," said Bush. "We want there to be exchanges between our military corps -- that will help lead to better understandings." Bush made his remarks after meeting with the Indonesian president, who, Bush added, "told me he's in the process of reforming the military, and I believe him." [8]  (In May 2002, Indonesian Defense Minister Matori met with US Defense Secretary Rumsfeld at the Pentagon. Matori said his government had begun to "reform the military." Rumsfeld believed him enough to call for "military-to-military relations" to be "re-established".) [9]

Indonesian officials saying they're going to reform the military is like officials in Nevada saying they're going to crack down on gambling. For 40 years the Indonesian military has engaged in mass murder and other atrocities, in Jakarta, East Timor, Aceh, Papua, and elsewhere, taking the lives of well over a million people, including several Americans in recent years. For 40 years relations between the US and Indonesian militaries have been one of the very closest of such contacts in the third world for the United States, despite the occasional objections and prohibitions from Congress. For 40 years, American officials have been saying that they have to continue training and arming Indonesia's military because the contact with the American military will have some kind of ennobling effect. For 40 years it has had no such effect at all. As Senator Tom Harkin (D.-Iowa) observed in 1999: "I have seen no evidence in my 24 years in Congress of one instance where because of American military involvement with another military that the Americans have stopped that foreign army from carrying out atrocities against their own people. No evidence, none." [10]

Yet the pretense continues, for what else can an American official say? Something like this? -- "We don't care how brutal the Indonesian military is because they got rid of Sukarno and his irritating nationalism for us, and for 40 years they've been killing people we call communists, killing people we call terrorists, and protecting our oil, natural gas, mining, and other corporate interests against Indonesian protestors. Now if that's not freedom and democracy, I don't know what is."

Liberals: conservatives -- How meaningful the distinction?

Kenneth Tomlinson, the dogmatically conservative chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which oversees the Public Broadcasting Service and National Public Radio, has been trying to remove what he sees as a liberal stain on the airwaves and replace it with what he calls "objectivity and balance." This endeavor has been heating up as of late, resulting in all the old discussions about liberal vs. conservative. As I've mentioned before in this report, these discussions are usually less than satisfying or enlightening due to a very common misunderstanding in the mainstream media and among the public -- the idea that conservatives (far to the right on the political spectrum) and liberals (ever so slightly to the left of center) are ideological polar opposites. This is particularly not the case with the current, omnipresent breed of neo-conservatives. Thus, a radio or TV program with one of these conservatives and a liberal maintains that it is "balanced", when in fact a more appropriate balance to a conservative is a left-wing radical, progressive or socialist. Liberals, at least those of the genus Americanum, are often closer to conservatives, especially on foreign policy, than they are to these groupings on the far left. In this light, the never-ending debate about whether the media has a conservative or a liberal bias takes on much less significance.

Tomlinson, it should be noted, was appointed to the CPB’s board by President Clinton.  He was chosen as chairman by President Bush in September 2003.

The other Watergate mystery

The Watergate mystery has been solved, we've been told again and again in the wake of the exposure of Deep Throat.  But I'm confused.  Doesn't the much more important mystery still remain?  Why was the office of the Democratic National Committee burglarized in the first place?  Did I somehow miss that piece of news?  I've read a number of theories about the break-in over the years, but as far as I know nothing has been substantiated or settled upon as the official, correct explanation. I'd appreciate it if anyone could enlighten me.

William Blum is the author of: Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War 2, Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower, Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire, and West-Bloc Dissident: A Cold War Memoir. Visit his website: www.killinghope.org. He can be reached at: bblum6@aol.com.



-------- us politics

Kerry confidantes say senator is seeking others to cosign letter on Downing minutes

Steve Bagley, Tuesday June 14, 2005 Raw Story

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Kerry_confidantes_say_senator_is_seeking_others_to_cosign_letter_on_Downing_mi_0614.html

Two confidants of Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) told RAW STORY Tuesday that he is privately seeking other senators to cosign a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee on the Downing Street minutes.

“Kerry has been enlisting other senators to sign onto a letter to the intelligence committee seeking answers to the Downing Street memo,” said one, “so Americans can trust that security decisions are driven by facts and responsible intelligence, not by political calculation.”

This statement comes after nearly two weeks of silence from the senator, who previously promised to “raise the issue” of the Downing Street minutes in the Senate chamber.

Two days after RAW STORY reported on Kerry’s initial promise to react, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) delivered his own statement, saying, “The Administration’s dishonesty, lack of candor, and lack of planning have brought us to where we are today, with American soldiers dying, Iraqi civilians living in constant fear, and with no clearer picture of our strategy for victory in Iraq than when we started.”

The reactions from the Massachusetts senators come after action in the House. Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) penned a response to the Downing Street minutes five days after it leaked to the British Sunday Times, demanding that President Bush answer new questions about the contents of the secret document.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), who signed Conyers letter, told RAW STORY the missive is part of a plan to “keep agitating the public” and to convince more Republicans and Democrats in Congress to act in response to the Downing Street minutes.

Ninety-four House members have since signed the letter. Conyers also put up a copy of the same memo open for the public to sign, and has since received nearly half a million signatures from across the country. Conyers is expected to deliver it to the President in a Democratic hearing Thursday.



-------- ENERGY 

Nuclear, Renewables Spending Up in Senate Budget Bill

WASHINGTON, DC, June 14, 2005 (ENS)

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2005/2005-06-14-03.asp

The Senate Energy and Water Subcommittee today approved a $31 billion Energy & Water Development Appropriations bill. The bill funds the Department of Energy and the Corps of Engineers and will be considered by the full Appropriations Committee on Thursday.

The Senate bill would spend $1.49 billion more than President George W. Bush requested and more than the House has approved in its version of the budget bill. It exceeds the current year level by $1.4 billion.

The bill provides an increase of $100 million above the President's request to support the Department of Energy Science facilities, $240 million above the President’s request for the Office of Science, and an increase of nearly a $1 billion above his request for the Army Corps of Engineers.

While the subcommittee raised funding for renewable energy, hydrogen technology and nuclear power above the President's request, the budget for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in Nevada was slashed.

Nevada Senator Harry Reid cut the Yucca Mountain budget to $577 million, half of what the Department of Energy said it would need to keep the project on track. As a senior member of the Appropriations Committee and the top Democrat on the Energy and Water Subcommittee, Reid writes the bill with his Republican counterpart every year.

Funding for Yucca Mountain in the bill is at the current year levels but is $64 million below the President’s request. No language has been included on interim storage of the nation's nuclear waste, now accumulating at the nation's 103 nuclear power plants and dozens of other facilities across the country.

For Nevada, this means Reid is able to cut the funding for the Yucca Mountain project and delay its opening. The entire Nevada Congressional delegation, the governor, and the mayor of Las Vegas are all opposed to the nuclear waste repository.

“I don’t believe Yucca Mountain will ever open,” said Reid. “Every year I cut the budget because it’s a project that’s fraught with fraud and mismanagement and the more time we have, the more the facts come to light. There is no way to safely open a nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain.”

For renewable energy research and development the Senate bill provides $1.25 billion, which is $53 million above the President’s request and $5 million above the current year level.

If the bill is enacted, hydrogen technology research would be funded at $182.69 million as requested. Biomass research is funded at $92 million, up $20 million above the request, and clean vehicle technologies is funded at $199 million.

The Senate bill provides $449 million for nuclear energy research and development, which is $60 million above the President’s request and $64.3 million above the current year level.

Of that nuclear research total, the Nuclear Power 2010 program was funded at $76 million.

The Nuclear Power 2010 program, introduced in 2002, is a joint government/industry cost-shared effort to identify sites for new nuclear power plants, as well as to develop and bring to market advanced nuclear plant technologies. The program also aims to evaluate the business case for building new nuclear power plants, and demonstrate untested regulatory processes.

It all leads to an industry decision in the next few years to seek Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approval to build and operate at least one new advanced nuclear power plant in the United States.

The Energy & Water Development Appropriations bill earmarks $45 million for a Next Generation Nuclear Plant which would use advanced technology.

Generation IV nuclear, which would develop more advanced nuclear technology would receive $60 million if the bill becomes law, and the nuclear Advanced Fuel Concepts Initiative would receive $85 million.

National Nuclear Security Administration Nonproliferation activities are funded at $1.73 billion by the Senate bill, which is $91.8 million above the President’s request and $305 million above the current year level.

At $368 million, the bill fully funds construction of the country's first MOX nuclear fuel fabrication plant. Mixed plutonium and uranium oxide fuel (MOX) is used to power nuclear plants in Japan and in France, but has never been used in the United States.

The Energy Department plans to dispose of 34 metric tons of weapons-grade plutonium by turning it into MOX fuel for power generation, and plans a MOX fabrication plant at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina, a national laboratory.

The Energy Department is scheduled to begin testing the use of MOX fuel rod assemblies at Duke Energy’s Catawba reactor in South Carolina beginning later this spring.

If the tests are considered successful, a consortium including Duke and the French state-owned company Cogema is expected to ask federal regulators for approval to use MOX in its reactors starting in 2010.

But critics fear the use of fuel made from nuclear warheads in a U.S. commercial nuclear reactor poses security and environmental risks, and could spur U.S. nuclear weapons production.

“The world will be less safe if the U.S. government can get away with using plutonium, a strategic military material, in commercial nuclear power stations,” according to Michael Mariotte, executive director of the Nuclear Information and Research Service in Washington, DC. Others worry that MOX fuel fabrication will worsen the nation's nuclear waste disposal problems.

The Senate bill provides a total budget of $734.3 million for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, an increase of $41 million over the President’s request and $41 million above the current year level. Funding will be used tos upport the licensing of next generation reactors.

The bill would require the Commission to undertake a security assessment of on-site pool storage of spent nuclear fuel.

The bill increases nuclear detection research and development funding by $20 million, and provides $10 million to address emerging threats.

Global Threat Reduction Initiative funding is up $11 million over current levels. This program removes or secures high-risk nuclear and radiological materials and equipment around the world that the government believes pose a threat to the United States and to the international community. One part of the program seeks to eliminate stockpiles of Russian-origin highly enriched uranium, that could be converted into nuclear weapons, by assisting eligible countries to convert their research reactors to low-enriched uranium that cannot be used in weapons.

For environmental cleanup at Department of Energy nuclear facilities, the Senate bill provides $7.3 billion, which is $324 million above the President’s request.