NucNews - June 21, 2005 -------- NUCLEAR -------- australia Australia seeks China uranium deal From correspondents in Los Angeles June 21, 2005 The Australian http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,15683259%255E1702,00.html FEDERAL Industry and Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane said today Australia could have an agreement to export uranium to China within 12 months. Mr Macfarlane said the safeguard agreement, which would allow Australia to monitor China's use of the uranium, is currently being negotiated. He's told reporters at an international conference in the US that China has no thought of using the uranium for nuclear weapons, and is only interested in power generation. -------- business Atom Energy Revival Fuels Bullish Uranium Outlook Story by Louis Charbonneau REUTERS AUSTRIA: June 21, 2005 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/31329/newsDate/21-Jun-2005/story.htm VIENNA - A revival of interest in nuclear energy has prompted the uranium fuel industry to consider mining new deposits across the globe to meet rising demand for the heavy metal, industry experts said on Monday. "Dozens of (nuclear) reactors are being built or planned in Asia, several in Europe and there is talk of new reactors being built in much of the rest of the world," Gerald Grandey, president of the Canadian uranium fuel supply firm Cameco Corp. , said in the written text of a speech. Grandey was speaking at an international conference on the the future of supply and demand for nuclear fuel at the headquarters of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The revival of interest in nuclear power as a cost-effective and environmentally sound source of energy has also boosted the price of uranium, Grandey told a news conference. The price of uranium in the 1970s was up around $43 per pound and then plummeted to around $7 as more as more countries began shutting down reactors, he said. But thanks to a renewed interest in atomic energy, it has recovered to $29, he added. "Recently, with the price increase and the expectations of a renaissance, we've seen speculation. Speculators, hedge funds come in and buy fairly modest quantities of uranium," he said. Around 180 million pounds of uranium are used each year, and over the last two years around 5 to 6 million pounds has been bought by speculators, Grandey said. "I think their purchases have reinforced the market price," he said. AMPLE URANIUM DEPOSITS Although some experts have warned that the world is running out of uranium, Grandey and several other industry experts told reporters this was simply not true. "There's uranium everywhere," Jay McMurray, a US-based uranium supply consultant, said. "We have vast areas of unexplored terrain but we know the geological framework." "Right now people are focusing on Canada, because that's where the high-grade deposits are," he said, adding that they would move on to other lower-grade deposits across the globe. Australia has the world's largest uranium reserves. Other countries with significant uranium deposits are Kazakhstan, Canada and South Africa. The IAEA, the United Nations nuclear watchdog, says some some countries are choosing nuclear energy over more traditional energy sources like oil, gas or coal due to a lack of resources. North America has abundant coal and gas, but countries like Japan and South Korea do not, and so choose nuclear energy as the most economically viable energy source, the IAEA has said. Atomic energy also produces almost no "greenhouse" gases, which many countries want to limit to help stem global warming, nuclear experts say. Many European states began phasing out atomic programmes after the 1986 accident at the Chernobyl reactor in Ukraine, which killed 30 people, caused thousands of children to develop cancer and has been blamed for thousands of other illnesses. ---- AMEC offers $56.9 million for nuclear services business NNC Holdings Ltd. Tue Jun 21,11:47 AM ET (CP) http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/cpress/20050621/ca_pr_on_bu/amec_nuclear_1 OAKVILLE, Ont. - AMEC PLC is offering $56.9 million in cash, plus the assumption of $28.6 million in debt, for NNC Holdings Ltd., a British nuclear services business, AMEC's Canadian subsidiary announced Tuesday. The offer has been recommended by NNC's board, and acceptances have been received from shareholders controlling more than 90 per cent of NNC's equity. AMEC, a British company which operates its Canadian division from Oakville, Ont., said the offer will be financed from AMEC's existing banking lines. NNC employs 1,000 people and provides engineering services and safety consultancy services to nuclear plants in Canada, the United Kingdom and the former Soviet Union. It has 250 Canadian employees that provide support services to customers including Bruce Power and Ontario Power Generation. London-based AMEC designs and sells infrastructure and has about 44,000 employees in more than 40 countries. "The government of Ontario's decision to re-open nuclear generating plants has reinvigorated the sector in Canada and, with NCC, AMEC is well-positioned to offer world-class services to the industry," said chief operating officer Lasse Petterson. Peter Mason, chief executive of AMEC, said the acquisition will position the company to secure a substantial slice of the annual $4.5 billion that will soon be available to the private sector in the UK for operations, maintenance, and decommissioning. -------- depleted uranium Stirring Up the Toxic Dust They turned Uncle Sam's uranium into atom bombs, and the work made them sick. Now they've got a new champion—Hillary Clinton by Kristen Lombardi June 21st, 2005 5:06 PM Village Voice http://villagevoice.com/news/0525,lombardi,65154,5.html Eugene Ruchalski probably never dreamed he'd say anything nice about Hillary Clinton. A lifelong Republican, he served five proud terms as the highway superintendent in his hometown of Boston Hills, a Buffalo suburb. At 68, and set in his ways, he admits to entertaining conservative ideas about what he calls "women in politics." Yet lately, his opinion of New York's junior senator has been changing. He counts himself among a select group of Buffalo-area residents for whom Clinton has become a crusader. Ruchalski's father was one of thousands of employees exposed to radiation at 36 mills in western New York. In his case, it was at the local Bethlehem Steel plant, now defunct, in the late 1940s and early '50s. Many of those workers got sick. Now, when Ruchalski meets with the others, he hears about all the work the senator is doing to bring his family justice. "If she can deliver for us," he says, somewhat sheepishly, "she can guarantee herself a vote." His. Anyone wondering why Senator Clinton has gotten so popular upstate, with positive numbers pushing 70 percent, need look no further than the Bethlehem Steel families. Their lives changed for good in 2000, when the federal government admitted that workers in 350 mills nationwide had "rolled" uranium to make nuclear bombs—but never knew it. On lunch breaks at Bethlehem, they blithely sat around on piles of the radioactive stuff, eating their sandwiches and inhaling a deadly dust. Under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act, created by Congress, retired workers who got sick, or their survivors, could apply for a $150,000 payment from the government. To date, 1,218 Bethlehem families have filed claims with the Labor Department and the National Institute of Occupational Health and Safety, the two agencies that administer the program. The old Bethlehem Steel plants—located in South Buffalo, Lackawanna, and Hamburg—have drawn the most applications not only from New York, but nationwide. The response has not been great. Of the current claims, only half, or 632, have made it through the first screening for eligibility. Of those, up to 383 claims—more than 60 percent—have been denied. "Obviously, the program is just not working for these people," says Dan Utech, Clinton's main staffer on the issue. This month, his boss plans to file a bill that would make it easier for the families to collect. "The senator believes it took too long for the government to accept responsibility in the first place. Now, it's getting to be ridiculous." Clinton's role as champion for nuclear-weapons workers may come as a surprise to those who remember her old ties to the dreaded Wal-Mart. As Arkansas first lady, she served six years on the board of the union-busting behemoth, notorious during her directorship for alleged child labor abuses. Wal-Mart has since become corporate enemy number one, causing some Democrats to fear that Clinton's onetime affiliation will scare away the labor vote if she makes a bid for the White House in 2008. But if her advocacy on Bethlehem Steel is any indication, Clinton is now trying to build up a solid record of defending worker rights—particularly when it comes to health and safety. Jim Melius, of the Laborers Union, in Albany, has followed the plight of these families for years now, and he finds her work on their behalf telling. "It says that she's willing to stand up and fight and try to fix the problem." And because of her new bill, Melius adds, "The story with Bethlehem isn't over." That story began in 1949, at the start of the Cold War, when the military was racing to make the atomic bomb. Mills and foundries dominated the Buffalo landscape, yet one company reigned supreme: Bethlehem Steel. Its facilities spanned three miles along Lake Erie, with state-of-the-art equipment and a workforce of 22,000. "Everybody worked at the steel mill," says Frank Panasuk, a retired detective from Hamburg. A large man with huge, square-framed glasses, he drove to the old Bethlehem complex on a recent Wednesday and along the way listed relatives who worked there—his father, his father's five brothers, his mother's five brothers. Most of the 1,700-acre site sits vacant and weeded-over today, abandoned when the company went belly-up in the '80s. But the bar mill where workers rolled steel and, for four years during the Cold War, uranium, still stands. Now a galvanizing outfit, the building looks tired, its rusted siding barely hanging on. Driving on a utility road, Panasuk spots some workers toiling over a fire. "Boy," he says, taking in the scene of power lines and railroad tracks, "this brings back memories." Not all of those memories are good. Panasuk's dad died in 1987, just weeks after developing stomach cancer. Before that, he suffered from colon cancer. He spent his entire career at the mill, serving as a metal inspector for 35 years. The tenure did Panasuk's dad proud; it has haunted his family. Ever since 2000, when the government came clean about its atomic-weapons program, people have had to come to grips with the weight of a decades-old secret at Bethlehem. From 1949 to 1952, the mill did contract work for the country's fledgling nuclear arsenal, rolling billets of uranium into rods for reactors. But few knew the true nature of the project—and those who did had to keep quiet. All the while, workers handled toxic material. They pressed it, shaped it, ground it, and squeezed it, unwittingly. Former employees and their families have had to face the reality that the government exposed them to some of the most dangerous matter on earth—"basically poisoned these folks," as one Clinton aide puts it. At Bethlehem, as opposed to other facilities, the uranium was especially deadly. According to former workers and government officials, the company did nothing to control radiation levels. Employees had no body suits to protect them, no badges to monitor exposure. They didn't even have masks. Worse still, they had to endure the constant presence of uranium dust. "For years I inhaled that dust," relays Russ Early, 81, a Vernon Downs resident with a shock of white hair and a feisty disposition. A cancer survivor, he operated a crane in the bar mill, laboring there for 43 years, soaking up the dust. It blurred his vision and scratched his throat. It settled on his food and in his coffee. It got so hot it could burn a blister on the skin the size of a silver dollar. Now that the Bethlehem secret has been revealed, the dust and its sting finally make sense to folks. And so do other things. Like all the talk in the late '40s and early '50s of a "government project" at the mill. Or the unexplained sightings of guards watching over the rods. Or the army trucks coming and going on weekends. And then there are all those cancer deaths. Edwin Walker, a genial 71-year-old from Lackawanna, held a Bethlehem post as a bricklayer from 1951 to 1954, during the uranium project. He was one of 15 men in the so-called "hot gang," the group that patched holes in furnaces. Today, only he and one other are still living. Everyone else was killed by cancer. Nor have Walker and his colleague avoided the disease—he has bladder cancer, his friend colon. "I consider that more than a coincidence," he says. "We are victims of the government's secrecy." Walker and dozens more say the government is victimizing them again—this time, by refusing to compensate them for their illnesses. When the agencies set up the compensation program, they presented the claims process as simple. Bethlehem workers, or their survivors, could apply if they worked at the mill during the uranium rollings and if they got certain cancers—22 in all, including of the lungs, skin, colon, and pancreas. In return, they'd get $150,000. But it turns out the company didn't keep records of which employees worked at the bar mill during the uranium procedures, and the records it did keep are incomplete. As a result, says Larry Elliott of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the agency has had to develop a formula, called "dose reconstruction," to evaluate claims. It's a complicated model, but here's the gist: NIOSH uses software to predict a person's risk for developing cancer, based on exposure. It takes into account such factors as the radiation type, where the person worked, how long shifts lasted, and so on. NIOSH relies on the few existing records about the uranium work at Bethlehem, Elliott says, and the formula skews toward the inhalation of uranium dust, thus putting a premium on lung and kidney cancer, and leukemia. Critics argue the formula is flawed. They say NIOSH doesn't have enough information to accurately determine individual dosages. When first creating the formula, officials failed to interview retired employees or to visit the bar mill. Instead, they substituted data from a neighboring mill, in Lockport, New York. "The model assumes that you can be precise about an individual's exposure," says Melius, of the Laborers Union, who sits on an advisory board overseeing the process. But because of the minimal records, he explains, "It's an almost impossible task to piece together." The result? A lot of people have had their claims unfairly denied—at least, that's what Early thinks. He handled the uranium, and has suffered from rectal cancer for 17 years. In 1987, he underwent surgery in which three tumors, his appendix, and his gall bladder were removed. Yet he's been denied compensation—twice. "They said it wasn't bad enough," he says, referring to his estimated dosage. Lifting his Hawaiian shirt and poking at his colostomy bag, he asks, "See this? You call that not bad enough?" The denials have left people angry and bitter. Workers see colleagues with lung cancer getting paid, while they, diagnosed with other types, are not. They tell tales of employees stationed in buildings far from the bar mill receiving checks, all because they have lung or kidney cancer. "It's wrong," says Walker, who has filed three claims, all denied. "It's unjust, and the government should own up to it." To that end, the families have formed two groups—the Bethlehem Steel Radiation Victims and Survivors, and the Bethlehem Steel Claimants Action Group— numbering some 300 members in total. They've taken their fight public, protesting outside government offices, writing letters, and making themselves a general pain for bureaucrats. Last year they scored big when a 199-page audit found serious flaws in NIOSH's system for evaluating their claims. NIOSH's Elliott admits the audit has forced the agency to review its ways. But he also insists the process is working. "We've built a solid method," he argues, adding that none of the 300-plus claims denied have been overturned on appeal. "We're confident that we are not missing any claimant who really deserves to be compensated." Clinton's office has heard that line before, repeatedly, since the senator first took up this crusade in 2003. She got involved after her Buffalo staff began fielding calls from constituents and she sent an aide to the Bethlehem claimants' meetings. In December of that year she met them herself at a special gathering in Hamburg. There, she listened to 50 or so people recounting their experiences. People like Theresa Sweeney, of Lackawanna, whose husband died of pancreatic cancer, and who explained the trouble she'd endured when administrators challenged the legitimacy of her 30-year marriage. Or Cindy Mellody, of South Buffalo, whose dad died of "probable lung carcinoma," and who told of the "huge injustice" of having her claim denied. Her father served in World War II, got captured, escaped, and hid in the jungle for two years; he returned to New York only to get a job at a plant where the government exposed him to uranium. "These stories hit you up front," says the senator's western New York regional director. The staffer says the senator was so outraged she charged the Buffalo office with documenting as many cases as possible. It now has a stack of about 200. Early on, Clinton tried pressuring agency heads to fix problems. In May 2003, for example, she pushed for a provision calling for NIOSH and the Labor Department to file a report with Congress, explaining the delays in processing claims at Bethlehem, as well as other New York facilities. The measure passed; the report has yet to be drafted. Then came the letters. In December 2003, she wrote to President Bush, calling on him to implement long-ignored legal requirements that would help Bethlehem claimants. "The longer the Administration delays," she wrote, the "more workers will die without having their claim resolved." Twelve months later, she issued a statement demanding NIOSH review its methods. The NIOSH audit, she said, "clearly indicates that claims that have been denied need to be re-evaluated." Last January, she wrote to the Labor Department, along with Senator Chuck Schumer and western New York representatives, demanding that Labor officials search harder for uranium records at Bethlehem. "She has been dogged in her oversight," says Richard Miller of the Government Accountability Project in Washington, D.C., which tracks the program. "It's not simply say one thing and do another with her." These days, Clinton has come to believe that the program is broken, her staff says, and that legislation is the only way to fix it. She's set to introduce a bill that would make it easier for Bethlehem claimants to get paid. The measure would set minimum standards for records needed to evaluate claims. Under the bill, employees who did nuclear-weapons work at plants without such records—as is the case at Bethlehem—would join a "special exposure cohort." That's a term in the original law, reserved for workers from facilities where the government lacks basic information and thus cannot reconstruct dosages. In effect, the bill would order the government to presume that workers in this status got cancer from radiation exposure and to pay them. Because the measure mandates spending, Clinton's staff says, it won't be attractive during a time of huge deficits and tax cuts. U.S. Congresswoman Louise Slaughter, of Niagara Falls, will co-sponsor a House companion bill to Clinton's legislation, and she predicts resistance. Yet Slaughter, who has worked on this issue since the mid '90s, sees two advantages. For one, its proposals amount to what she calls "basic decency." For another, Hillary Clinton is on it. As she explains, "I don't know what we'd do without her, because she performs." For now, all the Bethlehem families can do is wait. Many, like Dorothy Jaworski of West Seneca, see the senator's bill as the only source of hope, the only way they'll be able to collect what they deserve. Jaworski got a December 2003 letter from the Labor Department announcing she qualified for the $150,000 because her late husband "had sustained leukemia and pancreatic cancer in the performance of his duty," only to have the offer rescinded, an apparent "mistake," five months later. If it weren't for Senator Clinton, Jaworski says, "this whole issue would be dead." No matter what happens to the bill, she appreciates the senator standing up for her. She believes she'd have a check in hand if Hillary Clinton were in charge. "With Hillary on our side," Jaworski says, "I have faith." ---- Army has new plan for JPG exit Peggy Vlerebome Madison, Indiana Courier Staff Writer 6/21/2005 3:00:00 PM http://www.madisoncourier.com/main.asp?SectionID=4&SubSectionID=253&ArticleID=24529 The U.S. Army has proposed a new idea for extricating itself from Jefferson Proving Ground, asking federal regulators to let it decommission its depleted-uranium license in five years. Unlike the most recent previous Army plan, the new one would not have the Army continuing to monitor the environment for five years at a time for an indefinite period. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has accepted for technical review the Army’s proposal for how it would go about getting ready to decommission its license to use DU at the proving ground, where munitions containing radioactive depleted uranium were tested for 10 years beginning in 1983. The Army had to obtain a license from the NRC in order to use depleted uranium at JPG. A 2,080-acre area that is fenced and posted with warning signs contains more than 77,000 tons of projectiles and fragments from that testing. Depleted uranium strengthens metal and is used for munitions that can pierce an enemy tank as well as for cladding U.S. tanks to protect them. Depleted uranium is what is left over from making fuel for nuclear power plants. Decommissioning was part of a previous Army plan, but the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff said it needed data that the Army said it couldn’t obtain because of the danger from sending crews into the DU area to gather it. The fenced area also contains unexploded ordnance, which the Army has said could blow up at any time. Without the data, the NRC said, the potential for harm from the toxic, radioactive depleted uranium could not be determined using computer models. In the new plan, workers would go into the DU area to collect data. Staff from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also would go into the contaminated area to bait deer, then shoot them with a high-powered rifle to obtain tissue and bone for testing. Deer meat from JPG was tested about 10 years ago, but new testing should be done not only on deer from within the fenced area but from areas outside it, the Army plan said. The plan says the potential is “remote” for hunters at JPG to take deer that have “encountered” depleted uranium in or near the fenced DU Impact Area because of the size of the area and the population of deer. Decommissioning the NRC license is the way to go, an NRC staff member involved with it said. “The Army is proceeding with decommissioning, which is what I think everybody wants them to do,” said Tom McLaughlin, project manager in the materials decommissioning section at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in Washington, D.C. He commended the Army for deciding to go into the contaminated area to collect data. “We look at it as a positive step forward toward decommissioning,” he said. Richard Hill, president of the Save the Valley environmental organization, said the group’s experts and attorneys are studying the new plan. Hill said he was disappointed that the Army said in it that air will not be tested; air tests during controlled-burns at the Big Oaks National Wildlife Refuge had been sought. The plan was prepared by an Army contractor. The Army wants to start the five-year countdown to decommissioning Oct. 1. During the five years, the Army would install more water-monitoring wells and do other kinds of testing and analysis to ensure that the depleted uranium is not a threat. The NRC will have a public comment period for the Army’s new plan. The 30-day comment period will begin after a notice is published in the Federal Register, which McLaughlin expects by early next week. The Army document is to be available at the NRC’s electronic reading room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. That site is the NRC’s Agencywide Document Access and Managemet System, or ADAMS. The access number for the JPG document is ML0515203190. If access to ADAMS is denied or the document cannot be accessed, contact the document room reference staff at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or send an e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. The part of the new plan addressing what and how the Army would collect and analyze data is 200 pages long. In a related development, the commissioners of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission have given the Army and the NRC staff deadlines next month for reporting what is being done to get the Army JPG matter resolved. A hearing examiner wrote a memo in March saying that it appeared that the status of the Army’s NRC license was at a standstill, and blamed both the Army and the NRC staff. Participants in the issue were invited to submit comments, and Hill said that Save the Valley probably will. ---- IRAQI HOSPITALS AILING UNDER OCCUPATION Dahr Jamail, http://dahrjamailiraq.com/ Issued and endorsed by: BRussells Tribunal, June 21, 2005 http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m12846&l=i&size=1&hd=0 * Also: Asian Women’s Human Rights Council, Association of Humanitarian Lawyers ( http://www.webcom.com/hrin/parker/welcome.html ), SOS Iraq ( http://www.irak.be ) * This report is submitted as evidence to the Jury of conscience during the culminating session of the World Tribunal on Iraq ( http://www.worldtribunal.org/main/ ) , Istanbul 23-27 June I. INTRODUCTION II. THE STUDY III. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS IV. CASE STUDIES A. Equipment and Medicine Shortages B. US Military Interfering With Medical Care C. Lack of Water and Electricity Affecting Medical Care V. CORRUPTION AND CRIME VI. BRAIN DRAIN VII. RECONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WORK IN LIMBO VIII. CONCLUSIONS IX. SECTIONS OF GENEVA CONVENTIONS I, III AND IV OF 1949, RELEVANT TO HEALTH RIGHTS AND HEALTH CARE I. INTRODUCTION Although the Iraq Ministry of Health claims its independence and has received promises of over $1 billion of US funding, hospitals in Iraq continue to face ongoing medicine, equipment, and staffing shortages under the US-led occupation. During the 1990s, medical supplies and equipment were constantly in short supply because of the sanctions against Iraq. And while war and occupation have brought promises of relief, hospitals have had little chance to recover and re-supply: the occupation, since its inception, has closely resembled a low-grade war, and the allocation of resources by occupation authorities has reflected this reality. Thus, throughout Baghdad there are ongoing shortages of medicine of even the most basic items such as analgesics, antibiotics, anesthetics, and insulin. Surgical items are running out, as well as basic supplies like rubber gloves, gauze, and medical tape. In April 2004, an International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC) report stated that hospitals in Iraq are overwhelmed with new patients, short of medicine and supplies and lack both adequate electricity and water, with ongoing bloodshed stretching the hospitals’ already meager resources to the limit.[1] Ample testimony from medical practitioners in the interim in fact confirms this crisis. A general practitioner at the prosthetics workshop at Al-Kena Hospital in Baghdad, Dr. Thamiz Aziz Abul Rahman, said, “Eleven months ago we submitted an emergency order for prosthetic materials to the Ministry of Health, and still we have nothing,” said Dr. Rahman. After a pause he added, “This is worse than even during the sanctions.”[2] Dr. Qasim al-Nuwesri, the chief manager at Chuwader General Hospital, one of two hospitals in the sprawling slum area of Sadr City, Baghdad, an area of nearly 2 million people, added that there, too, was a shortage of most supplies and, most critically, of ambulances. But for his hospital, the lack of potable water was the major problem. “Of course we have typhoid, cholera, kidney stones: but we now even have the very rare Hepatitis Type-E: and it has become common in our area,” said al-Nuwesri, while adding that they never faced these problems prior to the invasion of 2003.[3] Chuwader hospital needs at least 2000 liters of water per day to function with basic sterilization practices. According to Dr. al-Nuwesri, they received 15% of this amount. “The rest of the water is contaminated and causing problems, as are the electricity cuts,” added al-Nuwesri, “Without electricity our instruments in the operating room cannot work and we have no pumps to bring us water.”[4] In November, shortly after razing Nazzal Emergency Hospital to the ground,[5] US forces entered Fallujah General Hospital, the city’s only healthcare facility for trauma victims, detaining employees and patients alike.[6] According to medics on the scene, water and electricity were “cut off,” ambulances confiscated, and surgeons, without exception, kept out of the besieged city.[7] Many doctors in Iraq believe that, more widely, the lack of assistance, if not outright hostility, by the US military, coupled with the lack of rebuilding and reconstruction by foreign contractors has compounded the problems they are facing. According to Agence France-Presse, the former ambassador of Iraq Paul Bremer admitted that the US led coalition spending on the Iraqi Health system was inadequate. “It’s not nearly enough to cover the needs in the healthcare field,” said Bremer when referring to the amount of money the coalition was spending for the healthcare system in occupied Iraq.[8] When asked if his hospital had received assistance from the US military or reconstruction contractors, Dr. Sarmad Raheem, the administrator of chief doctors at Al-Kerkh Hospital in Baghdad said, “Never ever. Some soldiers came here five months ago and asked what we needed. We told them and they never brought us one single needle: We heard that some people from the CPA came here, but they never did anything for us.” [9] At Fallujah General Hospital, Dr. Mohammed[10]said there has been virtually no assistance from foreign contractors, and of the US military he commented, “They send only bombs, not medicine.”[11] International aid has been in short supply due primarily to the horrendous security situation in Iraq After the UN headquarters was bombed in Baghdad in August 2003, killing 20 people, aid agencies and non-governmental organizations either reduced their staffing or pulled out entirely. Dr. Amer Al Khuzaie, the Deputy Minister of Health of Iraq, blamed the medicine and equipment shortages on the US-led Coalition’s failure to provide funds requested by the Ministry of Health.[12] “We have requested over $500 million for equipment and only have $300 million of this amount promised,” he said, “Yet we still only have promises.”[13] According to The New York Times, “of the $18.4 billion Congress approved last fall, only about $600 million has actually been paid out. Billions more have been designated for giant projects still in the planning stage. Part of the blame rests with the Pentagon's planning failures and the occupation authority's reluctance to consult qualified Iraqis. Instead, the administration brought in American defense contractors who had little clue about what was most urgently needed or how to handle the unfamiliar and highly insecure climate.”[14] The World Health Organization (WHO) last year warned of a health emergency in Baghdad, as well as throughout Iraq if current conditions persist. But despite claims from the Ministry of Health of more drugs, better equipment, and generalized improvement, doctors on the ground still see “no such improvement.”[15] II. THE STUDY From April, 2004 through January, 2005, the author and his colleague surveyed 13 hospitals in Iraq in order to research how the healthcare system was faring under the US-led occupation. While the horrendous security situation in Iraq caused the researchers to confine the survey to hospitals primarily in Baghdad, hospitals west, north, and south of the capital are included in this report. Hospitals surveyed: Al-Karama Hospital, Sheikh Marouf, Baghdad Falluja General Hospital Saqlawiya Hospital Amiriat Al-Fallujah Hospital Balad General Hospital Alexandria Hospital, Babylon Province (just south of Baghdad) Al-Kena Hospital, Baghdad (Prosthetics/Rehabilitation) Yarmouk Hospital, Baghdad Baghdad Teaching Hospital (Baghdad Medical City) Chuwader Hospital, Sadr City, Baghdad Al-Noman Hospital, Al-Adhamiya, Baghdad Al-Kerkh General Hospital, Baghdad Arabic Children’s Hospital, Baghdad III. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Early in 2004, prior to this report, Dr. Geert Van Moorter, a Belgian M.D., conducted a fact-finding mission to Iraq where he surveyed hospitals, clinics, and pharmacies. Van Moorter concluded: “Nowhere had any new medical material arrived since the end of the war. The medical material, already outdated, broken down or malfunctioning after twelve years of embargo, had further deteriorated over the past year.”[16] Findings in this report suggest that Dr. Van Moorter’s statement remains true today, albeit with the continued deterioration of equipment, supplies, and staffing, further complicated by an astronomical increase in patients due to the violent nature of the occupation of Iraq. This report documents the desperate supply shortages facing hospitals, the disastrous effect that the lack of basic services like water and electricity have on hospitals and the disruption of medical services at Iraqi hospitals by US military forces. This report further provides an overview of the situation afflicting the hospitals in Iraq in order to highlight the desperate need for the promised “rehabilitation” of the medical system. Case studies highlight several of the findings and demonstrate that Iraqis need to reconstruct and rehabilitate the healthcare system. Reconstruction efforts by US firms have patently failed, while Iraqi contractors are not allowed to do the work. The current model in Iraq of a “free trade globalized system,” limited in fact to American and a few other western contractors, has plainly not worked. Continuing to impose this flawed and failing system on Iraq will only worsen the current healthcare crisis. Compounding the problems due to a lack of equipment and medicine in Iraqi hospitals, occupancy rates at all but one of the hospitals surveyed was between 80-100% because of heavy fighting, car bombs, and an exceedingly high crime rate in occupied Iraq.[17] IV. CASE STUDIES Highlighting some of the critical areas of need in the hospitals surveyed, the case studies focus on the following areas: A. Shortage of Equipment and Medicine In Baghdad, Al-Kena Hospital also serves as a prosthetics workshop and is the only facility that provides rehabilitation services for persons with disabilities in the entire country. It provides one example of how the US-funded Ministry of Health is abjectly failing to provide Iraqi hospitals with equipment, medicine, and funding. A General Practitioner at the prosthetics workshop, Dr. Thamiz Aziz Abul Rahman, said they even lack the necessary machinery needed to make artificial prostheses. “We are using antiquated machinery from the 1970s which is missing parts,” he said while pointing to broken machinery in the dusty workshop.[19] While holding a leg brace in need of repair, Dr. Rahman noted: “In addition to this, the lack of adequate funding means we are unable to treat more patients who need prostheses, as well as [having] a very long waiting list for people who need our care.”[20] Dr. Thamiz Aziz Abul Rahman, a General Practitioner at Al-Kena Rehabilitation Hospital in Baghdad. Al-Kena is the only hospital in Iraq that makes prosthetics and provides rehabilitation services. The hospital is critically under-funded and undersupplied. Dr. Ahmed Kassen, a specialist in rheumatology at the hospital and supervisor of the workshop, said most of the materials used by the workshop for prostheses are imported from France and Germany. In a situation resembling that in other hospitals around the country today, Dr. Kassen added: “This takes time and we must await the shipments. They are also delayed by the security situation and delays at the Ministry of Health for approvals of these materials.”[21] The prosthetics workshop has only one wheelchair to transport patients in and out of the clinic, and there is not enough funding to hire wheelchair assistants or purchase more wheelchairs. Thus, simply to reach the clinic, patients must bring friends or family members. The clinic also received broken promises made by coalition authorities. After the invasion of Iraq, US personnel from the Ministry of Health came to the workshop to find out what supplies were needed. Dr. Kassen said he provided both a catalogue and a computer disk of the materials the workshop needed but never heard from the officials again. “The Americans who came here didn't even know what a clinic like this was for,” he exclaimed. “Of course we got no assistance.”[22] Both he and Dr. Rahman said that the workshop had yet to receive any new materials from the Ministry of Health since the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq. Reasonable accommodation? A broken wheelchair at Al-Kena physical rehabilitation hospital. Most patients with mobility impairments have no access to the services at Al-Kena because there are not enough wheelchairs. The workshop lacks even the most basic materials necessary for constructing prosthetics, such as leather, pins, metal bars and joints. Reliant upon the Ministry of Health for these supplies that are not forthcoming, hospital personnel are forced to obtain from the market what they can afford with their meager funds. “We don't have enough money, and barely enough of the most simple supplies we need to treat amputees,” explained Dr. Rahman. “Of course we've had a dramatic increase in the number of amputees because of the invasion and now the occupation.”[23] While helping a small boy with a new back brace to counter the effects of scoliosis, Dr. Kassen added: “We lack locking joints for prosthetics. Most of the time we are unable to serve smaller children and geriatrics. And if one component from the prosthetics is missing, we cannot help the people.”[24] Scoliosis patient at Al-Kena Hospital being fitted with a back brace. The hospital usually lacks the parts necessary to serve its patients properly. Like nearly every hospital in Baghdad during the aftermath of the invasion, the hospital and workshop were looted heavily and have received neither funding nor supplies from the US-funded Ministry of Health for compensation. At the Arabic Children’s Hospital which treats young cancer patients in Baghdad, Dr. Waad Edan Louis, the Chief Visiting Doctor, said that before the war most of the cancer cases came from the south, but now the doctor says there are numerous cases from Baghdad as well and this has caused a great strain on their supplies and staff.[25] While the extent of this increase in cancer rates are difficult to substantiate owing to inadequate disease surveillance or working cancer registries, this problem highlights the additional strain applied on the already struggling healthcare system overburdened by the costs of the invasion and military operations under the occupation. Children in the cancer ward at the Arabic Children’s Hospital in Baghdad oftentimes have to bring their own food since the hospital lacks the funding needed to offer meals. Dr. Louis said the cancer rate jumped dramatically in the late 1990’s, and his hospital alone is treating four new cases each week. While the Pentagon admits to using over 300 tons of Depleted Uranium (DU) munitions on Iraq in the 1991 Gulf War, the actual figure is closer to 800 tons. Thus far in the current war there have been 200 tons of DU used in Baghdad alone, according to Al-Jazeera.[26] As far as availability of medical supplies, Dr. Louis said there are always shortages, and what they need varies from week to week. At present they are lacking IV sets for blood transfusions and cannulas. Patients are compensating for this by purchasing their own supplies that they bring with them to the hospital.[27] Dr. Louis stated that these deficiencies are due to a lack of money from the US that supplies the Ministry of Health with its funding.[28] Dr. Namin Rashid, the Chief Resident Doctor at Yarmouk Hospital, echoed this opinion when he stated that the only medical help his hospital had received lately had been a load of medical supplies from Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani. He complained that the Ministry of Health consistently does not give them enough supplies, and his hospital currently only had 100 sets of IVs and blood transfusion equipment. He added: “We are getting less medical supplies now than we were during the sanctions!”[29] He said his hospital is receiving only one half as much supplies as it was prior to the invasion. This is also compounded by the fact that Iraqi companies have yet to be identified or allowed to participate in supplying equipment and medicine to the hospitals. A doctor at the Al-Karama hospital speaking on condition of anonymity also said: “Things for us here now are worse than they were during the sanctions. We have certain items that we have shortages of -- kidney transplant supplies, immuno-suppressive drugs, anti-rejection drugs, gauze, IV supplies and antibiotics.”[30] He said that they have received no funding from the US reconstruction funds, and that most of the minimal funding they are receiving has come from NGO’s.[31] A doctor at Al-Kerkh Hospital said that the hospital is lacking IV supplies and blood transfusion fluids. Most operating tables there were broken. Also speaking on condition of anonymity due to fear of US military reprisals, a second doctor working as an administrator doctor there reported, “the hospital is currently in a very bad situation. Before the invasion we had a much better supply situation, 80% better than now.”[32] Operating tables in many Baghdad hospitals are in dismal condition while hospitals attempt to function without necessary funding, equipment and medicine. B. US Military Interfering With Medical Care Another common impediment affecting Iraqi hospitals under occupation is interference by the US military. While this intrusion has most often taken the form of soldiers entering hospitals to interrogate or detain alleged resistance fighters, perhaps the most glaring example of the US military impeding medical care of Iraqis occurred in Fallujah during the heavy fighting of April, 2004. Doctors from Fallujah General Hospital, as well as others who worked in clinics throughout the city during the US siege of Fallujah reported that US Marines obstructed their services and that US snipers intentionally targeted their clinics and ambulances. “The Marines have said they didn't close the hospital, but essentially they did,” said Dr. Abdulla, an orthopedic surgeon at the General Hospital who spoke on condition of using a different name. “They closed the bridge which connects us to the city [and] closed our road: the area in front of our hospital was full of their soldiers and vehicles.”[33] He added that this prevented countless patients who desperately needed medical care from receiving medical care. “Who knows how many of them died that we could have saved,” said Dr. Abdulla. He also blamed the military for shooting at civilian ambulances, as well as shooting near the clinic at which he worked. “Some days we couldn't leave, or even go near the door because of the snipers,” he said. “They were shooting at the front door of the clinic.”[34] Medical workers in the city claim that Marine snipers deliberately targeted several ambulances operating in Fallujah during the US siege of the city. Dr. Abdulla also said that US snipers shot and killed one of the ambulance drivers of the clinic where he worked during the fighting. Dr. Ahmed, who also asked that only his first name be used because he feared US military reprisals, said: “The Americans shot out the lights in the front of our hospital. They prevented doctors from reaching the emergency unit at the hospital, and we quickly began to run out of supplies and much needed medications.”[35] He also stated that several times Marines kept the physicians in the residence building, thereby intentionally prohibiting them from entering the hospital to treat patients. “All the time they came in, searched rooms, and wandered around,” said Dr. Ahmed, while explaining how US troops often entered the hospital in order to search for resistance fighters. Both he and Dr. Abdulla said the US troops never permitted the delivery of necessary medicine or supplies to assist the hospital when they carried out their incursions. Describing a situation that has occurred in other hospitals, he added: “Most of our patients left the hospital because they were afraid.” Dr. Abdulla said that one of their ambulance drivers was shot and killed by US snipers while he was attempting to collect the wounded near another clinic inside the city. “The major problem we found were the American snipers,” said Dr. Rashid who worked at another clinic in the Jumaria Quarter of Fallujah. “We saw them on top of the buildings near the mayor's office.”[36] Dr. Rashid told of another incident in which a US sniper shot an ambulance driver in the leg. The ambulance driver survived, but a man who came to his rescue was shot by a US sniper and died on the operating table after Dr. Rashid and others had worked to save him. “He was a volunteer working on the ambulance to help collect the wounded,” Dr. Rashid said.[37] During a visit to the hospital in May, two ambulances in the parking lot sat with bullet holes in their windshields, while others had bullet holes in their back doors and sides. Several ambulances sit in the parking lot at the general hospital in Fallujah with bullet holes in the drivers’ side of the windshield. “I remember once we sent an ambulance to evacuate a family that was bombed by an aircraft,” said Dr. Abdulla while continuing to speak about the US snipers. “The ambulance was sniped -- one of the family died, and three were injured by the firing.”[38] Neither Dr. Abdulla nor Dr. Rashid said they knew of any medical aid being provided to their hospital or clinics by the US military. Targeting ambulances and impeding operations of medical facilities in Fallujah directly violates the Fourth Geneva Convention, which strictly forbids attacks on emergency vehicles and the obstruction of medical operations during wartime.[39] Chuwader General Hospital in Sadr City has reported similar illegalities, as have other hospitals throughout Baghdad. Dr. Abdul Ali, the ex-Chief Surgeon at Al-Noman Hospital, admits that US soldiers have come to the hospital asking for information about resistance fighters. To this he said: “My policy is not to give my patients to the Americans. I deny information for the sake of the patient.”[40] During an interview in April, he admitted this intrusion occurred fairly regularly and interfered with patients receiving medical treatment. He noted: “Ten days ago this happened--this occurred after people began to come in from Fallujah, even though most of them were children, women and elderly.”[41] A doctor at Al-Kerkh Hospital, speaking on condition of anonymity, shared a similar experience of the problem that appears to be rampant throughout much of the country: “We hear of Americans removing wounded Iraqis from hospitals. They are always coming here and asking us if we have injured fighters.”[42] The November 2004 U.S-led siege of Fallujah posed similar difficulties for the operation of health care services in that city. Burhan Fasa’a, a cameraman with the Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation (LBC), witnessed the first eight days of the fighting. “I entered Fallujah near the Julan Quarter, which is near the General Hospital,” he said during an interview in Baghdad. “There were American snipers on top of the hospital,” who, he testified, “were shooting everyone in sight.”[43] The Iraqi Red Crescent would have to wait a full week before being permitted to dispatch three ambulances into the city.[44] Similar testimony emerged from hospitals in other cities during the same period. In Amiriyat al-Fallujah, for instance, a city some ten kilometers east of Fallujah, the main hospital was raided twice by US soldiers and members of the Iraqi National Guard, doctors say. “The first time was November 29 at 5:40am, and the second time was the following day,” said a doctor at the hospital who did not want to give his real name for fear of US reprisals. “They were yelling loudly at everyone, both doctors and patients alike,” the young doctor said. “They divided into groups and were all over the hospital. They broke the gates outside, they broke the doors of the garage, and they raided our supply room where our food and supplies are. They broke all the interior doors of the hospital, as well as every exterior door.” He was then interrogated about resistance fighters, he said. “The Americans threatened to do here what they did in Fallujah if I didn't cooperate with them,” he added.[45] A second doctor, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that all of the doors of the clinics inside the same hospital were kicked in. All of the doctors, along with the security guard were handcuffed and interrogated for several hours, he said. The two doctors pointed to an ambulance with a shattered back window. “When the Americans raided our hospital again last Tuesday at 7 pm, they smashed one of our ambulances,” the first doctor said. His colleague pointed to other bullet-riddled ambulances, saying: “The Americans have snipers all along the road between here and Fallujah. They are shooting our ambulances if they try to go to Fallujah.”[46] In nearby Saqlawiyah, Dr Abdulla Aziz reported that occupation forces had blocked any medical supplies from entering or leaving the city. “They won't let any of our ambulances go to help Fallujah,” he said. “We are out of supplies and they won't let anyone bring us more.”[47] “We were tied up and beaten despite being unarmed and having only our medical instruments,” Asma Khamis al-Muhannadi, a doctor who was present during the US and Iraqi National Guard raid on Fallujah General Hospital told reporters later. She said troops dragged patients from their beds and pushed them against the wall. “I was with a woman in labor, the umbilical cord had not yet been cut,” she said. “At that time, a US soldier shouted at one of the (Iraqi) national guards to arrest me and tie my hands while I was helping the mother to deliver.”[48] Clearly, the US Federal Government needs to launch a broad inquiry into these matters so that those responsible for these acts are brought to justice and Iraqi medical personnel are free to perform their jobs. C. Lack of Water and Electricity Affecting Medical Care Dr. Qasim al-Nuwesri, the head manager of Chuwader Hospital, was quick to point out the struggles his hospital is facing under the occupation. “We are short of every medicine,” he said while telling that the extent of these shortages rarely occurred before the invasion. “It is forbidden, but sometimes we have to reuse IV’s, even the needles. We have no choice.”[49] His hospital treats an average of 3000 patients each day. Dr. Nuwesri said that one major issue that compounds all of their other problems is the lack of clean water. “Of course we have typhoid, cholera, kidney stones: but we now even have the very rare Hepatitis Type-E (HEV): and it has become common in our area.”[50] HEV, transmitted via the fecal-oral route, is also primarily associated with ingestion of feces-contaminated drinking water. While it has a low case fatality rate in the general population, fetal loss among pregnant women infected with the disease is common, along with casualty rates between 15-25% among pregnant women as well. There have also been reports of perinatal transmission. Obviously, the best prevention from being infected with HEV is to avoid contaminated water. But in a place like Sadr City, a sprawling slum area of Baghdad with over two million residents, this is impossible for most of the residents. Dr. Qasim al-Nuwesri said that one German non-governmental organization was bringing in water trucks, but the hospital still only had 15% of the necessary clean water supply to operate hygienically. Dr. Qasim al-Nuwesri, the head manager of Chuwader Hospital, struggles daily to operate a huge hospital that suffers from a desperate lack of supplies, horribly contaminated water and frequent incursions by US soldiers. In a room upstairs in the hospital with 7 younger doctors, one of their top concerns was also the water. “The most important thing is no clean water,” said Dr. Amer Ali, while the other six doctors in the room nodded in agreement. The 25-year old resident doctor continued: “This problem is affecting us so much.”[51] Dr. Ali also described more of the horrendous conditions the hospital has faced under the occupation. These conditions include the ongoing power, water, medicine and equipment shortages. The other doctors nodded in agreement. “I think the cause of these worse conditions is the Americans,” he said firmly.[52] Many hospitals surveyed in Baghdad could not afford to hire cleaners. This is a toilet in the intensive care ward in Al-Kerkh Hospital in Baghdad. Highlighting the difficulties medical personnel faced because of electrical shortages, Ahlan Bari, the Manager of Nurses at Yarmouk Teaching Hospital in Baghdad told of a horrendous incident. Ahlan Bari is the Manager of Nurses at Yarmouk Teaching Hospital, where frequent power cuts led to the death of a patient in the operating room. “We had a power outage while someone was undergoing surgery in the operating room,” she said in her office, “And [he] died on the table because we had no power for our instruments.”[53] While the hospital has generators, at times the generators don’t perform correctly because the hospital lacks parts or runs out of fuel due to ongoing fuel shortages. Most of the hospitals surveyed did not have fully functioning backup generators and lacked either funds or parts to have them repaired. V. CORRUPTION AND CRIME Corruption and crime existed under the regime of the former ruler Saddam Hussein, but both are much more rampant under the US-led occupation. One of the glaring instances of corruption is evident in the lack of proper allocation of US funds within the Ministry of Health. The Deputy Minister of Health, Dr. Amer Al Khuzaie, said the Ministry of Health was allocated $1 billion of the $18.6 billion the US set aside for rebuilding Iraq. During an interview in his office in June, 2004 he clearly stated that Bechtel, via USAID, had the contracts for distributing the subcontracts and money for rebuilding/rehabilitating the hospitals. Deputy Iraqi Minister of Health Dr. Amer Al Khuzaie, who when asked what funding his ministry has received from the US-led coalition replied, “We only have promises.” When asked why he felt the work of rebuilding/rehabilitating the hospitals and medical infrastructure was not being done, Dr. Khuzaie replied: “Usually they use the excuse of the security situation in Iraq. But then why don’t they allow Iraqi companies to do the work?”[54] Dr. Khuzaie said frankly, “Surely every country passes their money through their contractors,” when referring to what he felt was the root of the problem that the hospitals are facing under the occupation. “We could do the work and use Iraqi subcontractors,” he continued. “The problem is that they [USAID/Bechtel] want their own companies to do it.” According to the Deputy Minister, the Ministry of Health was supposed to have received $300 million of the $1 billion of US funds allocated for the medical infrastructure, but still had not received any money. While Dr. Khuzaie stated that the rampant looting of hospitals and warehouses following the invasion has aggravated the shortages of equipment and medicine, the main reason for the shortfalls has been that the former Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) was slow to issue “Letters of Credit” for the Ministry of Health. “Letters of Credit are simply how we ask them for the money we need to operate,” said Dr. Khuzaie, “and the CPA consistently holds these up for two months for us and this hurts us very much.” “The US has opened the door to share the contracts with its companies and this made the delay for us,” said the Deputy Minister while leaning forward to make his point. “This is what caused the delay in opening our Letters of Credit and this contributed to the drug shortages. This delay with the Letters of Credit happens every time we make a request. We have requested over $500 million for equipment, and only have $300 million of the Letters of Credit, but none of the money yet. We only have promises.”[55] Dr. Khuzaie’s comments highlight the imperative need for US funds to be released to the Ministry of Health so that the necessary medicine and equipment can be purchased and distributed to hospitals throughout Iraq. Along with releasing the funds, proper monitoring and oversight of their dispersion is necessary as well. Iraqi drug companies are another source of corruption. According to the Deputy Minister, the lack of oversight, since the infrastructure in his country was shattered and the former regime overthrown, has led to this corruption. “Kymadia is the Iraqi company [that] used to supply the drugs,” added Dr. Khuzaie. “They still do, but due to no infrastructure and lack of oversight, the company has become completely corrupted.”[56] Dr. Sarmed, a medical doctor who specializes in ophthalmology, voiced a similar concern. “There is no government office to complain to when the pharmacies are overcharging us or patients because we have no infrastructure,” he said in his Baghdad home.[57] Dr. Sarmed pointed out that the black market for medicine was common before the invasion because doctors only made $3 per month and some doctors illegally sold medications to augment their incomes; however the situation is worse now. “Medicines used to be limited because of the sanctions, but now the drugs are pouring in from everywhere; thus [they] are unregulated and not certified,” said Dr. Sarmed. He then added that another problem is that the distribution of narcotics is out of control and is thus being abused.[58] Wa’al Jubouri, a student of Pharmacology at Baghdad University who is currently interning at a pharmacy, also felt that corruption is a greater problem now than prior to the invasion. “Each pharmacy now is like a black market,” he said of his experience working in a pharmacy. “They can sell drugs for a very high price because there is no regulation like before.”[59] Mr. Jubouri added that the medicine Iraq is receiving from other countries is usually outdated and unregulated material, further complicating the medicine shortage. Another problem consistently plaguing the struggling healthcare system in occupied Iraq is that important and vital drugs are oftentimes available on the black market, but not in the hospitals. Dr. Sa’alm Shadid, a resident doctor in Baghdad, believes that the black market is a very big problem. “We don’t get the drugs we need now, whereas even during the sanctions we were able to get them,” he said. “So people smuggle them in and make more on the black market for them.”[60] The fact that drug companies have been forced to by-pass normal sales methods in order to make up for funds lost during the rampant looting which followed the fall of Baghdad also exemplifies how the lack of infrastructure in Iraq after the US-led invasion has led to corruption that affects medical services. Dr. Thadeb al Sawah is the assistant manger of Samarah Drug Industries. He is also the head of Inspections and Quality Control at the factory of Samarah Drug Industries. Dr. Sawah said: “After the invasion, my company owed the Ministry of Health 1.5 million Iraqi Dinar and had to begin selling our drugs to the pharmacies to make up our money to pay the Ministry of Health: We sold them medicines we knew were on the Ministry's list of needs at slightly higher prices. Consequently, the pharmacies could sell these medicines in turn to the Ministry of Health.”[61] Practices such as these have further aggravated the lack of funds of the struggling Ministry of Health and have contributed to shortages of medicine for both hospitals and patients. Criminal activity in occupied Iraq has further deteriorated the healthcare system. Organized crime is running rampant in Baghdad, resulting in the kidnapping of doctors and severe staffing shortages at some of the hospitals. “The prominent docs are being warned and told to leave by organized crime,” said Dr. Sa’alm Shadid in Baghdad. “It is very unsettled here for us. People want to leave mostly because of the security situation.”[62] Dr. Shadid explained that since doctors are now paid more than before the invasion, they have become higher profile targets for organized crime gangs who kidnap them for large ransom sums. In addition, street criminals have been targeting doctors’ homes as well. “Kidnapping for money is happening often with doctors because we don’t have bodyguards,” added Dr. Sarmed while further explaining the problem.[63] Dr. Sarmed cited several instances of the kidnapping of doctors: a famous neurosurgeon was kidnapped, humiliated and beaten before a ransom of $30,000 was paid; a famous ophthalmologist was released when a ransom of $70,000 was paid; the son of a famous surgeon was released for $30,000 and many, many others. “The most famous one is Dr. M. al-Rawi, ex-president of Baghdad University and ex-dean of my medical college,” added Dr. Sarmed. “Right after the war he was shot in the head in his private clinic.” All of the doctors interviewed about this topic believe that the horrible security situation under the occupation permits organized crime gangs in Baghdad to kidnap and rob doctors at will. There is no indication that conditions have improved in the time since these interviews were conducted. According to the Iraqi Ministry of Health, such violence against doctors is increasing.[64] A recent study of corruption in the healthcare sector found that “bribery, nepotism and theft are rife, with the problem so serious that the health of patients is suffering.”[65] Kareem al-Ubaidy, a senior official at the Medical City Hospital in Baghdad, said that corruption had left the medical sector in worse state than it was under the previous regime. VI. BRAIN DRAIN Iraqi hospitals are also attempting to cope with brain drain -- an event that commonly occurs during wars where trained and talented personnel immigrate to other nations because of the troubled situation in which they are living. Doctors and medical students in Iraq today agree that this is occurring at an alarming rate, again with kidnapping being a large part of the impetus. “Security is causing so many doctors to leave, as are the kidnappings,” said Dr. Wijdi Jalal, the executive manager of Baghdad Teaching Hospital.[66] Dr. Sarmed, an ophthalmologist working in the capital city, agreed. “The brain drain here is very bad,” he said. “Regular doctors still don’t make enough money to leave Iraq, so they don’t. But the more senior doctors are leaving because they can afford to.”[67] Doctor Sarmed also claimed that the situation is so desperate that medical universities in Iraq have ceased providing their graduating doctors with certificates in order to force them to remain in Iraq to practice medicine. Even though the pay for doctors in Iraq is now far superior to what it was prior to the US-led invasion, morale has dropped because Iraqi doctors remain acutely aware of the fact that they are still paid very little compared to doctors practicing in other countries. “We all know that we don’t make much money compared to if we were practicing in a western country,” said Dr. Sarmed. “Everything is worse now for doctors in Iraq than during the sanctions, except the pay.”[68] Dr. Sarmed is paid $161 per month from the Ministry of Health. His colleagues with higher training are paid up to $313 per month, but are still not satisfied with this amount. Why? Because, according to Dr. Sarmed, they are paid the same amount as other government workers with far less education. Yet, they have much greater responsibilities and face many more difficult working conditions. Furthermore, compared to doctors in developed countries, Iraqi doctors are only earning a fraction of the income. He said that while he was optimistic after the invasion, because he believed he would be allowed to travel and earn degrees abroad, he was suffering from poor morale since none of his aspirations has occurred. In addition, religious sects and political parties have begun struggling for control of the hospitals in Baghdad. This means Sunni are excluding Shia members, and Dawa Party members are discriminating against other political parties, and so on. Wa’al Jubouri, a pharmacology student at Baghdad University said; “Everyone is asking himself if he’ll go or stay. But we just live day by day. We all want to get out because the situation is so bad.”[69] VII. RECONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WORK IN LIMBO But the present crisis in Iraqi healthcare is dwarfed, perhaps, by the new Iraqi government’s promise of free enterprise to reconstruct healthcare services. Let us briefly consider some preconditions of this promise. Antonia Juhasz recounts that prior even to war in Iraq, USAID requested proposals to bid on contracts to select firms. “Excluded from the secret bidding process, were, among others: Iraqis, humanitarian organizations, the United Nations and any non-US businesses or organizations.”[70] Billions of dollars in US and Iraqi public funds have already been doled out in such “expedited” reconstruction contracts, with billions more on the way. From the outset, “free enterprise” in Iraq, then, was anything but free. Such contracting, as well as subsequent changes in ownership, was facilitated by transformations in existing Iraqi law. (The transformation of an occupied country’s laws violates the Hague regulations of 1907, the 1949 Geneva conventions—both ratified by the United States—and the US Army’s Law of Land Warfare.) These transformations were largely made possible by the executive orders of Presidential Envoy to Iraq and Administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority, L. Paul Bremer. Juhasz describes the impact of the executive orders on public services as fundamental and far-reaching. Order #39, for example, “allows for the following: (1) privatization of Iraq’s 200 state-owned enterprises; (2) 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi businesses; (3) “national treatment” of foreign firms; (4) unrestricted, tax-free remittance of all profits and other funds; and (5) 40-year ownership licenses. Thus, it allows the US corporations operating in Iraq to own every business, do all of the work, and send all of their money home. Nothing needs to be reinvested locally to service the Iraqi economy, no Iraqi need be hired, no public services need be guaranteed, and workers’ rights can easily be ignored. And corporations can take out their investments at any time.”[71] Little surprise, perhaps, that in such a context US corporations are essentially unaccountable for their actions. “Order #17 grants foreign contractors, including private security firms, full immunity from Iraq’s laws. Even if they do injure a third party by killing someone or causing environmental damage such as dumping toxic chemicals or poisoning drinking water, the injured third party can not turn to the Iraqi legal system, rather, the charges must be brought to US courts under US laws.”[72]As David Fidler suggests, such ordinances are reminiscent of a system of political, economic, and legal thinking that created and maintained the colonial order of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.[73] In the colonies, as one contemporary account put it, the idea was to exempt foreigners from the civil and criminal jurisdiction of the local magistrates and tribunals, and make them subject only to the laws and authorities of their own country, thus creating a kind of extra-territoriality for all citizens of the contracting States resident in or visiting any part of the East where the treaties obtained.[74] Little surprise, then, that despite the ample reconstruction contracted by the US Agency for International Development, the Iraqi healthcare system remains dysfunctional. Bechtel Corporation was hired to deliver a comprehensive analysis of all damage following the US invasion and to identify priority reconstruction projects, including those in the healthcare sector. Bechtel completed minor repair work in about fifty primary healthcare centers around the country and handed the rest over to US AID. On April 30, 2003, USAID awarded Boston-based Abt Associates a contract worth up to $43.8 million[75] to “ensure the rapid normalization of health services in Iraq while strengthening the overall health system in the country.”[76] According to the Center for Public Integrity, Abt Associates had earlier agreed to pay the US government $1.9 million as part of a settlement in October 1999 after being “accused of billing several federal agencies prematurely during a 10-year period starting in 1988.”[77] A full year and a half later, reconstruction of Iraqi medical facilities can at best be called superficial. As Baghdad Medical City began to look nice in its new coat of paint, Dr. Hammad Hussein, ophthalmology resident at the center noted: “I have not seen anything which indicates any rebuilding aside from our new pink and blue colors here where our building and the escape ladders were painted.” He said that “what this largest medical complex in Iraq lacks is medicines. I'll prescribe medication and the pharmacy simply does not have it to give to the patient.” The hospital is “short of wheelchairs, half the lifts are broken, and the family members of patients are being forced to work as nurses because of shortage of medical personnel,” he added.[78] That very day, the Yarmouk hospital in Baghdad was given new desks and chairs. The new desk delivered to Dr Aisha Abdulla sits in the corridor outside her office. “They should build a lift so patients who can't walk can be taken to surgery, and instead we have these new desks,” she said. “How can I take a new desk when there are patients dying because we don't have medicine for them?”[79] The latest reports are not hopeful. “The cost of maintaining the gardens of Medical City was 68 million dollars, the cost of painting the building was 150 million dollars and the cost of repairs was 18 million dollars, but when you enter the hospital you don’t feel any changes from the time of Saddam’s regime. On the contrary, it’s getting worse. There’s theft and embezzlement.”[80] As a consequence, according to pharmacist Muhamad Abbas at the Adnan Khairulal Surgical Hospital, “We can only give patients half the drugs that have been allocated to them because we don’t have enough”, and “we don’t even have some varieties of drugs, such as insulin and certain antibiotics.” Amir Batrus, who led the inquiry, found a more generalized restriction of basic services.[81] VIII. CONCLUSIONS This report takes as its central subject Iraqi healthcare as reflected by the condition of Iraqi hospitals. Such an approach necessarily excludes considerations that, however unrelated to hospitals, are fundamentally related to healthcare. Such exclusions from our thinking about healthcare reflect prior exclusions of persons from comprehensive medical care. Their mention here, however passing, is hoped to broaden avenues whereby medical care for all Iraqis can be envisioned and, without further delay, delivered. One such exclusion is that of a civilian population, having already been subject to attack and displacement, from basic medical services. Interviews conducted in the aftermath of the November siege of Fallujah indicate a comprehensive denial of such services to the refugees who emerged from the rubble. “The ministry of health instructed us not to provide aid for Fallujans,” said Dr. Aisha Mohammed from Baghdad.[82] “But then they have not done anything to help them during the siege, and very little at the refugee camps in Baghdad.” Dr. Mohammed reported last November that she and several doctors from her hospital had struggled to get supplies from the ministry of health to refugees stranded in camps around Baghdad. “Only when we fought them did they allow us to have some supplies. What they eventually let us have after we demanded it, is still not nearly enough for all of the camps. We are in a crisis.” Shehab Ahmed Jassim of the Iraqi Ministry of Health admitted that “in the camps now there are severe problems of diarrhea, colds, flu and lack of electricity and clean water.”[83] Abel Hamid Salim, spokesman for the Iraqi Red Crescent (IRC) in Baghdad, reported that “while the MOH (ministry of health) gave their approval to transport aid to the refugees of Fallujah, they had provided the IRC no support of materials.”[84] There is increasing evidence that such shortages are especially pronounced in detention facilities. A recent report from the Abu Ghraib Field Hospital, for instance, describes the situation accordingly. At times the hospital lacked basic supplies, according to members of the clinical staff, and at times it maintained a surgical service without surgeons. Sometimes the hospital ran out of chest tubes, intravenous fluids or medicines. Medical staff members improvised, taking tubes from patients when they died and reusing them, without sterilization. Physician’s assistants and general practitioners amputated limbs, a dentist did heart surgery, and Dr. Auch begged and bartered with other medical units for drugs and intravenous fluids. When they ran out of blood sugar test strips for Abu Ghraib's many diabetics, according to a medic assigned to the unit, they gave insulin by guessing the dose and watching for bad reactions.[85] The same report cites the underlying basis for the now famous photographs of Dr. David Auch’s response to an episode of psychosis at the prison. Without straitjackets and psychiatrists who could prescribe medication, Dr. Auch prescribed a leash to restrain the patient, recounting, “my concern was whatever it took to keep him from getting hurt.” The account resembles those emerging from detention pens at Guantanamo Bay, where former prisoners describe medical treatment as contingent on their “cooperation,”[86] and when offered, as often little more than “prescribing Prozac across the board.”[87] Individual Iraqis, such as Sadiq Zoman, have undergone similar treatment. 55 year-old Zoman, detained in a home raid by US soldiers that produced no weapons, was taken to a police office in Kirkuk, the Kirkuk Airport Detention Center, the Tikrit Airport Detention Center and then the 28th Combat Support Hospital, where he was treated by Dr. Michael Hodges. Dr. Hodges’ medical report listed the primary diagnoses of Zoman’s condition as hypoxic brain injury (brain damage caused by lack of oxygen) “with persistent vegetative state,” myocardial infarction (heart attack), and heat stroke. The same medical report did not mention the bruises, lash marks, head injury, or burn marks found on Zoman’s body upon his arrival at Tikrit hospital days later. There was no mention in Dr. Michael Hodges’ medical report on Sadiq Zoman of a head inury. Nor was there mention in Michael Hodges’ medical report of Sadiq Zoman of electrical burns on his feet or genitals. Such evidence that doctors, nurses, and medics have been complicit in torture and other illegal procedures in post-Saddam Iraq is already ample. As Dr. Robert Lifton writes, We know that medical personnel have failed to report to higher authorities wounds that were clearly caused by torture and that they have neglected to take steps to interrupt this torture. In addition, they have turned over prisoners’ medical records to interrogators who could use them to exploit the prisoners’ weaknesses or vulnerabilities.[88] Far more common, of course, than the direct administration of torture by medical authorities is the role that medical treatment has played in rehabilitating those subject to torture (often followed by further detention) while doing nothing to report and thereby abate its cause. Dr. Lifton writes that Even without directly participating in the abuse, doctors may have become socialized to an environment of torture and by virtue of their medical authority helped sustain it. In studying various forms of medical abuse, I have found that the participation of doctors can confer an aura of legitimacy and can even create an illusion of therapy and healing.[89] By failing to report on the root of the physical and psychological trauma caused by torture—this root being the torture itself—medical authorities, by mitigating its excesses (providing temporary respite, tending to mere symptoms, suggesting alternative interrogation techniques, whatever the particular case may require) and thereby conferring legitimacy upon the military-clinical institutions that they serve—effectively facilitate the torture that they treat. As billions of dollars are deployed to create Iraqi security forces and hundreds of millions more for the reconstruction and modernization of detention facilities,[90] there seems little to indicate that Iraqi sovereignty over the police-state that is emerging represents a meaningful improvement for the healthcare of Iraqis. The exclusions from comprehensive health care here touched on suggest that medical facilities in Iraq serve as petty functionaries of this police-state. I write with regret that the contents of this report appear to do little more than confirm this reality. Where does this leave us? “Security” has made several appearances throughout this report; it has been the basis for a primary complaint leveled by medical providers against occupation authorities—that of the latter’s failure to create safe, secure conditions in which to work. But in the presiding language of occupation authorities—language that in fact prefigured such complaints in the form of a promise—“security” means home raids, capable weaponry, and state of the art detention facilities, which is to say security for property above persons. Although life would seem a necessary prerequisite to liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, today in Iraq there is, at best, security for expropriated property. In this light, then, the following conclusions represent only a return to old principles. This report supports the conclusion of many observers that the war and occupation -- and sanctions prior to that -- are primarily to blame for the appalling state of healthcare in Iraq today. Up to 1990, Iraq had one of the best healthcare systems in the Middle East. This was the result of a deep commitment by the Iraqi health professionals to serve their patients well; a long-term, quality-oriented planning by successive Iraqi governments since the 1930s; and well-functioning and disciplined -- albeit sometimes heavy-handed -- government structures. Since a few months, an autonomous government is claimed in Iraq, although both its legitimacy and its autonomy are highly questionable. It can easily be argued, based on international law, that the existence of this government doesn’t change the US’s status as an occupying power. In any case, the US was the occupying power in Iraq for the period covered by this report. As such, the US was responsible for conforming with all international law, especially humanitarian law and human rights law, regarding the situation of healthcare in Iraq. The Fourth Geneva Convention contains specific provisions pertaining to the delivery of healthcare services: Article 55 To the fullest extent of the means available to it the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring the food and medical supplies of the population; it should, in particular, bring in the necessary foodstuffs, medical stores and other articles if the resources of the occupied territory are inadequate. (: ) Article 56 To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring and maintaining, with the cooperation of national and local authorities, the medical and hospital establishments and services, public health and hygiene in the occupied territory, with particular reference to the adoption and application of the prophylactic and preventive measures necessary to combat the spread of contagious diseases and epidemics. Medical personnel of all categories shall be allowed to carry out their duties. (: ) This report clearly illustrates the abject failure of the US to carry out even minimal humanitarian duties as occupying power. More importantly, it paints a picture of a healthcare system that has deteriorated since the start of the war, and of a failure to fundamentally reverse this decline. From a public health point of view, an end to occupation, with a scheduled withdrawal of all foreign troops, appears to be a major requirement. In the meantime, actions must be undertaken that would constitute small but important steps in securing a more functional healthcare system for the Iraqi people. Thus, this report concludes with the following calls to action: 1. The fact that the US government has released so little of the $1 billion in reconstruction funds allegedly allocated to the Ministry of Health should be subject to an immediate congressional investigation to scrutinize the US government’s expenditures and actions, as well as the expenditures and actions of western companies that have been awarded contracts in Iraq regarding the healthcare system. Investigators should be given the power to impose or seek punitive measures for contract violations and over-expenditues and to provide oversight, regulation and accountability of the work of these companies in regard to their individual contracts. 2. This abuse of resources and widespread corruption seems a natural consequence of the lack of oversight of multinational corporations, owing perhaps primarily to their immunity under Iraqi law as established by Executive Order #17. An institutional regime consisting of international oversight, which would include a legitimate body of experts on essential services and representatives of the country’s medical society, should be created and put to work immediately. 3. An independent investigation should be launched to probe the actions of the US military regarding its alleged interference with Iraqi healthcare personnel and facilities, specifically with regard to the city of Fallujah. This investigation should include a more general appraisal of US military actions that have interfered with efforts to provide both healthcare and emergency services to a population under occupation. The investigation should also examine the issue of accountability to clearly identify who is accountable for this state of affairs. In order to facilitate independent inquiries into these and other human rights issues, the post of UN Human Rights Rapporteur, vacant since 2003, should be filled immediately. 4. Every Iraqi who has suffered the loss of a loved one, injury or property damage as a result of the invasion and ensuing occupation should immediately be compensated in full by western standards, not the $2500 payout the US military has set as the standard fee for a dead Iraqi. Notes [1] Naomi Koppel, “Red Cross Says Iraq Hospitals Overwhelmed,” Associated Press, April 9, 2004. [2] Dahr Jamail, interview with Dr. Thamiz Aziz Abul Rahman at Al Kena Hospital, April 28, 2004. [3] Dahr Jamail, interview with Dr. Qasim al-Nuwesri at Chuwader General Hospital, June 14, 2004. [4] Ibid. [5] BBC News, “US strikes raze Fallujah hospital,” November 6, 2004. [6] Richard A. Oppel Jr., New York Times, “Early Target of Offensive Is a Hospital,” November 8, 2004. [7] Fares Dulaimi, Agence France-Presse, “Doctors, medical supplies scarce in Fallujah as major assault begins,” November 8, 2004. [8] “Bremer Admits Coalition Spending on Iraq Health Grossly Inadequate,” Agence France Press, February 15, 2004. [9] Dahr Jamail, interview with Dr. Sarmad Raheem at Al-Kerkh Hospital, June 19, 2004. [10] This doctor also asked that only his first name be used, due to his fear of military reprisals. [11] Dahr Jamail, interview with Dr. Mohammed at Fallujah General Hospital, May 10, 2004. [12] Dahr Jamail, interview with Dr. Amer Al Khuzaie at Ministry of Health, June 24, 2004. [13] Ibid. [14] “The Iraq Reconstruction Fiasco,” The New York Times, August 9, 2004. [15] Matthew Price, “Hospitals Endure Iraqi Paralysis,” BBC News, March 17, 2005. [16] Dr. Greet Van Moorter, M.D., “One year after the fall of Baghdad: how healthy is Iraq?”, Medical Aid for the Third World, April 28, 2004 [17] Saqlawiya and Amiriat Al-Fallujah Hospitals were not used in this graph as time constraints at each hospital prevented collection of this data. [18] Saqlawiya and Amiriat Al-Fallujah Hospitals were not used in this graph as time constraints at each hospital prevented collection of this data. [19] Dahr Jamail, interview of Dr. Thamiz Aziz Abul Rahman at Al-Kena Hospital, April 28, 2004. [20] Ibid. [21] Dahr Jamail, interview of Dr. Ahmed Kassen at Al-Kena Hospital, April 28, 2004. [22] Dahr Jamail, interview of Dr. Ahmed Kassen at Al-Kena Hospital, April 28, 2004. [23] Dahr Jamail, interview of Dr. Thamiz Aziz Abul Rahman at Al-Kena Hospital, April 28, 2004. [24] Dahr Jamail, interview of Dr. Ahmed Kassen at Al-Kena Hospital, April 28, 2004. [25] Abu Talat, interview of Dr. Waad Edan Louis at Arabic Children’s Hospital, July 24, 2004. [26] Lawrence Smallman, “Iraq’s real WMD Crime,” Al-Jazeera, October 30, 2003. [27] Abu Talat, interview of Dr. Waad Edan Louis at Arabic Children’s Hospital, July 24, 2004. [28] Ibid. [29] Dahr Jamail, interview of Dr. Namin Rashid at Yarmouk Hospital, April 8, 2004. [30] Dahr Jamail, interview of a doctor who asked to remain nameless at Al-Karama Hospital, April 8, 2004. [31] Ibid. [32] Dahr Jamail, interview of doctor who asked to remain nameless at Al-Kerkh Hospital, April 8, 2004. [33] Dahr Jamail, interview of “Dr. Abdulla” at Fallujah General Hospital, May 10, 2004. [34] Ibid. [35] Dahr Jamail, interview of “Dr. Ahmed” who asked to use this false name to protect his identity at Fallujah General Hospital, May 10, 2004. [36] Dahr Jamail interview of “Dr. Rashid” who asked to use this false name to protect his identity at Fallujah General Hospital, May 10, 2004. [37] Ibid. [38] Dahr Jamail, interview of Dr. Abdulla at Fallujah General Hospital, May 10, 2004. [39] Martin Zwanenburg, “Existentialism in Iraq: Security Council Resolution 1483 and the law of occupation,” International Review of the Red Cross, Number 856, p. 750. [40] Dahr Jamail, interview of Dr. Abdul Ali at Al-Noman Hospital, April 22, 2004. [41] Ibid. [42] Dahr Jamail, interview of doctor who asked to remain anonymous at Al-Kerkh Hospital, April 8, 2004. [43] Dahr Jamail, interview of Burhan Fasa’a, Baghdad, December 4, 2004. [44] Dahr Jamail, The Ester Republic, “An Eyewitness Account of Fallujah,” December 16, 2004. [45] Dahr Jamail, interview of Amiriyat al-Fallujah doctor who asked to remain anonymous, Baghdad, December 13, 2004. [46] Dahr Jamail, interview of a second Amiriyat al-Fallujah doctor who asked to remain anonymous, Baghdad, December 13, 2004. [47] Dahr Jamail, Inter Press Service, “U.S. Military Obstructing Medical Care,” December 13, 2004. [48] Dahr Jamail, interview of Dr. al-Muhannadi, Baghdad, December 13, 2004. [49] Dahr Jamail, interview of Dr. Qasim al-Nuwesri at Chuwader Hospital, June 14, 2004. [50] Ibid. [51] Dahr Jamail, interview with Dr. Amer Ali at Chuwader Hospital, June 14, 2004. [52] Ibid. [53] Dahr Jamail, interview with Ahlan Bari at Yarmouk Teaching Hospital, April 8, 2004. [54] Dahr Jamail, interview with Dr. Amer Al Khuzaie at Ministry of Health, June 24, 2004. [55] Dahr Jamail, interview with Dr. Amer Al Khuzaie at Ministry of Health, June 24, 2004. [56] Ibid. [57] Dahr Jamail, interview with Dr. Sarmed at his home in Baghdad, June 26, 2004. Dr. Sarmed spoke on condition of using a pseudonym. [58] Ibid. [59] Dahr Jamail, interview with Wa’al Jubouri at his home in Baghdad, June 26, 2004. Mr. Jubouri spoke on condition of using a pseudonym. [60] Dahr Jamail, interview with Dr. Sa’alm Shadid at his home in Baghdad, June 26, 2004. Dr. Shadid spoke on condition of using a pseudonym. [61] Abu Talat, interview with Dr. Thadeb al Sawah in his office in Samarra, July 26, 2004. [62] Dahr Jamail, interview with Dr. Omar Sa’ad at his home in Baghdad, June 26, 2004. [63] Dahr Jamail, interview with Dr. Sarmed at his home in Baghdad, June 26, 2004. [64] Institute for War and Peace Reporting (IWPR) Iraqi Press Monitor, No. 227, “Attacks on Iraqi Doctors Rising,” April 25, 2005. [65] Yaseen al-Rubai, Iraqi Crisis Report (ICR) No. 119, “Health Service Mired in Corruption,” April 1, 2005. [66] Dahr Jamail, interview with Dr. Wijdi Jalal at Baghdad Teaching Hospital, June 12, 2004. [67] Dahr Jamail, interview with Dr. Sarmed at his home in Baghdad, June 26, 2004. [68] Ibid. [69] Dahr Jamail, interview with Wa’al Jubouri at his home in Baghdad, June 26, 2004. [70] Antonia Juhasz, Left Turn Magazine, "The Corporate Invasion of Iraq," August/September 2003. [71] Antonia Juhasz, Foreign Policy in Focus, “The Hand-Over That Wasn’t: How the Occupation of Iraq Continues” July, 2004. [72] Ibid. [73] David Fidler, “A Kinder, Gentler System of Capitulations?” Texas International Law Journal, Summer 2000. [74] Sir Sherston Baker, 1 Halleck’s International Law, 3rd edition, 1893, pages 387-88. [75] U.S. AID, Fact Sheet, May 1, 2003: http://www.usaid.gov/press/factsheets/2003/fs030501.html [76] Abt Press Release, April 30, 2003. [77] André Verlöy, “Windfalls of War,” Center for Public Integrity: http://www.publicintegrity.org/wow/bio.aspx?act=pro&ddlC=1 [78] Dahr Jamail, interview of Dr. Hammad Hussein, Baghdad, December 7, 2004. [79] Dahr Jamail, interview of Dr. Aisha Abdulla, Baghdad, December 7, 2004. [80] Yaseen al-Rubai, Iraqi Crisis Report (ICR) No. 119, “Health Service Mired in Corruption,” April 1, 2005. [81] Ibid. [82] Dahr Jamail, interview of Dr. Aisha Mohammed, Baghdad, November 30, 2004. [83] Dahr Jamail, interview of Shehab Ahmed Jassim, Baghdad, November 30, 2004. [84] Dahr Jamail, interview of Abel Hamid Salim, Baghdad, November 30, 2004. [85] M. Gregg Bloche and Jonathan H. Marks, “Triage at Abu Ghraib,” The New York Times, February 5, 2005. [86] Shafiq Rasul, Asif Iqbal and Rhuhel Ahmed, “Composite statement: Detention in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay,” July 23, 2004, 299. [87] Ibid., 274. Also see 151. [88] Dr. Robert Jay Lifton, “Doctors and Torture,” New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 351:415-416, July 2004. [89] Ibid. [90] Tens of millions were recently reallocated from penal to detention facilities; see US Department of State, Section 2207 Report to Congress on the use of Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Funds, Appendix 1, p. 19, April 5, 2005. Such reallocations would seem to serve the interest of interrogations and confinement less hampered by legal considerations. X. SECTIONS OF GENEVA CONVENTIONS I, III AND IV OF 1949[1] RELEVANT TO HEALTH RIGHTS AND HEALTH CARE GENEVA CONVENTION I (Protection for sick and wounded combatants on land)[2] Article 7: Wounded and sick, as well a members of the medical personnel and chaplains, may in no circumstances renounce in part or in entirety the rights secured to them by the present Convention . . ..[3] Article 12: [Combatants] who are sick and wounded . . .shall be treated humanely and cared for by the Party to the conflict in whose power they may be without any adverse distinction founded on sex, race, nationality, religion, political opinions, or any similar criteria. Any attempts on their lives, or violence to their persons, shall be strictly prohibited; in particular, they shall not be murdered or exterminated, subjected to torture or to biological experiments; they shall not be willfully left without medical assistance and care, nor shall conditions exposing them to contagion or infection be created. Only urgent medical reasons will authorize priority in the order of treatment to be administered. Article 15: At all times, and particularly after an engagement, Parties to the conflict shall, without delay, take all possible measures to search for and to collect the wounded and sick, to protect them against pillage and ill-treatment, to ensure their adequate care, and to search for the dead and prevent their being despoiled. Article 16: Parties to the conflict shall record as soon as possible, in respect of each wounded, sick or dead person of the adverse Party falling into their hands, any particulars which may assist in his identification. Article 19: Fixed establishments and mobile medical units of the Medical Service may in no circumstances be attacked. Article 24: Medical personnel exclusively engaged in the search for, or the collection, transport or treatment of the wounded or sick, or in the prevention of disease, staff exclusively engaged in the administration of medical units and establishments, as well as chaplains attached to the armed forces, shall be respected and protected in all circumstances. Article 33: The material of mobile medical units . . . shall be reserved for the care of wounded and sick. The material and stores defined in the present Article shall not be intentionally destroyed. GENEVA CONVENTION III (Protection for prisoners of war) Article 13: Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity. Article 30: Prisoners of war suffering from serious disease, or whose condition requires special treatment, a surgical operation or hospital care, must be admitted to any military or civilian medical unit where treatment can be given . . .. The cost of treatment . . . shall be borne by the Detaining Power. GENEVA CONVENTION IV (Protection of the civilian populations) Article 18: Civilian hospitals organized to care to the wounded and sick, infirm and maternity cases, may in no circumstances be the object of attack, but shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties to the conflict. Article 20: Persons regularly and solely engaged in the operation and administration of civilian hospitals, including the personnel engaged in the search for, removal and transportation of and caring for the wounded and sick civilians, the infirm and maternity cases, shall be respected and protected. Article 21: Convoys of vehicles or hospital trains on land , , , conveying wounded and sick civilians, the infirm and maternity cases, shall be respected and protected in the same manner as the hospitals for in Article 18. Article 23: Each High Contracting Party shall allow for the free passage of all consignments of medical and hospital stores . . . intended only for civilians of another High Contracting Party, even if the latter is its adversary. It shall likewise permit the free passage of all consignments of essential foodstuffs, clothing and tonics intended for children under fifteen, expectant mothers and maternity cases. Article 55: To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring food and medical supplies of the population; it should, in particular, bring in the necessary foodstuffs, medical stores and other articles if the resources of the occupied territories are inadequate. Article 56: To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring and maintaining, with the cooperation of national and local authorities, the medical and hospital establishments and services, public health and hygiene in the occupied territory, with particular reference to the adoption and application of the prophylactic and preventive measures necessary to combat the spread of contagious diseases and epidemics. Medical personnel of all categories shall be allowed to carry out their duties. In adopting measures of health and hygiene and in their implementation, the Occupying Power shall take into consideration the moral and ethical susceptibilities of the population of the occupied territory. Article 147 :[4] Grave breaches . . . shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected in the present Convention: willful killing, torture or inhumane treatment, including biological experiments, willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, . . .taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly. Notes [1] Geneva Convention II addresses wounded, sick and shipwrecked naval personnel, and does not apply to the conflict in Iraq. The United States has not ratified the two Protocols Additional, adopted in 1977. However, some of their provisions are viewed as binding customary international law and should be consulted in the context of health rights and health care. [2] The whole of Convention I addresses the medical rights of sick and wounded combatants. This selection is only meant to provide the framework articles. [3] The rule of non-renunciation of rights is found in all four Conventions, and applies to the particular persons addressed in each. As the language is essentially identical it will not be set out under the other Conventions. [4] There is a grave breach (war crimes) article in each Geneva Convention. In Convention I it is Article 50; in Convention III it is Article 130; in Convention IV it is Article 147. While nearly identical, each specifically addresses the “protected” persons or property, so we have set out Article 147 of Convention IV as the most relevant here. *Contributors* I would like to acknowledge the following people for their invaluable contributions to this report. Without their assistance, this report would not have been possible: Abu Talat (Interpreter-Iraq) Omar Khan (author/editor, USA) Dr. Bert De Belder(Coordinator of Medical Aid for the Third World) Dirk Adriaensens (coordinator, SOS Iraq) Professor Jean Bricmont (scientist, specialist in theoretical physics, U.C. Louvain-La-Neuve) Emad Ahmed Khammas (Former co-director of Occupation Watch-Iraq) Abdul Ilah Al-Bayaty (Writer-Iraq/France) Dr. Imad Khadduri (Nuclear scientist-Iraq/Canada) Hans von Sponeck (Former UN Assistant Secretary General & United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq-Germany) Karen Parker (Attorney-USA) Amy Bartholomew (Law professor-Canada) Dr. Geert Van Moorter (Medical Aid for the Third World) as well as the other members of the BRussells Tribunal Executive and Advisory Committee. *Endorsers* This report is endorsed by the BRussells Tribunal, El Taller International, Asian Women’s Human Rights Council, Association of Humanitarian Lawyers, SOS Iraq, and Medical Aid for the Third World, a.o. I'd also like to thank 11.11.11 (a consortium of NGO’s.), who offered their facilities for the presentation of this report to the press. Nederlandse versie - PDF: http://www.brusselstribunal.org/pdf/HealthcareUnderOccupationDahrJamail-NL.pdf English version - PDF: http://www.brusselstribunal.org/pdf/HealthcareUnderOccupationDahrJamail.pdf Français - PDF: http://www.brusselstribunal.org/pdf/HealthcareUnderOccupationDahrJamail_FR.pdf Thanks to Dirk Dirk Adriaensens, BRussells Tribunal Update: We received this and we pubblish it: Subject: For Your Consideration/Correction Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 12:09:21 -0400 From: Pruett, Greg <*****@bechtel.com> To: info@uruknet.info June 23, 2005 Dear Internet Staff: We wanted to bring to your attention a factual error contained in the story “Iraqi Hospitals Ailing Under Occupation”. Bechtel, in its work for the US Agency for International Development, was not responsible for managing the rebuilding or rehabilitation of Iraq’s hospitals. Our work covers eight infrastructure sectors, with a heavy emphasis on making improvements to power, water and sanitation systems. Employing Iraqis and hiring Iraqi subcontractors has and continues to be a priority on all projects. To date more than 40,000 Iraqis have been employed to work on USAID/Bechtel projects. We hope you will share this information with visitors to your website. Sincerely, Greg S. Pruett Public Affairs Manager, Bechtel Iraq Infrastructure Reconstruction Program Baghdad, Iraq :: Article nr. 12846 sent on 21-jun-2005 20:40 ECT :: The address of this page is : www.uruknet.info?p=12846 -------- russia Moscow welcomes OSCE approval of nuclear terrorism convention June 21, 2005 (RIA Novosti) http://en.rian.ru/world/20050621/40555042.html MOSCOW - Moscow welcomed the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe's statement in support of a new convention on fighting nuclear terrorism. "The fact the OSCE adopted the ministerial statement shows growing solidarity among the members of the Organization in the fight against terrorism and the OSCE's increasingly prominent role in this important sphere of international cooperation," Russia's foreign ministry said in a statement. The OSCE adopted the foreign ministerial statement on June 20 in support of the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. The initiative to adopt the statement was advanced by Russia and France. Fifty-five OSCE countries thereby pledged to make efforts to sign the convention in New York on September 14, when the UN summit opens. They also pledged to ensure its ratification as soon as possible. The UN General Assembly adopted the convention on April 13, 2005. To come into force, 22 countries must ratify it. If ratified, it would be the 13th in a series of anti-terrorism conventions and protocols. -------- security Expert Proposes 'Layered Defense' to Protect Against Smuggled Nuclear Materials Tuesday, 21 June 2005, 22:20 CDT RedNova.com http://www.rednova.com/news/science/157670/expert_proposes_layered_defense_to_protect_against_smuggled_nuclear_materials/index.html Existing monitors for detecting smuggled nuclear weapons components at U.S. ports are "an important first step," AAAS expert Benn Tannenbaum told policymakers at a 21 June hearing before U.S. policymakers. But, he added, "More needs to be done to protect the United States from smuggled nuclear weapons" because current portal monitors probably could not detect even a few kilograms of highly enriched uranium, even if only lightly shielded. Tannenbaum, a senior program associate with the AAAS Center for Science, Technology and Security Policy, was invited by members of the Subcommittee on Prevention of Nuclear and Biological Attack and the Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Science, and Technology of the Committee on Homeland Security to provide objective information on efforts to detect nuclear weapons and radiological material. His remarks were based on research conducted for AAAS by two independent experts -- Professors Frank von Hippel of Princeton University and Steve Fetter of the University of Maryland. The two experts recently completed a detailed report for the Center, at the request of Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-MA) and Rep. Bennie G. Thompson (D-MS). In a summary letter to the Congressmen, Norman Neureiter, director of the AAAS Center for Science, Technology and Security Policy, noted that "a several-kilogram cylinder of uranium metal, shielded by a few millimeters of lead and steel and placed in a shipping container, is likely to escape detection by portal monitors using current detectors, algorithms, and operational procedures." What is the best way to protect the United States and its ports from smuggled nuclear weapons components such as enriched uranium? In his testimony, Tannenbaum proposed a "layered defense," incorporating currently deployed monitors at U.S. and international ports; plus new detectors and scanners for locating radiological and fissile material while a ship is in transit. At the same time, Tannenbaum noted that "it will always be far easier to monitor a lump of uranium at a known location than it will be to detect uranium smuggling." He suggested expanding the Comprehensive Threat Reduction program, which currently helps to safeguard much of Russia's highly enriched uranium and plutonium, while converting some of it to fuel for use in nuclear power reactors. Converting nuclear research reactors to use low enriched uranium also would improve national security, Tannenbaum noted. The current generation of passive radiation detectors can identify isotopes such as cesium-137, cobalt-60, or americium-241 -- all potential components of dirty bombs -- by monitoring the rate at which radioactive decays occur near a sensor, Tannenbaum explained. Highly enriched uranium "is very difficult to detect" using existing passive radiation detectors, he said. Some ports of entry have both active and passive detectors. But, better detection might be achieved by increasing sampling times, decreasing the distance between the container and the detector, decreasing background radiation with additional shielding and adding collimators to the detectors. In addition, future detectors must have better energy resolution. "This will allow one to distinguish harmless radioactive materials, such as kitty litter, from dirty bombs and nuclear weapons," Tannenbaum testified. Tannenbaum cited several new technologies that are now under development for locating radiological and fissile materials. At Los Alamos National Lab, for example, researchers are using cosmic rays to find very dense materials, such as plutonium and uranium, in kilogram quantities within cargo containers, according to Tannenbaum. At Lawrence Livermore National Lab, researchers use neutrons to "ping" a container, which provides useful data because fissile materials have a very characteristic gamma ray response. The Ohio-based company Quintell also is developing inexpensive detectors that would be placed in cargo containers during transoceanic shipment, Tannenbaum said. These detectors take advantage of the 10 or more day transit time to locate highly enriched uranium before it enters a U.S. port. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration, meanwhile, have begun construction of a facility to test portal monitors. For a copy of Tannenbaum's testimony, or the related technical report by Fetter and von Hippel, contact Ginger Pinholster at (202) 326-6421, gpinhols@aaas.org The AAAS Center for Science, Technology and Security Policy was established by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) through generous support from the Science, Technology & Security Initiative at the MacArthur Foundation. The goal of the Center is to encourage the integration of science and public policy for enhanced national and international security. With Director Norman Neureiter, Tannenbaum and other staff work to identify experts who can provide clear, objective, unbiased scientific and technical information to guide policymaking decisions. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) is the world's largest general scientific society, and publisher of the journal, Science (www.sciencemag.org). AAAS was founded in 1848, and serves some 262 affiliated societies and academies of science, including 10 million individuals. Science has the largest paid circulation of any peer-reviewed general science journal in the world, with an estimated total readership of one million. The non-profit AAAS (www.aaas.org) is open to all and fulfills its mission to "advance science and serve society" through initiatives in science policy; international programs; science education; and more. For the latest research news, log onto EurekAlert!, www.eurekalert.org, the premier science-news Web site, a service of AAAS. On the Internet: American Association for the Advancement of Science ---- False Alarms Plague Port Anti-Nuke System Tuesday June 21, 2005 11:46 PM By DEVLIN BARRETT Associated Press Writer http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5089792,00.html http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Nuclear-Detectors.html?pagewanted=print WASHINGTON (AP) -- The post-Sept. 11 security blanket designed to keep nuclear material out of U.S. ports still has plenty of holes, including scores of false alarms from radiation detectors, scientists told Congress on Tuesday. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey security manager Bethann Rooney said the facility receives ''about 150 alarms a day'' from the 22 radiation portal monitors at the site. That's more than 10 times the number of false alarms originally expected. Rooney was among a handful of experts who testified before a House Homeland Security subcommittee reviewing the nation's anti-nuke efforts. Federal agents at Rooney's facilities use radiation detectors on about 45 percent of containers, and they plan to raise that to 85 percent at the end of the year after receiving additional detectors. Rooney said the false alarms have not slowed shipping out of her port because follow-up inspections usually take less than 10 minutes. Rep. Bill Pascrell, D-N.J., said he was worried that the high number of false alarms has prompted some agents to reduce the sensitivity of the devices, making them less effective in spotting real danger. An official with the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, said the high number of false alarms is not limited to the New Jersey port. Gene Aloise also noted that some border agents have been improperly using handheld radiation detectors to try to sweep an entire container, and he urged better training to rectify that error. Since Sept. 11, the government has spent hundreds of millions of dollars at U.S. ports and overseas posts in an effort to keep out a so-called ''dirty bomb.'' Characterized by Dr. Benn Tannenbaum as a ''weapon of mass disruption,'' a dirty bomb would spread radioactive material over an area but not likely cause the high death toll of a nuclear weapon. Dr. Richard Wagner of the Los Alamos National Laboratory cautioned that the port radiation detection devices, which stand some 20 feet tall, are not effective in detecting the highly enriched uranium that would be the key component of a nuclear weapon. Wagner said that if the U.S. wants to keep out a nuclear bomb, it would do better to keep close tabs on the foreign sources of uranium in places like the former Soviet Union. ''It will always be far easier to monitor a lump of uranium at a known location than it will be to detect uranium smuggling,'' he said. The scientist also urged lawmakers not to worry about missteps in the development and use of various high-tech tools. ''There will be false starts and there will be money wasted,'' Wagner said. ''You're going to have to find some way for finding just the right degree of oversight.'' -------- u.s. nuc facilities -------- michigan DTE Chairman Says State May Need More Power Plants Soon TUESDAY, JUNE 21, 2005 By Tom Campbell – WJR News http://www.760wjr.com/Article.asp?PT=Local+News&id=95021 The Michigan Public Service Commission will issue a preliminary report next week on the state's future electricity needs. The report comes in tandem with a prediction by the chairman of DTE Energy that the state faces reliability problems and will need a new power plant within five years. “I would suspect that the next plant would be a coal plant that we build, but since Michigan is probably going to need a series of plants over the next 20 years built, one of them I would hope would be another nuclear plant,” says Anthony Earley. Nuclear power supplies 26% of Michigan’s needs, and Earley tells WJR's Frank Beckmann if we're serious about dealing with global warming the only answer is nuclear. -------- utah Nuclear dump a step closer NRC rejects another Utah attempt to block the facility By Robert Gehrke The Salt Lake Tribune 06/21/2005 12:54:25 AM http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_2814322 WASHINGTON - The Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Monday denied Utah's latest bid to block a license for a nuclear waste storage area on the Skull Valley Indian reservation, rejecting the argument that the waste could be stuck at the site permanently. The unanimous ruling leaves the state just one remaining avenue to challenge - over the risk of a fighter jet crash - and moves the commission a step closer to a decision on granting a license to Private Fuel Storage, a group of electric utilities seeking to store 44,000 tons of waste on the Skull Valley reservation until a permanent dump is opened. Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr.'s general counsel, Mike Lee, said he expects the NRC's final determination by the end of the summer. "We're profoundly disappointed, but we remain optimistic about our other arguments, including the remaining argument before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission," Lee said. "We're still several steps away from any point we would deem even the beginning of construction on the project to be imminent." State attorneys argued that Gary Lanthrum, director of the Department of Energy's transportation program, stated that, under the existing DOE waste storage contracts, the department would refuse to bury nuclear waste in a permanent dump if the storage casks are welded shut as planned. "Our concern is, as it has always been, once the fuel gets here is it ever going to leave?" said Assistant Utah Attorney General Denise Chancellor. The state argued, at the very least, the waste would have to be returned to the reactors and repackaged before being shipped to Yucca Mountain and that the NRC should have to redo its environmental impact studies to take that into account. The commission disagreed, affirming an earlier decision by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that sided with PFS. Several letters provided by PFS from the Energy Department to various utility companies promised flexibility to accommodate waste stored in a variety of casks. "In the face of this rather overwhelming written record, Utah offers only the unexplained [and apparently off-the-cuff] remarks of Lanthrum, and argues that his remarks require a rethinking of fundamental assumptions about the PFS project," the commission wrote. "The board sensibly thought differently." The commission noted that Lanthrum was not in chain-of-command for such decisions and that the state was unable to offer any additional evidence that DOE policy had changed, or explain why the policy might have been altered. "It was one of the last couple of hurdles we had to get through in this whole process, so we're pleased that the commission agreed with the licensing board and with our position," said PFS spokeswoman Sue Martin. The state has one more challenge pending - its contention that the dangers of a fighter jet crash or errant cruise missile smashing into the site were not adequately considered. The state filed that appeal this month, shortly after the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board rejected similar claims. If the NRC grants the license - and every significant recent decision by the commission and licensing board has gone against the state - Utah will have other avenues remaining to challenge the PFS site. The state could challenge the granting of its license in a federal appeals court, either in the 10th Circuit in Denver or in the District of Columbia. It also is working to persuade the Interior Department not to grant a right of way for shipments to travel to the Skull Valley Goshute Indian reservation, or persuade Interior Secretary Gale Norton, as trustee for Indian issues, not to approve the tribe's contract with PFS. Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, also has added language to a Defense Department bill that has passed the House that would create a wilderness area near the Skull Valley Goshute Indian reservation to prevent a rail line being built to the facility. It has yet to be considered in the Senate. -------- vermont Vermont Yankee waiting on NRC decision June 21, 2005 By Susan Smallheer, Rutland Herald Staff http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050621/NEWS/506210322/1003/NEWS02 Entergy Nuclear's hopes of getting a decision from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission before its next refueling outage at Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant were labeled "unrealistic" Monday. "They want an answer in September. We don't think that's realistic. It's not realistic," said Neil Sheehan, an NRC spokesman. In a letter to Vermont state regulators, Entergy Nuclear said that while the NRC had been non-committal about a decision date last month during a visit to Vermont, the company nonetheless anticipated receiving a decision from the NRC "sometime during the third or fourth quarter of 2005." Entergy Nuclear plans to shut down in October for its regularly scheduled maintenance and refueling outage, with plans to load additional nuclear fuel into the reactor as part of its plan to boost power product by 20 percent, or 110 megawatts. The company has already made $60 million in renovations to the plant. Entergy Nuclear submitted its request to amend its federal operating license and increase power production in September 2003 and it had originally expected approval in January 2004. But that approval has proved elusive so far. Instead of granting approval, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has scheduled yet another meeting with Entergy Nuclear engineers and officials next week to go over areas of concern in the company's application. The NRC has also put the company on notice that it still isn't satisfied with Entergy's answers to some questions and that additional information is needed. Those areas of concern include Entergy's thermal/hydraulic analysis, its analysis of the condition of its steam dryer and its ability to withstand additional pressure and vibration, the capacity of emergency cooling pumps to work in an emergency, and contingency plans for a power blackout at Vermont Yankee. The meeting is slated for June 30 at NRC headquarters outside of Washington, D.C. Entergy spokesman Robert Williams refused to say what effect, if any, the additional delays might have on the power project and the upcoming refueling outage. "The NRC is taking the time to do it right," Williams said. "The NRC must assure itself it has complete information and complete understanding. These are complex analyses based on industry experience and we're responding to their requests." "Obviously we had hoped to have the uprate approved by now. The fact is, more analysis was needed on the steam dryer," Williams said. NRC spokesman Sheehan said that General Electric's nuclear power division had also been invited to attend the session since GE had done the calculations on the Vermont Yankee power increase for Entergy. Vermont Yankee was designed by General Electric back in the 1960s, it is a boiling water reactor with a Mark 1 containment system. Sheehan said that two other nuclear reactors in the mid-west, Quad Cities and Dresden, which are also GE boiling water reactors with Mark 1 containments systems around their reactors, have run into the most problems of any reactors in the country when trying to increase power. The main problem has been the steam dryer, which has developed cracks and are in the process of being replaced. Raymond Shadis, senior technical advisor for the anti-nuclear group New England Coalition, said the lack of a decision would make the plant operate less efficiently, and as a result, less economically. "They need to make final fuel modifications and adjustments in October, if?? they are not going to have approval," Shadis said. "It's a less efficient way for them to operate," he said. Shadis also pointed out that the appeals lodged with the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board by his organization and the Department of Public Service, still hadn't been resolved as well, and would have to be before any license amendment was granted. Sarah Hofmann, chief of public advocacy for the state Department of Public Service, said that the state would be sending William Sherman, the state's nuclear engineering to next week's meeting to represent the state's concerns about what effect the power boost might have on emergency core cooling pumps. "We will have somebody at that meeting. ... Hydraulics? It touches on our issue of containment over pressure," she said. Contact Susan Smallheer at susan.smallheer@rutlandherald.com -------- MILITARY -------- arms Lockheed team behind new missile Submarine-launched weapon to be faster than cruise variety By Edmond Lococo, Bloomberg News June 21, 2005 http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/business/article/0,1299,DRMN_4_3870326,00.html Lockheed Martin Corp. and Alliant Techsystems Inc. said they are designing a submarine-launched intermediate-range ballistic missile that would be faster than cruise missiles. The missile would carry a 1,000-pound payload of conventional explosives 1,200 miles within 15 minutes of launch, Daniel Murphy, chief executive officer of Edina, Minn.-based Alliant said in a phone interview today. A cruise missile would take four hours to cover the same distance, he said. The U.S. military is seeking weapons to quickly strike targets that are easily moved as it battles insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan who have few fixed bases and relocate regularly. The Navy is already spending $1.4 billion to convert four Trident ballistic-missile submarines for carrying cruise missiles and special operations forces. The new ballistic missile would be mounted on those converted subs, Murphy said. "Cruise missiles hug the ground to fly under radar, but they fly at subsonic speeds," said Larry Dickerson, a military analyst at Forecast International Inc. "A ballistic missile is a supersonic system. Supersonic speed gives you more options for a time-sensitive target. It provides you the ability to strike a target of opportunity, like a terrorist camp." The Lockheed-led team received a $9.2 million Navy award last month to demonstrate the rocket motor technology that would be used for the missiles, Lockheed spokesman Steve Tatum said. The ballistic missile also may be fitted on 14 other Ohio-class submarines, in addition to the four converted Trident submarines, Murphy said. The Navy also is studying the feasibility of modifying the newest class of subs, the Virginia, to accommodate the weapon, Murphy said. "Today, if you look at targets in Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere where terrorists may be resident, there are no fixed targets in the conventional military sense," Murphy said. "The targets are those terrorists or insurgents themselves. We have a very limited capability, principally air-to-ground, to go after those moving targets. That's precisely what this weapon is intended to do." ---- Pakistani Pleads Not Guilty in Exports By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS June 21, 2005 Filed at 10:45 p.m. ET http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-BRF-Arms-Suspect.html?pagewanted=print LOS ANGELES (AP) -- A Pakistani taken into custody last week after he was kicked out of Mexico pleaded not guilty to federal charges of illegally exporting military jet engine parts. Authorities believe the parts were bound for Iran. Arif Ali Durrani, 55, pleaded not guilty Monday to charges contained in a 1999 indictment that his now defunct company, Ventura-based Lonestar Aerospace Inc., illegally shipped 151 compressor blades for General Electric J-85 engines in 1994. Durrani faces two counts of exporting the components -- used to cool engines in the ''Tiger II'' fighter jet and ''Talon'' trainer aircraft -- without an export license. Authorities said Durrani was ordered held without bond pending an Aug. 9 trial. He could face as much as 20 years in prison and a $2 million fine if convicted. Durrani served five years in prison for selling missile parts to Iran in the 1980s. He said his actions were part of the Iran-Contra scandal in which the United States exchanged arms for U.S. hostages held in Lebanon -------- business Private Warriors: New PBS Doc Questions Role of Military Contractors in Iraq Tuesday, June 21st, 2005, http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/21/1335238 A new PBS documentary titled "Private Warriors," raises questions about the accountability of the private companies working in Iraq and the Pentagon's increasing reliance on them. We speak with the producer and correspondent, Martin Smith and Brookings Institution fellow, Peter Singer who is author of "Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry." [includes rush transcript] It's been two and half years since the invasion of Iraq. Month after month, the army cannot meet its recruitment goals. At the same time, the military has increasingly been outsourcing services to private contractors. Between the logistics giant Halliburton and numerous armed security companies, private military contractors now comprise the second largest force in Iraq, far outnumbering the allied troops. A new documentary titled "Private Warriors," gives viewers an unprecedented behind-the scenes look at companies working in Iraq like Kellogg Brown & Root, the Halliburton subsidiary and Erinys a South African private security company. The film raises questions about the accountability of these companies and the Pentagon's increasing reliance on them. This is an excerpt that begins with Marine Colonel Thomas X. Hammes. He served as a base commander in Iraq in early 2004. * "Private Warriors,", excerpt of Frontline documentary premiering June 21 at 9:00pm on PBS. Click for more information: "Private Warriors" * Martin Smith, producer and correspondent of "Private Warriors." He has contributed to FRONTLINE over the years as both an award-winning producer and reporter. In recent years, Smith's focus has been on Al Qaeda and the war in Iraq. * Peter Singer, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution and Director of the Project on U.S. Policy Towards the Islamic World at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy. He is author of "Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry." RUSH TRANSCRIPT AMY GOODMAN: A new documentary titled Private Warriors, which is airing tonight on PBS, gives viewers an unprecedented, behind-the-scenes look at companies working in Iraq like Kellogg Brown & Root, the Halliburton subsidiary, and Erinys a South African private security company. The film raises questions about the accountability of these companies and the Pentagon's increasing reliance on them. This is an excerpt that begins with Marine Colonel Thomas X. Hammes . He served as a base commander in Iraq in early 2004. COL. THOMAS X. HAMMES: There were security contractors over there that were just cowboys. They clearly had neither the training nor the experience. Could I identify them? No. They wore a mixed bag of uniforms. Nobody wore name tags. They didn’t have unit logos. You would run into these people in town with really kind of a bad attitude, and there's nothing you could do about it. How do you identify them? Well, there's no license plates on their car. They're driving an S.U.V. These people were simply unsafe. Whether you like it or not, they represent you. To the local population, they're your hired guns. The Iraqis resented very much and knew quite clearly that if one of these people shot an Iraqi they were not subject to any law. They could simply be extracted from the country. PETER SINGER: There were reports of literally companies hiring bouncers to do security detail duties in Iraq. That's a training issue. You also have the question of their -- MARTIN SMITH: You've got something against bouncers? PETER SINGER: In terms of having them on the ground, carrying submachine guns that they've never learned how to use, out there getting into fire fights that not only impinge upon that company, but by the way, impinge upon the entire U.S. military operation. MARTIN SMITH: These companies have training. They have training by former, you know, special forces. PETER SINGER: Sometimes companies have let in people who have backgrounds that we would not want to be there. LAWRENCE PETER: There's always going to be a small percentage of people who don't do a good job in any industry. NARRATOR: In 2004 Lawrence Peter was the U.S. official in charge of regulating the security business in Iraq. Now he's left government and is an industry rep. MARTIN SMITH: Is there active debate within the business as to what jobs are appropriate and which jobs are not appropriate? LAWRENCE PETER: Right now you've got private security companies that have been asked to do certain missions, and they're going do those to the best of their ability within the framework in which they're provided. They operate under clearly defined rules for use of force. MARTIN SMITH: Was there ever a time when a private security contractor was reprimanded? LAWRENCE PETER: Well, there may have been. But that typically would be between the contracts officer who hired that private security company and the private security company. MARTIN SMITH: You would have been in a position to know. LAWRENCE PETER: I'm not aware of any incidents off hand. I mean, someone could bring up something to me or something like that. MARTIN SMITH: But that's the issue. There's no transparency if there have been any kinds of reprimands, we don't know about them. And we don't even know if there have been any. LAWRENCE PETER: Is is a responsibility for every company to tell me if they're having a difficulty or not? No. Companies are very self-reliant, independent, and they're going to do the things that they need to do. This is a business matter. AMY GOODMAN: Lawrence Peter, the U.S. official in charge of regulating the security business in Iraq in 2004. This, from an excerpt of a new PBS “Frontline” documentary called Private Warriors. It airs tonight at 9:00 on PBS. We're joined today in our New York studio by the producer and correspondent of Private Warriors, Martin Smith. In Washington, D.C., we're joined by Peter Singer, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, author of the book Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry. His article “Outsourcing War” appears in the March issue of Foreign Affairs magazine. We're going to today start with talking about the whole private corporate landscape in Iraq. Martin Smith, you've been to Iraq, what, four times now? MARTIN SMITH: This was my fourth trip. Yes. AMY GOODMAN: And why did you focus on this corporate army? MARTIN SMITH: Well, it was kind of the elephant in the room. You know, after three trips to Iraq I had seen the growing number of private contractors that were running the supply lines, building the bases, running the bases, providing security even for our armed forces. And it seemed an obvious story to us. And it hasn't gotten much coverage outside of Peter Singer's book. It's gotten very little, if any, television coverage. But yet it's all the correspondents that are over there stay on these bases. They see these private security companies. They hire some of them. So it’s -- it was an obvious story. I went to "Frontline" and said we’ve got to look at private contractors. AMY GOODMAN: Peter Singer, you've been looking at private contractors for a while, not in film, but in your investigations. Can you talk about how these people in Iraq compare to the military in Iraq? What's the difference? What's the same? PETER SINGER: Well, I think you need to remember that we're talking at the end of the day about employees, not soldiers. So while they're carrying out a military role, they're not part of the chain of command. They don't take an oath of office, and so they are separate structures. And also, the organizations that they're in are motivated differently. A Marine unit doesn't have to turn a profit. It also doesn't have discretion about when and wear it deploys. And so, on one hand the companies say, ‘Oh, but that gives us efficiency. That means we can do jobs that the Marines wouldn't be able to.” In some ways that's right, but then the opposite side of it is you have them out there performing, what I would argue, the most public role: warfare itself. And yet they're outside the normal controls. And that should raise some questions, particularly when we are talking about an environment like Iraq which is effectively a lawless zone right now. AMY GOODMAN: Martin Smith, who carries the guns? MARTIN SMITH: Well, there are -- and the numbers vary widely -- anywhere from 6,000 to 20,000 private security guards who are over there, as I mentioned before, protecting General Bostic of the Army Corp of Engineers, General Patreas, who’s in charge of training the Iraqi armed forces and the U.S. ambassadors and all State Department officials. These guys carry the guns. There are probably 60 companies or so, many of them are established companies. But many of them started up just as the war started, and you had a kind of Baghdad bubble, if you will. A lot of companies rushed in. A lot of money on the table. They armed up and started protecting people. AMY GOODMAN: Peter Singer, when do they engage in combat? What are the rules of combat for these private contractors? PETER SINGER: I think it's important to take a step back, though, and note what they're doing beyond just the combat activities themselves. Just like a small percentage of soldiers are in armed combat roles, the private military industry is much larger than that. You have companies that are doing everything from military support and supply, like Halliburton, to actually carrying out training missions, not only for the U.S. military but also for the new Iraqi military. And then finally, these company that are in these tactical combat roles, which range from everything from guarding key individuals like top ambassadors, top leaders, to doing convoy escort, which is obviously one of the most dangerous duties in Iraq right now, because that's the primary motive of the insurgent attack. And then finally guarding key facilities, guarding both government installations, construction sites, also U.S. military bases on the ground there. So one of the things that's happening here is that while contractors are performing a role that if you took them out, the operation would collapse, they're also performing such important roles that they've been involved in some of the most controversial aspects of the war, whether you're talking about the Halliburton over-billing accusations or the torture accusations at Abu Ghraib. Contractors have been there, so when we take a step back and write the history of the Iraq war, we're going have to write about private military contractors, as well. And that's a sea change in warfare AMY GOODMAN: I want to talk about the contractors at Abu Ghraib, also Blackwater, other companies like Erinys of South Africa. But we have to break. We'll do that when we come back. Peter Singer is with us from the Brookings Institute. Martin Smith with us who did today's "Frontline" documentary that will air tonight on PBS on private corporations that are working in Iraq. [break] AMY GOODMAN: We continue our discussion about a new documentary on PBS tonight at 9:00 called Private Warriors. Its producer is Martin Smith, in the studio here with us in New York. Peter Singer with us in Washington D.C., well known for his work on private contractors. Peter Singer, talk about military contractors and torture at Abu Ghraib. PETER SINGER: I think one of the things that was particularly surprising about what happened at Abu Ghraib was the mass presence of contractors there. The U.S. army found that 100% of the interpreters and up to 50% of the interrogators that were onsite there during the abuse period were private contractors; the interpreters from a company called Titan, the interrogators from a company called Khaki. The army also found in one of its reports that the interrogators who were contractors were involved in 36% of the abuse incidents. And one of the things that was disturbing about this, there's two levels here. The first is that the army looking back found that as many as a third of those contractors who were interrogators didn't have formal military training as interrogators. And then on top of it, you have the fact that they specifically identified six of them as individuals who were involved in it, and not one of those people, not one of those six contractors, has yet been even charged with a crime, let alone prosecuted or punished for it. And so you compare what's happened to the contractors to what happened to the enlisted men and women there who were rightly court-martialed for it, and it illustrates this gap in the law, this legal vacuum that contractors are in. One of the things that was interesting in speaking with a military lawyer about it is, he said, you know, the problem is that contractors exist right now in the same legal vacuum, the same legal netherworld that the detainees at Guantanamo Bay are in. Basically, there's not laws there to create their status and what -- how you should deal with them under the law. AMY GOODMAN: Martin Smith, the issue of companies like Erinys, who they are, where they're chartered? MARTIN SMITH: One of the big problems here is that when you privatize war, you take it out of the public realm, and we lose transparency. We don't know sometimes who somebody might be working for. There are many layers of subcontracts. We saw that in the Blackwater case last year where the four contractors were drug through the streets of Fallujah and two of them hung from a bridge. With the case of Erinys, they have widely been known and reported as a South African company. As we went to air, as we began to go through final fact checking, they insisted they were not a South African company. Sean Cleary, who is a former apartheid-era official, who was one of their -- is reported as one of their founders, they say was an advisor, they're actually incorporated in the British Virgin Islands. Their membership is largely South African, but also the corporate officers that run it are special forces, British special forces, S.A.S. So we report that they're now a British company. But this is very elusive and is part of the point of all this. It's a very kind of murky area. AMY GOODMAN: We're talking about a new film that's going to air tonight on "Frontline." It's called Private Warriors. You mention Blackwater. You deal with it in your documentary and the lawsuit that family members of those who worked for Blackwater have brought. Can you talk about that? MARTIN SMITH: Well, we look at that case because that was where contractors really came on people's radar, when that incident occurred in Fallujah last March 31 of last year. Now, we drilled down on that single event to try to figure out who they were working for. There's a chain of contracts it moves from. They were working for a Kuwaiti company, Blackwater, the guards were working for Blackwater. That company was working for a Kuwaiti company. The Kuwaiti company was working for a Cypriate company, ESS. ESS refuses to tell us who they were working for. In their contract there's a mention of Kellogg Brown and Root in a rather mysterious fashion. We never were able to figure out who they were working for. The 82nd Airborne, who they were supposedly delivering supplies for, says they had no contracts with them. KBR says they weren’t involved. Again, lack of transparency, lack of accountability, lack of liability. So the families are left not even knowing who their sons were working for that day. AMY GOODMAN: And what is the family saying? What are they asking for in this lawsuit? MARTIN SMITH: They're suing Blackwater for wrongful death. They have a case that the contract stipulated certain security requirements that they say were abrogated. And so they are charging that Blackwater knowingly, willfully sent them into a dangerous zone without proper security protection. AMY GOODMAN: In October 2003, Congressmembers Waxman and Dingle demanded an investigation into the high prices that KBR was charging for gas transported in occupied Iraq. The firm was purchasing the gasoline in Kuwait for $2.20 per gallon while other contractors were paying $1.18 for gas in Turkey. The company billed the government $2.27 per gallon. A Defense Department audit placed the gasoline overcharge at $61 million. Halliburton claimed it had to buy the gasoline in Kuwait to avoid hauling it through dangerous parts of Iraq. What about this issue of money? MARTIN SMITH: I think that $61 million has been revised upwards to $108 million. Halliburton lost that contractor -- KBR, their subsidiary, lost that contract. So it's fair to say that there was an agreement that they had underperformed and overcharged on that contract. AMY GOODMAN: And yet you have Halliburton being rewarded. The latest news that Halliburton is getting a $30 million contract to help build a new permanent prison at U.S. Navy’s controversial detention center at Guantanamo. MARTIN SMITH: And they built the original Guantanamo Bay prison. KBR, I think, has been overwhelmed by the army's requests and needs. They performed, by most accounts, fairly well in the Balkans. When it came to Iraq, nobody predicted that we were going to be running supply lines under fire for this long, building bases of this size. And I think it's fair to say that more than any real chicanery on their part, they had been overwhelmed. They haven’t had enough bean counters to keep track of costs. And things have just gotten out of control for them. AMY GOODMAN: I was on a plane recently. A soldier sat down next to me. He had just been flying home from Iraq. He talked about working next to the contractors and how angry the soldiers were that the contractors were making some, what, three times at least what the soldiers were making per week. Peter Singer, can you talk about that? And also the fact that these contractors, while they may carry guns, they are not counted in the casualty figures in Iraq. PETER SINGER: That's a really good question. There's actually an incident that happened just a couple weeks ago that illustrates this. You had a company called Zapata that's based from Charlotte, North Carolina, that was doing ammunition demolition, explosives demolition. And it had a convoy that was moving in the Fallujah area, and the marines in that area claim that that convoy was both firing at civilians and also fired at them, and so they stopped that convoy, that private contractor convoy, and detained the guys in it. Now, the contractors in turn say, ‘No, you stopped the wrong convoy. You got the wrong guys.’ But one of the things that apparently happened during this detention period is that the marines were, you know, saying things, basically hurling abuse at these guys, yelling at them, saying, ‘How do you like it now?’ Sort of the tension was bubbling to the surface in terms of the more money that was being made. And really, the lesson here is that coordinating forces is always tough. It's going to be tough when you bring marines together with army guys. It’s going to be tough when you have multinational elements, when you bring Americans in with Italians and Brits. But now that friction is even worsened when you’re bringing together public and private forces, and not just one private force, but as many as 60 different companies out there, and these companies where the guys in them are making far more money than the regular guys. So that tension is being created. And it makes coordinating this even tougher than it already is when you take on the fact that you don't have good oversight in management. Now, the other problem here that you noted is the lack of just simply good accounting. Not just accountability, but accounting. And so, we don't, for example, know exactly how many contractors we have working for us. Simply put, the Pentagon doesn't have the ability to track it right now. But that also means we don't know how many are being killed and wounded, because they don't go on public rolls. Now, we've tried to track that, and it seems at least from media reports either in Iraq or in the home towns of where these guys are killed that over 200 have been killed and more than 800 have been wounded. And to put that into context, that's more than any single U.S. army division has taken in terms of casualties and more than the entire coalition combined. So again, these guys are making a contribution, but they're making a contribution that’s outside the public domain so we're not tracking it. AMY GOODMAN: Martin Smith, as you go to air tonight, fourth time in Iraq, what were you most surprised by in this investigation? MARTIN SMITH: I think that the size of the bases that KBR has been building in Iraq. We visited Camp Anaconda, 40 miles north of Baghdad. Some call it Fort KBR. It's stunning, in the number of trailers behind blast walls, 15-foot-high blast walls, they call them Bremer walls, as far as the eye can see. Four huge dining facilities, swimming pools, rec centers, tai kwon do lessons. You know, a far different picture of what we have on the ground there than had previously. It's really stunning. And when we tried to question KBR as to what the price of some of these services are, they simply said, ‘Well, we don't track costs like that. We don't know.’ We went then to the military. They knew exactly what they were spending and said they discuss it every week with KBR. So again, lack of accountability, lack of transparency sort of plagued our entire time over there. But yet I think it makes a very -- you know, that is the point. If we're going to go privatizing war, building large, what they call, enduring bases, we have to face the fact that we don't quite now know in a privatized world what we're doing. AMY GOODMAN: And finally, Peter Singer, specifically Dick Cheney's relationship with Halliburton and this whole push to privatize war. PETER SINGER: That's the $13 billion question if you're talking about revenue related to Iraq for that company. I'm not one of the people that buys into the conspiracy theory in terms of the war was somehow started to help this company profit. No, this company was doing well before. We have to remember this trend started under first President Bush, continued under President Clinton and then expanded under second President Bush, particularly related to 9/11 and Iraq. And I agree with Martin here. Simply put, this industry is here, but we're not dealing with it either as smart clients, we're not getting the best bang for our buck, so to speak. But we're also not dealing with it as smart regulators in terms of what the government is supposed to do when a new industry comes along and setting down the legal structures for things like who's allowed to work in it and who these companies are allowed to work for and what you do when something goes wrong. Simply put, we have to be smart on both of these areas. And so far we've resisted that. And that's not the way to do it. That's not how you do good policy. AMY GOODMAN: Peter Singer, Martin Smith. I want to thank you both for being with us. Peter Singer, a Senior Fellow at Brookings. His book is called Corporate Warriors. The “Frontline” documentary tonight that will air at 9:00 on PBS is called Private Warriors. ---- Defense Workers Tell Legislators They Won't Move Residents Urged To Voice Objections By Spencer S. Hsu Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, June 21, 2005; B03 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/20/AR2005062001248_pf.html Defense workers and contractors said yesterday that a Pentagon plan to shift 23,000 military jobs from inside the Capital Beltway would prompt skilled workers to abandon government employment before disrupting their families' lives. At a town meeting attended by about 300 people at George Mason University's law school in Arlington, every person who queued up to speak opposed the provision within the Defense Department's national streamlining plan, with several saying it would hamper the military's mission and raise costs by triggering a "brain drain" of employees now working in leased office space in Arlington County and Alexandria near the department's Pentagon headquarters. The Pentagon's plan was announced last month and cited economic and security reasons for consolidating jobs away from Washington and its close-in suburbs. Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D), the Virginia congressman who represents the areas most affected, Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.) and U.S. Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, called yesterday's meeting to collect information from those opposed to the changes before testifying July 7 before a nine-member Base Realignment and Closure Commission. The commission will act on the Pentagon proposal and is the final arbiter of base cuts and moves. It will present its list to President Bush by Sept. 8. The president and Congress must accept or reject the list without changes. Yesterday, federal lawmakers and Virginia and Arlington County officials urged workers and others affected by the changes to telephone, send letters or e-mail their member of Congress or the federal commission. Arlington economic development agency workers handed out blue and white bumper stickers and buttons that said "Save the Brains -- Keep DoD Jobs in Arlington," while Moran aides distributed a survey asking, "Are you likely to move where your agency has been recommended to relocate to?" From comments by more than a dozen public speakers over the hour-long hearing, the answer was clearly no. The business-attired crowd was targeted by congressional aides, who timed the event for defense workers' lunch hour and set it in a Ballston-Clarendon-Rosslyn corridor where 30 defense agencies within four Metro stops of the Pentagon are slated for relocation. The Pentagon says its plan will save $49 billion nationwide over 20 years. The District, Arlington and Alexandria are set to lose about 30,000 jobs, one of the biggest cuts in the country. However, secure, suburban military bases such as Fort Belvoir in southeast Fairfax County and Fort Meade in Anne Arundel County would gain more than 20,000 workers. Most area jobs appear to be set to move nearby, but some would be relocated as far away as Texas, Alabama and Kentucky. According to Moran's office, 32 of 36 military workers who responded to yesterday's survey, or 89 percent, said they would not move with their agencies. "My point of view is, hell no, I won't go," said Thomas F. Hafer, senior program manager of Science and Technology Associates Inc., whose work defending troops from rocket-propelled grenades is in use in Iraq. "I'll flip hamburgers in Arlington before I have to commute or relocate over to Bethesda." Hillary Morgan, who works for the Defense Information Systems Agency, said the ability of staff members to work with defense and civilian agencies in Washington from a proposed new home at Fort Meade "will decline, because they are going to be out of the office for hours commuting back and forth. The loss of productivity will be tremendous." Area lawmakers expressed optimism at making limited changes. Davis said he saw "a reasonable chance" to reverse some changes because the Pentagon cited three goals from Northern Virginia relocations not explicitly included among eight criteria that govern the base-closing process -- eliminating leased defense space, increasing building security and dispersing facilities from the national capital area. Warner said he agreed with the Pentagon that the law covered its interpretation of security requirements for facilities, but he added that, "clearly, in one or two cases . . . it's a legitimate question to raise." -------- space Into Orbit (Maybe Beyond) on Wings of Giant Solar Sails By WARREN E. LEARY June 21, 2005 NY TIMES http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/21/science/space/21sail.html?pagewanted=print In an effort to promote space exploration, a private group plans today to launch the first spacecraft to sail in Earth orbit on the solar wind. If successful, the mission will provide scientific proof for a concept that has captivated science fiction for decades - that ships can travel great distances across the heavens under the power of giant solar sails nudged by the faint energy of light itself. The satellite, called Cosmos 1, was built in Russia to the specifications of the Planetary Society, a group based in Pasadena, Calif., that raised almost $4 million for the project. The spacecraft is to be launched at 3:46 p.m. Eastern time from a submerged Russian submarine in the Barents Sea. Cosmos 1 is to be carried into a near circular polar orbit atop a three-stage Volna rocket, a ballistic missile converted for commercial use. If it reaches orbit, 500 miles above the Earth, Cosmos 1 will then try to extend eight triangular sail blades, each almost 50 feet long, giving the craft the appearance of a giant silver windmill. Over a period of weeks, controllers hope to stir the sails to gather enough sunshine to change the spacecraft's orbit. "We've waited a long time for this and we're excited," said Dr. Louis D. Friedman, project director and executive director of the society, who became fascinated with the solar sail concept years ago while working for NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and in private industry. "We want to spur exploration of this novel technology and get the major space agencies and others to do bigger missions away from the Earth, where we can really see it work," he said. "We're hoping Cosmos 1 blazes a new trail in solar system exploration that eventually may lead to the stars." A secondary goal, he continued, is to encourage the role of private space enthusiasts and commercial companies in exploration. Although Cosmos 1 would be the most ambitious solar sail test thus far, NASA, the European Space Agency and Russia have done their own testing, and the Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency deployed two solar sails on a suborbital flight last year. The mission became possible for the Planetary Society, which has 100,000 members worldwide, because of low-cost launching and spacecraft-building options available in Russia. The society contracted with the Lavochkin Association, a spacecraft builder, and the Space Research Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences to build and equip the satellite, and the Makeyev Rocket Design Bureau for launching services. Half the cost is being paid by Cosmos Studios of Ithaca, N.Y., an entertainment media company led by Ann Druyan, the widow of the astronomer Carl Sagan, a Planetary Society founder and sun sail enthusiast. The rest of the project costs are being covered by donations from Peter Lewis, a philanthropist, and society members, Dr. Friedman said. The 275-pound spacecraft has two cameras as well as sensors to measure solar radiation pressure and small changes in the satellite's velocity. Apart from propulsion, the craft is powered with electricity from four solar panels. It has two radio systems as well as a sun sensor and gyroscopes to orient it in space. The eight sails, made of thin plastic Mylar film coated with aluminum on one side, are packed into coffee-can-sized containers. Once in orbit, hollow tubes made of a denser plastic material are inflated with nitrogen and pull the attached, folded sails from their containers and hold them in rigid triangular shape. Each sail blade has a surface of about 6,500 square feet. Solar sailing uses light instead of wind. The idea is that photons - the particles that make up light - have enough energy and momentum to exert a tiny force when they hit the sail and light is reflected. Over time, this steady, infinitesimal force drives the space sailing vehicle. -------- ENERGY -------- alternative energy Australia's Largest Windfarm Begins to Spin Power MELBOURNE, Australia, June 21, 2005 (ENS) http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2005/2005-06-21-05.asp Australia is on track to double its wind power. One giant wind farm began generating power on Thursday and two more projects won planning approval last week. The three wind energy facilities in three different states have a total capacity of 375 megawatts, an expected output that would power some 170,000 homes, enough to nearly double the country’s installed wind energy capacity. Australia’s largest wind farm, in Wattle Point, South Australia, was officially switched on by Premier Mike Rann on Thursday. Premier Rann declared that South Australia is now by far and away the national leader in wind power. “The opening of this wind farm today is yet another step forward in this state’s commitment to have at least 15 percent of our power generated by sustainable energy by the year 2014," he said. Southern Hydro constructed the Wattle Point Wind Farm on the Yorke Peninsula west of Adelaide, one of the country's windiest spots. With 55 turbines, each able to power 815 homes a year, the facility can power 44,825 homes when running at full power. Southern Hydro Chairman Keith Turner used a giant power switch to start the wind farm during the official on-site ceremony. “Today heralds the start a new era for solving Australia’s growing electricity needs and is a significant milestone for South Australia,” he said. Premier Rann told the crowd that the the Wattle Point Wind Farm will save nearly 300,000 metric tons of greenhouse gases from being pumped into the air each year, "the equivalent of taking 74,000 cars off our roads." “In my opinion, we have no choice but to take serious action to reduce greenhouse gases, which are without doubt the largest contributor to climate change," he said. Australia has followed the lead of U.S. President George W. Bush and declined to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, but Rann said that he has lobbied successfully to put climate change on the national agenda. “Earlier this month, the Labor Leaders from across Australia and Prime Minister John Howard agreed at the Council of Australian Government meeting in Canberra to my proposal to establish a working group to develop a national policy on climate change," he said. “As a nation, we must change the way we use and burn energy. Without change, a 2003 CSIRO report has already warned us that our average annual temperature in the southern part of South Australia could increase by between 0.6 percent and 4.4 percent," said Rann, referring to the national government's research agency, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. “This could be catastrophic - causing more and longer droughts and greater and severe flooding," the premier said. Australia’s chief scientist has called for cuts in greenhouse gas emissions of 50 percent by 2050. In April, the states and territories of Australia reached a joint agreement to craft a greenhouse gas emissions trading system to limit climate change. Two more wind energy projects won planning approval last week - the Waubra Wind Farm in Victoria and the Crookwell II Wind Farm in New South Wales. In Victoria, the 192 megawatt Waubra wind farm will bring jobs to the Ballarat region as well as help Victoria's efforts to deal with climate change, Planning Minister Rob Hulls and Energy Industries Minister Theo Theophanous, said announcing the approval on Wednesday. "The operating company, Wind Power Pty Ltd, has pledged to establish a Community Wind Fund for the benefit of the Waubra community," contributing $500 per turbine per year for the life of the facility, the ministers said. "The establishment of this wind farm will lead to significant greenhouse benefits, which will make a major contribution to achieving sustainable energy objectives in Victoria," Hulls said. Plans for the 46 turbine Crookwell II Wind Farm roused opposition in the neighborhood. The development won approval from the New South Wales government on Friday but is subject to a 28 day cooling off period. Friends of Crookwell has indicated they may challenge the planning approval granted to the development. The wind farm to be built by the Spanish company Gamesa is expected to provide energy to 30,000 households. But groups from central and southern New South Wales, who are against the proliferation of wind turbines, gathered in Taralga on May 15 to express their anger at what they say are inappropriately sited windfarm developments proposed without proper government planning. The participants brought knowledge of over 500 wind turbines proposed for the region. They say that landscapes are endangered, and that planners must consider landscape beauty and give weight to the place of landscape values while planning for ecologically sustainable development. The Australian Wind Energy Association (AusWEA) welcomed the approvals, but said the industry as a whole needs more support from the Commonwealth government. “With political will and motivation, Australia could have one of the strongest wind energy industries in the world. We certainly have the wind resource, but we lack adequate industry support mechanisms to encourage future growth,” said AusWEA CEO Dominique La Fontaine. There are now almost 6,000 megawatts of wind energy projects in the planning stages around the country, but La Fontaine says many of them may not proceed under the current Mandatory Renewable Energy Target (MRET), which is expected to be filled for all renewable energy technologies by 2007. The development of renewable energy technologies in Australia is driven by the MRET target. Set by the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000, this target requires wholesale purchasers of electricity to proportionately contribute towards the generation of 9500 gigawatts of renewable energy by 2010. So, the MRET guarantees investors in alternative energy technology a market for their energy. But without an increase in the MRET target, this quota will be filled by 2007, leaving little incentive for new investment. “Wind energy is already one of the most cost-competitive clean energy sources available, and the costs are declining at a rapid rate," La Fontaine said. "However, as an emerging industry, we do need industry support to reach the economies of scale to become competitive with other large-scale sources of energy." If Australia keeps up with international growth, AusWEA expects wind energy to be cost-competitive with fossil fuels within 10 to 15 years time. See unique photos of the Wattle Point windfarm at the "Yorke Peninsula Country Times" at: http://www.ypct.com.au/features/windfarm.html ---- BLM to Facilitate Wind Energy Development on Public Lands WASHINGTON, DC, June 21, 2005 (ENS) http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2005/2005-06-21-09.asp#anchor3 The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has laid the environmental groundwork to speed up the permitting of wind energy in the 11 western public-land states, excluding Alaska. In remarks today before the Congressional Renewable Energy EXPO in Washington, Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Land and Minerals Management Rebecca Watson announced the release of the agency's study, "The Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on Wind Energy Development on BLM-Administered Lands in the Western United States." "It should pave the way for development of more than 3200 megawatts of wind energy on public lands in 11 western states," Watson told the conference delegates. "That’s enough energy to power almost one million homes.” The study addresses the environmental, social and economic impacts associated with the development of wind energy on public lands. “Our quality of life and economic security are dependent on a stable and abundant supply of affordable energy,” Watson said. “Encouraging the production and development of renewable energy sources, including wind energy, on our public lands is a way to help meet the energy needs of the nation, as well as those of growing communities in the West.” The study analyzes three alternatives for managing wind energy development on BLM- administered lands: 1. the proposed action, which would implement a Wind Energy Development Program, establish policies and best-management practices for wind energy right-of-way authorizations, and amend 52 BLM land-use plans 2. the no-action alternative, which would allow continued wind energy development under the terms and conditions of the BLM Interim Wind Energy Development Policy 3. a limited-wind-energy-development alternative, which would allow wind-energy development only in selected locations. “This EIS proposes a consistent, agency-wide approach to wind energy permitting that will support and expedite site-specific analysis of individual wind projects,” Watson said. The EIS examines issues common to most wind energy development projects, adopts best-management practices to minimize impacts and amends land-use plans to facilitate wind development. Along with the proposed land-use plan amendments, the Final Programmatic EIS also includes the identification of specific areas where wind energy development would not be allowed. The EIS comes in response to recommendations set forth in the President George W. Bush’s National Energy Policy, which encourages the development of renewable energy resources on public lands. Work on the EIS began in October 2003 and included extensive community meetings in the West and opportunities for public comment. The document addresses wind- energy development on BLM-administered lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. The Final Programmatic EIS is online at: http://windeis.anl.gov and will be published in the Federal Register on June 24, 2005. Public lands administered by the Interior Department produce about half of geothermal energy, 17 percent of hydropower, and seven percent of the wind energy currently generated in the United States.