NucNews - July 4, 2005 -------- NUCLEAR -------- accidents and safety Doubts over 'clean' nuke power July 04, 2005 The Australian http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,15822495%255E29277,00.html NUCLEAR power generates more damaging greenhouse gas emissions than gas-fired power, an Australian scientist says. As federal and state politicians debate the merits of starting down the nuclear power path to help reduce Australia's contribution to global warming, scientists say it may not be so clean after all. University of NSW Institute of Environmental Studies senior lecturer Dr Mark Diesendorf says nuclear power stations do not emit carbon dioxide (CO2) themselves, but the processes involved in creating nuclear energy do. Mining, milling, uranium enrichment, nuclear fuel production, power station construction and operation, storage and reprocessing of spent fuel, long-term management of radioactive waste and closing down old power stations all require the burning of fossil fuels, he says. "Most of the energy inputs to the full life cycle of nuclear fuel come from fossil fuels and are therefore responsible for CO2 emissions," Dr Diesendorf writes in this month's edition of the Australasian Science magazine. Nuclear power stations using high-grade uranium ores would have to run for seven to 10 years before they created enough power to cancel out the energy required to establish them. Wind power takes just three to six months to do the same. For lower grade uranium ores, greenhouse gas emissions outweighed those produced by an equivalent gas-fired power station, Dr Diesendorf said. The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) has argued nuclear energy could help tackle climate change, saying it saves about 30 per cent of CO2 emissions in the United States. NSW Premier Bob Carr has been running a campaign for months to get nuclear power onto the national political agenda and says it could provide a bridge between harmful fossil fuels like coal and renewable energy. Despite this, the NSW Labor Party voted to oppose the construction of nuclear power plants at a conference last month. But Prime Minister John Howard has welcomed the debate amid speculation over where a future nuclear waste dump would be located in Australia. No state or territory is keen to take on the burden. Meanwhile, The Nationals research arm, the Page Research Centre, has launched an inquiry into fuel and energy use in Australia. The group convened to conduct the research will be headed by Nationals MPs Bruce Scott and John Forrest and will look into the future of uranium, natural gas, LPG, coal and biofuels. "We are particularly keen to investigate possible strategies for nuclear energy," Mr Forrest said. The group is expected to report at The Nationals federal council meeting in September, but one of the party's members has already poured cold water on nuclear power. Outspoken Queensland Nationals senator-elect Barnaby Joyce has said there are too many arguments against nuclear power and Australia's coal resources remain strong. He says if nuclear power goes awry, it will be a multi-generational mistake and is also concerned about the implications for nuclear war. -------- africa Earthlife Africa cautiously welcomes nuclear probe Johannesburg, South Africa Mail and Guardian 04 July 2005 03:28 http://www.mg.co.za/articlepage.aspx?area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__national/&articleid=244477 A multimillion-rand probe into possible cases of radiation sickness caused by the Pelindaba nuclear plant will be the first step towards a proper survey of the true costs of nuclear power to the country, Earthlife Africa said on Monday. However, it voiced concern about whether the Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa (Necsa) probe will end up as an excuse to deny access to medical records and documents again, and questioned whether employees will be allowed to talk to investigators "without fear". Said Earthlife Africa (Johannesburg) spokesperson Mashile Phalane: "The investigation should also lead to appropriate steps for compensation for affected workers." Welcoming the probe, he said Earthlife Africa has repeatedly drawn attention to the lack of any public health investigation into the effects of radiation. "We renew our call for the investigation of health effects of radiation on the public near nuclear activities." Necsa announced last week that scientist Mogwera Khoathane will head a R3,5-million investigation into allegations that some workers contracted lung cancer and neurological disorders or experienced miscarriages amid high radiation levels at particularly the Pelindaba plant. Khoathane hopes to assemble a team within two or three weeks and have the investigation up and running in four weeks. Necsa is optimistic the investigation will not take longer than a year. Its terms of reference will encompass Necsa's health, safety and environment programme, incidents and accidents resulting from abnormal exposure to radiation within Necsa, and diseases as ascertained form employees' medical records. -- Sapa ---- Eskom splashes out to promote nuclear power Melanie Gosling July 04 2005 at 08:48AM South Africa Cape Times http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20050704063118722C772655 Eskom is spending hundreds of thousands of rands of public money on colour advertisements extolling the benefits of nuclear power. The nationwide advertising campaign comes at a time when Eskom is gearing up to re-open the public participation process around their controversial R11-billion pebble bed nuclear reactor to be built at Koeberg in Cape Town. This process is part of the environmental impact assessment for the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR). Earlier this year the Cape High Court ordered that the assessment be re-opened. Liz McDaid of Earthlife Africa said the public needed to question why Eskom "squandered" public money on advertising campaigns. The Eskom campaign only presents the pro-nuclear argument "Eskom has a monopoly on energy supply in South Africa, so why does it have to advertise? "Or, if it's going to have an advertising campaign to say how good nuclear energy is, then how come it is not doing the same with renewable energy supplies, with wind and solar?" McDaid said. The two half-page colour advertisements in the Cape Times and the Cape Argus, headed "Nuclear Energy - Don't say no until you know", are also being run in Johannesburg and Durban. Eskom spokesperson Carin de Villiers said the ads were being run every three months because Eskom felt the public were not adequately informed. The campaign started last year. She agreed that the ads presented only "pro-nuke" information. Earthlife is concerned about radioactive waste When asked it if was ethical for Eskom to use public money to promote a pro-nuke stance only on an internationally controversial subject, De Villiers said only that as Eskom was pro-nuclear, the campaign was pro-nuclear. She added she did not know how much the ad campaign had cost, but said: "It's not cheap." De Villiers said Eskom was still negotiating with the environmental affairs department about re-opening the public participation process. A Cape High Court found that the environmental affairs department's decision to approve the PBMR's environmental impact assessment had been "fatally flawed" and set it aside. It ordered the department to give Earthlife Africa - which had taken them to court - and any other interested parties a chance to make submissions. Earthlife is particularly concerned about high-level radioactive waste, safety and that South Africa will have to bankroll what could be a white elephant. ---- Earthlife Africa Sues for Public Power Giant's Nuclear Plans CAPE TOWN, South Africa, July 4, 2005 (ENS) http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jul2005/2005-07-04-03.asp A South African environmental group is taking the country's government owned electricity giant Eskom to court to obtain more information about a new nuclear reactor planned for Koeberg near Cape Town, where Africa's only nuclear power plant is situated. Earthlife Africa, based in Cape Town, has been notified that the High Court will hear its case against Eskom in Johannesburg on August 30. The lawsuit challenges a decision by Eskom to refuse Earthlife Africa access to minutes of the company's Board of Directors meetings concerning the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR). The minutes are requested under South Africa's Access to Information Act. The reactor uses new technology and is planned by the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor company, a joint venture between Eskom, the Industrial Development Corporation and British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. The PBMR is a new type of high temperature helium gas-cooled nuclear reactor. Proponents claim it is much safer than current nuclear power plant designs. Each PBMR currently is designed to produce 110 megawatts of electricity, enough to power 30,000 average homes, Eskom says. More than one PBMR can be located in a facility, creating energy parks. It is possible for a PBMR energy park to be made up of a maximum of 10 modules which share a common control center. This system allows sequential construction of modules to match users' growth requirements. As an area grows, more PBMR modules can be added to meet its industrial and domestic needs for electricity. Earthlife Africa believes that "issues of safety as well as the economic case for the PBMR must have been discussed at Eskom Board level." "As Eskom is a public entity, and the taxpayers are increasingly being asked to support the development of this PBMR project, Earthlife Africa believes that the public has a right to know," the group said in a statement. Earthlife Africa says it has followed all the relevant administrative channels to access the board minutes, but Eskom has refused to allow access. The group says legal action is now its only remaining choice. Eskom has publicly stated that the PBMR company intends to build a 110 megawatt demonstration reactor at Koeberg near Cape Town and an associated fuel plant at Pelindaba near Pretoria, where fuel for the existing Koeberg reactor was previously manufactured. The commercial PBMR reactors Eskom and its partners want to build would be sized to produce about 165 megawatts each and have been configured into layouts of two, four or eight co-located plants. Earthlife Africa says the group has attempted to participate in the Environmental Impact Assessment process for the pebble bed demonstration reactor, but "found that insufficient information was put forward by Eskom to enable any meaningful participation." The group says it believes that the public has a right to know all the risks and impacts in full as this project involves public enterprises and electricity consumers will be asked to pay for it. "It is strange that although Eskom claims it is such fantastic technology, a leading international energy player, Exelon pulled out of the project and Eskom has been unable to find another international investor," said Olivia Andrews, campaigner in Cape Town. "If it is so great, then how come no-one wants to be part of the action," she asked. "It is difficult to see how Eskom projections are likely to be met by a supply technology that is yet to get off the drawing board, does not have necessary government legal approvals and is still desperately seeking investors," Andrews said. Earthlife Africa won its last court case against the pebble bed reactor, a legal action challenging the Environmental Impact Assessment granted by the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. The court ruled that the agency's Record of Decision on the PBMR assessment was fatally flawed and set aside the Environmental Impact Assessment, saying that Earthlife Africa had not been given an adequate opportunity to put its views across. “Earthlife Africa is hoping that some of the information in the Eskom board minutes will shed some light on the reasons that Eskom opted for expensive untested nuclear technology when investing in energy efficiency and conservation measures would, in our view, have been a far more effective solution,” said Andrews. In February, the PBMR nuclear company said that South Africa has a "three-to-four-year advantage" over its closest competitor, China, in "the race to develop a commercially viable fourth generation nuclear power plant with pebble bed technology." Eskom's Koeberg Power Station started operating in 1984 and is the only commercial nuclear power station in Africa. It is situated at Duynefontein, 27 kilometers north of Cape Town on the Atlantic coast, the location chosen for the pebble bed demonstration reactor. Eskom claims that Koeberg has operated safely for more than 17 years and will operate for another 20 to 30 years. But Earthlife Africa points out that the area lies within a seismic fault zone that has seen a number of serious earthquakes over the past century, the most recent being the magnitude of 6.3 Ceres quake of 1969. Eskom generates 88 percent of its electricity by burning coal, six percent with nuclear power, one percent by hydro power, one percent by pumped storage, and imports four percent, according to the company's 2004 annual report. The company also has several operational wind and solar power generating projects. Eskom supplies 95 percent of the country’s electricity requirements, which equals more than half of the electricity generated on the African continent. For technical information about the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor, go to: http://www.eskom.co.za/nuclear_energy/pebble_bed/pebble_bed.html Quote of Note "We abuse land because we regard it as a commodity belonging to us. When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect." -- Aldo Leopold, American environmentalist and author Questions or Comments: editor@ens-news.com -------- australia Uranium Prices Set To Mushroom July 04 2005 - Australasian Investment Review – (AIR) http://www.aireview.com/index.php?act=view&catid=5&id=2169 Uranium prices have remained stable at around US$10/lb since the mid-1980s. In late 2003, prices began to move higher, driven by supply disruptions, increased demand, declining inventories and speculative influences, reports SB Citigroup. And then there was the oil price. For the last 20 years, Citigroup notes, uranium prices have been determined primarily by government controls which regulate the rate of release of secondary supply from weapons-grade material and other stockpiles. With these secondary supplies declining, mine economics will become the driving force. The supply-demand balance is tightening as secondary supply sources diminish or are constrained. Inventories held by producers and processors is now expected to reach a minimum by 2007, cays Citigroup. Stocks at some utilities may already be depleted. Global capacity for enrichment, which involves boosting the U-235 content of uranium oxide to 4-5% (the level required for nuclear fuel), requires expansion. The broker believes current capacity will constrain the potential for increased supply. Based on current (reported) 29 reactors and planned 37 reactor construction schedules, global nuclear power generating capacity is set to expand at 1.7% per year between 2005 and 2010. Citigroup points out the greatest growth will occur in Asian countries – China, India, Japan and South Korea. If proposed reactor construction schedules are included in forecasts, then annual power generating capacity will expand at a slightly higher rate of 2.0% between 2005 and 2010 and 2.3% between 2005 and 2015. Uranium demand will be driven by these increases, together with efficiency improvements and higher burn-up, says Citigroup. Mine supply from existing sources will be relatively stable until 2009. In subsequent years, output will be reduced, reflecting scheduled closures. However, supply from new projects will increase sharply from 2007. Nevertheless, Citigroup believes scheduled mine production increases are insufficient to meet the forecast supply gap appearing in 2009. This gap may be filled by a larger expansion at Australia’s Olympic Dam. Citigroup believes uranium prices will range from US$20-30/lb in the next few years. The analysts have adopted a long term average price of US$20/lb. The critical price levels required to trigger recent new projects are around this level. The world is talking nuclear power again. The oil price has seen to that. Nuclear is also seen as being a source of green energy, in that it doesn’t produce greenhouse gases. It does produce waste that never breaks down – but that’s unimportant (for now). It’s no great leap of logic that uranium prices might well increase in the medium term. -------- britain Low Level Radiation Campaign condemns UK Government radwaste committee stitch-up From: Richard Bramhall Date: Mon Jul 4, 2005 9:11pm The Low Level Radiation Campaign today accused CoRWM (the British Government's Committee on Radioactive Waste Management) of a pro-industry stitch-up after its experts were excluded from an investigating panel. Controversy has surrounded the health effects of low levels of radioactivity in the environment for many years, culminating in the appointment of CERRIE (Committee Examining Radiation Risks of Internal Emitters) by UK Environment Minister Michael Meacher in 2001 (Meacher was sacked by Prime Minister Blair in 2003). Two representatives from LLRC, Chris Busby and Richard Bramhall, sat throughout the life of CERRIE. A Minority Report by them was published in 2004 when, following legal threats, the CERRIE Majority Report excluded evidence and detailed scientific argument. (Detail on http://www.llrc.org .) On Wednesday and Thursday this week a CoRWM advisory panel will consider the uncertainties, scientific disputes and knowledge gaps affecting the estimation of risk from low levels of radioactivity. LLRC has been excluded in favour of representatives of the nuclear industry, regulators and consultants. Particularly questionable is the role of Professor Dudley Goodhead, who as chairman of CERRIE, undertook to allow minority reporting but at the last minute invoked hostile legal opinions and allegations of "potential libels" and unspecified "errors" to block the inclusion of dissenting material from the Committee's Final Report. Bizarrely, CoRWM considered that Goodhead could be relied upon to report both sides of the CERRIE divide. Another CoRWM insider is Ian Fairlie who during the lifetime of CERRIE was criticised for control and bias in running its secretariat. CoRWM's Chairman, Professor Gordon MacKerron has received messages from a range of environmental campaigners in UK complaining about bias and failure to observe the inclusivity necessary for stakeholder dialogue to be credible. In an outspoken letter (reproduced below) LLRC's Richard Bramhall accuses MacKerron of "a deliberate and shameful attempt to skew the direction of CORWM's discussions ... in favour of the industry and the wishes of the Government." LLRC's exclusion is "a failure of corporate responsibility." Bramhall says CoRWM is heading towards making recommendations based on outdated considerations of radiation "dose". "They seem not to know or not to care that the scene is shifting - a growing body of scientific opinion now accepts that many types of radioactivity deliver their radiation so unevenly that the conventional notion of "dose" is useless as a way of predicting risk. Once they are inside the body following environmental release localised irradiation of small volumes of body cells can be intense, yet little is known about the precise ways in which health is affected. Conventional estimates of health detriment treat energy as an average, taking little account of local effects. For these reasons some types of exposure such as respirable particles of reactor fuel may be hundreds of times more harmful than previously thought. LLRC adduces ample epidemiological evidence which supports this contention and falsifies existing models. The Seascale (Cumbria UK) child leukaemia cluster and the cancer epidemic rolling across the Chernobyl affected territories are two examples. CoRWM has little understanding of these matters and is not about to get the best advice. Their discussion documents treat the serious scientific deficit in this area in a completely inadequate manner, as is to be expected when the consultants retained to draft them are too close to the industry. As a result CoRWM may recommend waste "solutions" which are cheap for the industry but foist unacceptable costs onto the health services of the future." Bramhall adds: "CoRWM members purporting to represent green interests have a clear choice if they are to have any credibility - demand and obtain a full presentation of LLRC's evidence, arguments and views, or resign." If you want to tell CoRWM what you think you can email Professor MacKerron on g.s.mackerron@sussex.ac.uk or via Adam.Scott@defra.gsi.gov.uk LLRC to mackerron 3rd July 2005 Dear Thank you for your reply to Chris Busby's email of 30th June and for supplying the requested information on membership of your "specialist" workshop on Wednesday and Thursday. I have discussed this with Busby and I am replying on behalf of us both. I have not been able to talk to Dr Dorfman during the week end. Since Busby and I believe time is of the essence, Paul will have to answer you himself when he can and if he wants to. I shall copy this to him. I regret to say that we cannot consider your message an adequate response. Whatever you may say about the meeting not being "to discuss low dose radiation risk [nor] to resolve the debate over low level radiation" it is clear that it must take some view on this topic if it is fulfil the remit as you have outlined it (" ... consideration of many risks and impacts including ... low levels of radiation ... and impacts of radioactive waste management on the natural environment"). Why else would and Dr Fairlie be involved? We are informed that CORWM invited Professor Goodhead in the expectation that he will represent all views on CERRIE - the minority as well as the majority. This was an extraordinary decision. It is inconceivable that your Committee was unaware of the bizarre manoeuvres Professor Goodhead undertook in order to block our material from publication in the Main CERRIE Report and his ad hominem attacks on us in the news media. It is almost equally inconceivable that Professor Goodhead will represent our views or assess evidence and areas of disputed knowledge in an even handed manner. You have received a number of communications making the same point, and in common with the writers of those messages we think it reasonable to assert that excluding LLRC from your process is an inefficient use of CORWM's resources and damaging to its credibility as a Stakeholder body. We would add that the Committee appears to have fallen prey to a sustained aand mendacious campaign to discredit LLRC - a campaign which, as documentary evidence obtained by us reveals, originated with BNFL. The motivation is clear - that the industry fears it cannot sustain itself in light of the evidence of harm from radioactivity released to the environment and has resorted to shooting the messenger. In fact LLRC's track record makes us better qualified to offer opinions on radiological standards than most of your "specialists" or the Committee members themselves. (Incidentally we remind you that we are awaiting your explanation of the criteria by which the panellists were selected.) The basic message of your email seems to be that CORWM is undertaking the present exercise to gather information and that the process will ensure it is done in an inclusive and balanced way. Our answer is that such open-mindedness is very hard to achieve when, at the outset, you exclude representatives of the full range of opinion. All scientific fields develop their own cultures which are more or less resistant to innovative thinking and new evidence. Radiation protection is one of the more resistant. The CERRIE Minority Report, copies of which we have submitted as part of your consultation process, reveal just how irrational people can be in response to evidence which challenges long-held convictions; scientists are not immune. Possibly the starkest example of this irrationality is to be seen in CERRIE's treatment of the increase in infant leukaemia which was widely reported after Chernobyl. We remind you that an account of the Committee's various beliefs and analyses formed part of our submission to CORWM dated 24th November 2004 (also in Radioactive Times 6.1 on www.llrc.org). We pointed out that this is a matter which you must engage with actively since it is unequivocal evidence of a large error in conventionally derived risk factors. We note with dismay that the CORWM discussion document intended to be the starting point for your "specialist" panel's deliberation this week has not been published despite being flagged for publication "by the end of June". We therefore have no way of knowing to what if any extent it has addressed the post Chernobyl infant leukaemias. We hereby ask you to release the document to us as soon as possible. Assuming that we continue to be excluded, and referring to the fourth paragraph of your message, the key question can be seen in terms of who will decide what further information or advice you will need, and who subsequently will decide how to weight any "comments and suggestions" we might offer. This is a complex field. More and more epidemiological evidence and fresh biological and physical issues are even now coming to light. Not least there is the growing consensus that for regimes involving internal radiation the concept of dose as conventionally understood is questionable and in some circumstances meaningless. As I have already mentioned in correspondence which you have yet to answer it is vital that CORWM's members understand that the dose based criteria which they are about to consider are outdated and scientifically invalid. There are highly significant implications for decisions which fall with CORWM's remit, such as the availability or otherwise of options involving the release of respirable particles containing radioactivity. CORWM needs to be fully informed, for example, of the physical and biological considerations associated with such particles which were brought to CERRIE's 3-day international workshop in 2003; since they were not reported adequately in the Majority Report we can have no confidence that Professor Goodhead will report them adequately to CORWM. This is merely one example from the many areas where knowledge is disputed or incomplete. Overall this episode must be seen as a deliberate and shameful attempt to skew the direction of CORWM's discussions on low level radiation in favour of the industry and the wishes of the Government. Our exclusion is a failure of corporate responsibility. It is highly damaging to the image and credibility of CORWM in particular and probably of stakeholder dialogue in general. We again propose that the solution is for the Committee to devote a day of its time to hearing a presentation from Dr Busby. Should this offer be declined we believe it will be a relatively simple matter to obtain a judicial review of any decision which appears to arise from a failure by the Committee to obtain and properly consider relevant information. We await your response. We intend to publish this letter almost immediately, though we are prepared to amend it if you want to make representations. If you do, then please respond by midday tomorrow (Monday 4th July 2005) at latest. Yours sincerely Richard Bramhall Low Level Radiation Campaign bramhall@llrc.org The Knoll, Montpellier Park Llandrindod Wells, Powys LD1 5LW U.K. +44(0)1597 824771 07887 942043 -------- canada 'Energy hub' may cushion coming crisis Expert believes variety of power in Saint John will help weather shortages; others disagree (Peter Walsh/Telegraph-Journal) The blending area of Irving Oil's refinery in Saint John. BY SARAH MCGINNIS New BrunswickTelegraph-Journal As published on page A1/A5 on July 4, 2005 http://www.canadaeast.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050704/TPEBRIEF/307040125 Saint John is surrounded by energy. Point Lepreau's nuclear generators hum to the west and plumes of steam waft above Irving Oil's refinery in the east. Along the coast the Coleson Cove power station churns out electricity and oil tankers glide in and out of the port, while natural gas hisses in underground pipelines. With talk of Irving Oil adding a liquefied natural gas terminal and natural gas power plant, Saint John is crackling with electricity. Some say the emerging energy hub will secure the future of the local economy. Others warn there will be few new jobs and that taxes were the only chance of cashing in on southern-bound power. World oil supplies are expected to reach their peak within the year and a decline in available crude could soon follow. If that happens, finding affordable energy will be a major challenge for many communities, except, perhaps for Saint John. The oil, natural gas and electricity industries are inextricably linked. Fuels are needed to generate electricity so locating a power plant near its fuel source is crucial, said George Eynon, director of research at the Canadian Energy Research Institute in Calgary. When it comes to the burgeoning energy industry, Saint John's location on the cusp of the eastern seaboard should ensure all power will be quickly sold, said Ronald Gold, vice president of the Petroleum Industry Research Foundation in New York. Boston, New York and surrounding areas are the largest energy deficit regions in the U.S and import most of their power. The LNG terminal in Massachusetts can't keep up with growing gas demand. Companies hoping to develop more terminals in the United States are finding it difficult to secure environmental or zoning permits because of terrorism fears. This should ensure little competition when the Irving LNG terminal is running. Don't expect the energy hub to create thousands of permanent jobs, Mr. Gold warned. LNG terminals and power plants, with the exception of nuclear energy, require major capital investments but are not labour intensive. They offer some well-paying jobs but not as many as a car factory that requires thousands of employees to operate. This appears to be the case with the Irving LNG terminal, which is expected to create around 20 full-time positions. The biggest benefits to a community hosting LNG comes in tax dollars. "Basically what you will have is a very long-term set of assets that should generate substantial tax revenue," Mr. Gold said. "In that sense the benefits would flow as much or more through the tax base as through jobs." It appears that won't be the case for Saint John. Three months ago city council approved a deal to lock in municipal taxes for the terminal at $500,000 a year for 25 years, or approximately 10 per cent of the estimated bill. The provincial and federal governments, however, stand to gain $15 million a year in taxes. Regardless of the tax issue, Saint John's energy hub could be its salvation in the coming energy crisis, said Chris Skrebowski, editor of the UK's Petroleum Review. The variety of power sources means if one industry experiences a fuel shortage, others can pick up the slack. "You're going to be a lot better off than a lot of other people. Having that range and diversity is only a good thing," he said. Not everyone believes investing in liquefied natural gas is a good move. Natural gas reserves are in an even worse state than oil, said Julian Darley, founder of the Post Carbon Institute in Vancouver. Unlike oil resources, there is little information about how much natural gas is out there or the rate it is being depleted. While supply is sketchy, demand is growing. Natural gas is seen as an alternative to oil. LNG facilities are being built across Europe and Asia. This increased demand could create a situation similar to oil depletion. "(When it comes to the energy crisis), building an LNG terminal is not going to solve the problem for very long," Mr. Darley said. The Saint John energy hub isn't just about what power plants exist now, but what could be in the future. Irving Oil indicated the LNG terminal is only the beginning. The company has already built a co-generation plant that turns natural gas into electricity, and said they might build another near the terminal. This could mean exporting both electricity and gas. Most LNG terminals are also magnets for plastics plants and Irving Oil may move into that industry as well, said refinery general manager Gary Bischof. The refining process creates a byproduct intrinsic to plastic making. Irving Oil may partner with a plastics company to develop this into another business. Much of these plans depend on the possible refurbishment of Point Lepreau. The provincial and federal governments is battling over how much each will pay to retrofit the Point Lepreau nuclear power plant. The 22-year-old facility provides 30 per cent of New Brunswick's power generating capacity. An upgrade would extend the plant's life by 25 years at a cost of $1.4 billion. A retrofit announcement could be around the corner, but our nuclear capacity doesn't have to stop there. Point Lepreau is sized for two units and when built there was serious talk of adding a second one. The more than $1-billion price tag makes a second plant too expensive, said Energy Minister Bruce Fitch. "If we refurbish Point Lepreau and built a second one you'd be over capacity for most of the time," Mr. Fitch said. "Right now it's cheaper to burn coal or oil in existing plants as opposed to building a new facility in New Brunswick, nuclear or otherwise." Adding another nuclear plant isn't in the works but NB Power is increasing its ability to export electricity. There is a line exporting electricity to the U.S. but there are plans to construct a second international power line linking Point Lepreau with Maine. Private companies can pay to transport their power over the existing line. If Irving Oil's natural gas plant is built the second international power line could be extended to hook up with it, said David Hay, NB Power's president and CEO. While Saint John's energy hub is growing, there's no clear indication of how much it will benefit local residents. Infrastructure is export-focused and there are no deals between NB Power and Irving Oil securing LNG generated electricity for provincial users. There will be new jobs attached to proposed projects especially during construction phase, but the number of permanent positions is unclear. The hub creates possibilities for new industries, such as a plastics plant, but they are still too far away to count on. The energy hub is growing and Saint Johnners can only hope it will reap the benefits and help cushion this community from a coming energy crisis. -------- china China courting Canadian uranium Surge in demand predicted if Beijing commits to building more nuclear plants By GEOFFREY YORK AND WENDY STUECK Monday, July 4, 2005 Toronto Globe and Mail Page B1 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/freeheadlines/LAC/20050704/RURANIUM04/business/ROB BEIJING AND VANCOUVER -- Chinese officials and investors have been sizing up the Canadian uranium sector, in what may be the early stages of an attempt to nail down raw materials for a nuclear building boom. A Chinese delegation visited Cameco Corp. last fall, says Alice Wong, a spokeswoman for the Saskatoon-based uranium giant. And a separate four-person Chinese investment team recently dropped in to the Vancouver offices of CanAlaska Ventures Ltd., a junior exploration company hunting for uranium in Saskatchewan's Athabasca Basin. Then, last week, a group from the Chinese consulate in Calgary visited the Saskatoon offices of Cogema Resources Inc., the uranium-mining arm of the French nuclear energy company Areva Group. Analysts said they'd be surprised if China weren't actively scouting Canadian uranium prospects. China plans to invest $40-billion (U.S.) on nuclear generating capacity by 2020, which includes building as many as 30 new reactors to provide electricity for its booming economy. An official with Natural Resources Canada said China has been scouring the globe for uranium, talking to potential suppliers in Canada as well as Australia and Kazakhstan. China is interested both in buying the raw materials and participating in joint ventures, the official said. Ms. Wong said the Cameco visit was set up to provide information and contacts to the Chinese, and that official business was not on the agenda. "I would call them exploratory chit-chat rather than anything more specific," she said. CanAlaska vice-president Emil Fung said the group that visited his company wanted to know about land holdings and potential development projects. Cogema spokesman Alun Richards said he gave a "generic presentation" on uranium in Saskatchewan to the Chinese group, who were also touring potash facilities in the province. Industry experts are forecasting a global uranium shortage of 45,000 tonnes over the next decade, according to a report last month by the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada, and the Chinese boom is one of the key reasons for the expected shortage. Canada is the world's biggest uranium producer, with an 11,600-tonne-a-year output, and has shipped uranium to China before as fuel in two Candu reactors. But Canada's biggest customer is the United States, which buys almost half of Canada's annual production. A recent report in the International Herald Tribune suggested uranium sales were on the agenda when Prime Minister Paul Martin visited Beijing to meet Chinese leaders in January. Canadian officials would not confirm or deny the report, but Foreign Affairs spokesman André Lemay said it would "seem feasible" that Mr. Martin might have discussed uranium sales with the Chinese leaders. "Given that the Chinese are looking to increase dramatically the number of nuclear stations, it would logically follow that they would be looking to Canada to increase their imports of uranium," Mr. Lemay said. "Canada would definitely like to supply the reactors and the uranium." One of the agreements signed between Canada and China in January, during Mr. Martin's visit to Beijing, was an agreement that included a commitment from the two countries to "work together" in the "uranium resources field." Chinese officials and Canadian diplomats in Beijing would not discuss whether any talks on uranium sales are currently active. The uranium market is dominated by a handful of large suppliers, and Cameco itself accounts for roughly 20 per cent of world production. Canada might have to move hastily to keep pace with new competition from Australia, the world's second-biggest uranium producer, which is planning a splashy entry into the Chinese uranium market in the near future. Australia currently does not sell uranium to China, but plans to negotiate a safeguard agreement within the next year to allow it to do so. The agreement would guarantee that Australian uranium is not used for Chinese nuclear weapons. Australian political leaders are forecasting that Chinese uranium demand could cause a doubling in Australia's global uranium sales from current annual exports of about $300-million -- and the figure could double as early as 2010 if Chinese demand keeps growing. Uranium sales are a sensitive issue because of controversies over nuclear energy and the possible links to nuclear weapons. But federal officials say Canadian uranium sales to China would be fully legal, as the two countries signed a nuclear co-operation agreement when Canada sold two Candu reactors to China in the 1990s, and the pact would authorize future sales of Canadian uranium to China. As a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, China has also accepted international safeguards on the use of nuclear energy, officials say. Over the past few years, China has invested in nickel in Cuba, copper in Chile and recently made a controversial bid for American oil giant Unocal Corp. China is, however, also known for shopping far and wide without necessarily reaching any deals. -------- depleted uranium WMD use is deplorable July 4, 2005 Rutland Herald http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050704/NEWS/507040317/1037 What hypocrites our so-called leaders are to have used weapons of mass destruction as the primary reason to illegally invade Iraq, when in reality, we are the only nation that routinely uses weapons that should be classified as WMDs, those being: napalm, cluster bombs and depleted uranium. The use of napalm (although now called "incendiary firebombs"), revealed last week to the British government as being used in the invasion of Iraq on bridges in civilian areas, is truly an indiscriminate killer. The MK77 incendiary bomb is a 550-pound, stabilizer-less aluminum canister, containing a mixture of jet fuel, polystyrene, and a phosphorus igniter, which tumbling on impact, spews a deadly concoction of blazingly hot jelly, which adheres to whatever it hits, burning intensely. Remember the girl in Vietnam? And then there are cluster bombs. Hundreds of tiny bomblets are released from the mother shell, floating gently down to earth, brightly colored, and small, something a child would play with. On impact, they detonate a deadly mix of shrapnel and other jagged metal objects, cutting in half whatever they encounter, like a scythe. Unfortunately, 2 percent fail to deploy, being left for some unsuspecting child to play with that gaily colored toy. These also were used in Iraq and still litter the battlegrounds.The most insidious of these three is depleted uranium weaponry, for the resulting disastrous health effects will not be evident for years, maybe decades to come, due to the fact that the chromosomal damage is passed on to the next generation. With more than 1,500 tons having been used in the latest Iraqi travesty and 320 tons in the Gulf War, and with a half-life of 4.5 billion years, you can be sure that this legacy will continue for decades. Already in Basra, where there was heavy fighting in both wars, congenital birth defects and certain types of cancers have increased more than 400 percent. And what caused the health problems of almost half of the 600,000 Gulf War veterans, those suffering from Gulf War syndrome? How many of our latest returning veterans will suffer from the same symptoms, which most surely are caused by exposure to depleted uranium dust. How vociferously will the Pentagon claim that depleted uranium is harmless, or that the symptoms that the vets suffer are "in their head." DON GRAY Pittsfield -------- europe Commissioner visits fusion site Mr Potocnik (2nd r) was joined by politicians and scientists Monday, 4 July, 2005 (BBC) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4649049.stm The EU Commissioner for Science and Research, Janez Potocnik, has visited the site chosen for the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor. In the company of French ministers and fusion scientists, he used his trip to Cadarache to salute the co-operation which made the endeavour possible. Iter, as the reactor is known, is the most expensive joint scientific venture after the International Space Station. Europe won the right to host £6.6bn project over tough rival Japan. "Iter is not just a large international research project but has great importance for this region, for the EU and for the whole world," Mr Potocnik said during his visit. "We've seen with our visit to Tore-Supra (fusion facility at Cadarache) today how far we've come already in fusion research. I am optimistic that Iter will allow us to go even further down the road to safe, clean, abundant energy." Clean energy Cadarache is situated about 60km (40 miles) from Marseille in the Provence-Alpes-Cote d'Azur region. Cadarache currently hosts Tore-Supra, one of the existing European centres for fusion research. Officials from the six-party Iter consortium signed the deal in Moscow on Tuesday last week to site the experimental reactor in southern France. Their announcement ended more than 18 months of discussions and deal-making - in which Mr Potocnik was heavily involved. The European Union, the United States, Russia, Japan, South Korea and China are partners in the project. Japan withdrew its bid, after a deal was worked out for the "runner-up" to receive a generous concessions package. According to the package, Japan will get 20% of the project's 200 research posts while providing only 10% of the expenses, and host a related materials research facility - of which half the construction costs will be shouldered by the EU. Also present during Mr Potocnik's visit to Cadarache were the French minister for Research, Francois Goulard, former European Commissioner for Research, Philippe Busquin; and former French ministers for research, Francois d'Aubert and Claude Haigneré; as well as the chief administrator of the French Atomic Energy Commission, Alain Bugat; and the High Commissioner for Atomic Energy, Bernard Bigot. -------- india Indo-Pakistan nuclear CBM talks on Aug 2-3 in New Delhi NewKerala, India 4July 2005 http://www.newkerala.com/news.php?action=fullnews&id=4745 Islamabad: India and Pakistan will hold nuclear confidence-building talks on August 2-3 in New Delhi. Official sources said that during the talks a vital agreement on advance warning of missile tests is likely to be inked between the two sides. “Pakistan and India already have an informal arrangement on advance warning of missile tests but it was the finalization of formal agreement on the matter that the both sides are striving for,” a Pakistani official was quoted, as saying. He added that two separate groups formed by Islamabad and New Delhi would hold talks on nuclear and conventional CBMs. According to him, both sides would deliberate upon various issues such as advance notification of military exercises, avoidance of firing incidents across the Line of Control, and increased communication between the local military authorities. Meanwhile, quoting diplomatic sources, The Nation has reported that concrete progress for starting a hotline connection at the level of foreign secretaries’ is expected. The hotline is meant to prevent misunderstanding and avert an accidental use of nuclear weapons that could bring catastrophic results for the peace and stability of region. The talks were scheduled to be held last month, but were put off to give a chance to back-channel diplomacy for success on the pre-notification of missile tests. The last round of experts-level talks on nuclear and conventional CBMs were held here in December, 2004. However, it remained inconclusive with both sides announcing plans to continue their parleys. During the last round of nuclear CBMs talks, both sides failed to give final shape to the pact on advance warning of missile tests owing to their row over sharing sensitive details on launch sites and trajectories. Since then informal consultations were on between the two sides to hold the next round of experts talks on nuclear and conventional CBMs, and also to evolve some sort of consensus on the conflicting issues. ---- TAKE A CLOSE LOOK AT THE PRENUPTIAL DEAL Calcutta telegraph 4 July 2005 TWENTY-TWENTY - BHARAT BHUSHAN http://www.telegraphindia.com/1050704/asp/opinion/story_4945410.asp No rational person can argue that the United States of America’s desire for improving ties with India should be spurned. Given the position of the US in the world today, any negative posturing on this count would be seen as an opportunity missed. Entering into a ten-year framework on defence cooperation with the US is a politically useful step and will have beneficial diplomatic fallout. It will give India a greater international profile. In our immediate neighbourhood, the deepening of Indo-US ties will act as a cautionary factor for China and Pakistan in dealing with India. In relation to both, the agreement with the US for joint production of defence equipment, arms and supply of dual-use technology would be of considerable advantage to India. However, revelations of the Nixon-Kissinger conversations about Indians being “bastards” and Indira Gandhi a “witch” have served to underline the wide chasm between US rhetoric and reality. George W. Bush quoting Indira Gandhi approvingly a day after these revelations must not fool Indians into believing that the gap between American rhetoric and reality has necessarily been filled since the Seventies. It is better to be Indian “bastards” looking after Indian interests than being the go-go girls of Pax Americana, kicking up your legs with every twitch in Uncle Sam’s face. It is all the more necessary, therefore, to recognize US motivations in trying to get India into a close embrace. It is not the love of India that brings the Americans to Asia. After World War II, for the first time the US is physically present on the ground in our neighbourhood. Apart from being in Pakistan, it is now permanently based in Afghanistan and in central Asia. Its interests in the region go beyond fighting terrorism and have a larger geo-political basis. Pakistan is pivotal to US designs in Afghanistan and central Asia and the Americans are there for good. It is natural that they should want to remove any un- predictability in India-Pakistan relations. Moreover, if they sell arms to India, its capacity to protest arms supplies to Pakistan will be eroded. It would become easier for the US to sell arms to Pakistan. But it is also a fact that while Europe is by and large at peace today, Asia is still a cauldron. It is the emerging theatre of superpower competition. US interest in India is also aimed at keeping a check on China with which it may be headed for a major economic confrontation in the next decade. The Chinese hold over the US economy is not insubstantial, with China even making a bid for taking over the US oil and gas giant Unocal. It is the geo-political consideration of Asia, and the potential role of China, that has turned US attention to India. At present, the US does not enjoy any effective leverage over New Delhi. India is not a recipient of US aid, there are no defence ties worth the name and currently it is under US sanctions for going overtly nuclear. Trade does not give the US sufficient leverage because Indian trade with other regions of the world is also growing. If India decides to buy big-ticket defence items from the US, then Washington gets the crucial leverage over India that has been missing up to now. With Indian defence purchases, US arms manufacturers get a large buyer, while India’s long-standing and reliable defence cooperation with Russia gets diluted. There are other collateral advantages for the US. The deeper the US defence relationship with India, the more New Delhi would have to look over its shoulder to see that nothing happens which might trigger off US legal mechanisms for censure or sanctions. These developments do not have to be defence-related either. Already the proposed Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline venture has become risky because under US law any green-field investment in Iran can invite sanctions. New Delhi cannot afford to forget its past experience of purchasing US equipment. After the nuclear tests of May 1998, Harrier jets ordered from Britain were grounded because they contained US parts. The US walked out of Tarapore after having supplied the nuclear reactor and left India high and dry in the collaborative light combat aircraft project. From the Indian point of view, any collaboration with the US can turn into a high risk venture because one does not know under what circumstances and at what time, US legal mechanisms would kick in to stop the venture. Joint production or co-production is often thought of as a means of reducing such unpredictability in a relationship. The US is making this proposition to India for the first time. However, co-production can be a deceptive term when technical capabilities of the two sides are grossly mismatched. India has not been able to produce a single aircraft engine despite decades of effort — Cauvery engine for the LCA is only now being tested in Russia. India has a co-production agreement with Russia for Sukhoi-30 aircraft and T-90 tanks. But all the critical parts are supplied by Russia. In these conditions, co-production becomes a ploy to fool gullible public opinion — suggesting that a lot more is on offer than there really is. Buying from America for the Indian armed forces would mean additional problems of inventory management because of diversification. Disparate facilities and maintenance groups would have to be set up which would raise costs. It would involve giving up on commonalities and transferability in technology and equipment. However, the real test of US intentions towards India will come on three issues: what kind of cutting-edge dual-use technology is Washington willing to supply to India because of a direct defence relationship and how soon; whether George W. Bush is willing to expend political capital with the US Congress to supply civilian nuclear technology to India; and whether the US is willing to treat India as a de facto nuclear power which has behaved responsibly and is not a proliferator and should, therefore, be admitted to the Nuclear Suppliers Group. The rest, including a non-veto seat in the United Nations security council, are peripheral concerns. Meanwhile, one should keep in mind that on larger strategic issues, the debate between India and the US is far from over. Irrespective of the merits of the case, the defence agreement can become an instrument to pressure India on the development and expansion of its nuclear deterrent. India also has to be mindful of the extent of convergence and mismatch between its policies and those of the US. There is a difference between them in their approach to Iraq; west Asia; UN reforms; out-of-area operations of Nato as in Afghanistan and central Asia; the nuclear non-proliferation regime; the use of sanctions; and over America’s simplistic understanding of Islamic terrorism and somewhat brutal and insensitive ways of fighting it. Unless this gap narrows, there are bound to be problems in the relationship. There are lessons to be learnt from the way its long-term ally, Germany, was dropped as the favoured candidate of the US for the UN security council seat after it expressed differences over Iraq. India might yet come to grief for assuming permanence in the arranged marriage being proposed. -------- iran Iran's Nuclear Lies Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful uses only. But a history of deception raises doubts. By Christopher Dickey With Babak Dehghanpisheh at Bushehr, Dan Ephron in Tel Aviv and Michael Hirsh in Washington Newsweek, Inc. July 11, 2005 issue; published online 7/4/05 http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8443649/site/newsweek/ July 11 issue - Beyond the antiaircraft-gun emplacements and the early-warning radar systems, and shortly before you get to the high concrete walls topped with concertina wire that surround Iran's Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant, there's a large sign announcing that the facility welcomes guests. Like so much about the Iranian nuclear program, the signals are incongruous, contradictory and more than a little sinister. If Iran is to be believed, then the world has nothing to fear from its nuclear program. The United States, Europe, Israel, Saudi Arabia and other oil producers nearby can rest easy, because the ayatollahs have no plans to threaten the region with atomic weapons or put nukes in the hands of terrorists. If Iran is to be believed, its only goal, repeated countless times, ratified in treaties and open to inspections, is to develop a completely independent ability to make nuclear fuel and use it to generate electricity. But neither the United States nor Europe nor the United Nations is ready simply to believe Iran, at least not easily, and not without verification. Its record of concealment and deceit about its nuclear program goes back at least 20 years. Its extensive uranium-enrichment program was uncovered in detail only two years ago; its promise of "full disclosure" and "transparency" since then has been something considerably less. The election of a new hard-line Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, last month raises still more questions about how far Tehran can be trusted about its nuclear programs, if at all. Iran's concealments have been as vast as a secret underground facility at Natanz that was being readied for 50,000 centrifuges to enrich uranium when it was exposed in 2002. They have seemed as small as some undeclared milligrams of plutonium from a research laboratory. In a cat-and-mouse game reminiscent of the lead-up to the Iraq invasion in 2003, the Iranians have claimed to be cooperating while throwing up what often seem to be petty obstacles in front of inspectors. Iranians have bulldozed suspect sites. They have declined to allow investigators access to some military areas. They say they just can't find key documents that would show where and how they acquired key designs when they started their enrichment program in the 1980s. (Typically, under heavy international pressure this year, they finally produced one page from 1987 for inspectors to look at, but wouldn't turn it over.) In Iran's case today, unlike that of Iraq in 2003, there is no doubt that its nuclear program is large and growing. The Bushehr reactor will be fueled by Russia, and the spent fuel, from which plutonium could be extracted, will be returned there. But Iran now also plans to build a heavy-water re-actor at the town of Arak, and a facility to produce heavy water there is already underway. Nor has it given up the project at Natanz for enrichment facilities. It has just put it on hold, as it negotiates for European and American concessions. The breakthrough revelation about Iran's nuclear-enrichment program came in August 2002 from the front organization for an Iranian exile group on the State Department's list of terrorist organizations, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK). At a press conference in Washington, it exposed the existence of the Natanz uranium-enrichment facility. The group insisted that the tip came from its own sources, but inspectors suspect that the MEK was given the intelligence by an interested government. International Atomic Energy Agency Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei is among those skeptical about the MEK. "I'm sure this [group] is not the original source of the information," he told NEWSWEEK. But never mind. "This is the first time we got specific information we could act on." The investigations moved slowly but persistently after that, and in a clear direction. ElBaradei and his teams started a series of visits to Iran in February 2003. The inspectors took "environmental samples" to be analyzed by the IAEA's lab at Seibersdorf outside Vienna. They were looking for telltale traces of highly enriched uranium, plutonium or other isotopes. At first the Iranians didn't seem to realize just how powerful an investigative tool this had become: sort of the atomic equivalent of DNA testing at a crime scene. When inspectors asked to visit the Kalaye Electrical Co. in Tehran, for instance, the Iranians at first put them off, apparently thinking they could clean up the place. They let the IAEA (called "the Agency" for short) visit parts of the facilities in March 2003, but not take samples. Finally, in August 2003, the inspectors were allowed to return to Kalaye, just to find part of it extensively retiled, repainted and refloored. Only then were they allowed to take samples. Yet even after all that, the swipes showed traces of highly enriched uranium. With this information in hand, but not yet public, Agency inspectors found themselves listening to top Iranian officials claiming their country designed and made all its own centrifuge equipment, and that it never had been tested with radioactive substances. "Simply lying in front of everyone," said a diplomat who watched the show, and asked that his name be withheld because of the sensitivity of his position. In October 2003, with France, Germany and Britain holding out the incentive of improved trade and relations, Tehran said it would make a "full disclosure" of its nuclear-enrichment programs. But the more it revealed, the more stunningly apparent it was how much it had concealed. Efforts to develop a uranium-enrichment program went back to 1985, and began in earnest in 1987, when plans for centrifuges were bought from European middlemen with connections to the network of A. Q. Khan in Pakistan. Iran claims its right to develop its nuclear program under treaty obligations, and —offers explanations related to peaceful projects. It needs to manage its own nuclear-fuel cycle, it says, because it cannot possibly depend on others, who might be vulnerable to U.S. pressure, to provide fuel to run civilian power plants. The Iranians' experience during their war with Iraq in the 1980s, and with increasingly restrictive U.S. sanctions in the 1990s, has taught them how vulnerable they can be. Plans to make Iran nuclear-energy independent are supported throughout society, and across the political spectrum. So officials like Asadollah Saboury, vice president for nuclear power plants at the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, are frustrated by restraints, including the suspension of uranium enrichment, put on them by the international community. "We are wasting our time now," he says. Last week the United States put more pressure on, announcing it would freeze the assets of any company doing business with the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, among other firms believed involved with nuclear proliferation. In the past, some U.S. officials have hinted at the possibility of military action. But the United States is already overextended in the complicated mire of the Middle East. Iran, with its diplomatic, intelligence, religious and terrorist contacts throughout the region, "has a lot of assets," says a senior international envoy who would not be quoted by name because he is in the middle of the sensitive negotiating process. "Look at what they can do in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Lebanon. They can turn the whole Middle East into a ball of fire, and they know that." Potential military targets in Iran are hardened and dispersed, and many may be unknown. If attacked, Iran would almost certainly "break out" of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that it claims to honor. And from that point on, Israeli officials believe, it would take Iran from six months to a year to produce the makings of an atom bomb. The Europeans, led by France, Germany and Britain, and now supported by the United States, have tried to push for a diplomatic solution. But Iran is using its incipient nuclear power to bargain for a whole new, and enhanced, relationship with the West—even as it insists on keeping control over production of nuclear fuel that could give it the power to build the bomb. The big threat that can be leveled against Iran on the diplomatic front is to take it before the Security Council. But what the Council might actually do, especially if China opposes strong measures, is an open question. Economic sanctions, in any case, are likely to have little impact at a time when record oil prices are bringing the Iranian regime tens of billions of dollars in windfall revenues every quarter. Who or what can hold the line to prevent Iran's becoming a nuclear-weapon state—or a "virtual" one, with all the necessary technology and materials but no proven bomb? That job will be left mainly to ElBaradei's IAEA. Often criticized and sometimes under—mined by the current U.S. administration, it is supposed to watch over compliance by the signatories to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. In effect, it's supposed to be a watchdog that watches its masters. Because of limitations in the treaty itself, the Agency's ability to sleuth out serious violations by uncooperative states is virtually nil. It has had no jurisdiction over Israel, Pakistan or India, which are not signatories. It lost jurisdiction over North Korea when Pyongyang pulled out of the treaty. And while it was able to inspect and verify Iraq's declared nuclear activities in the 1980s, it completely missed Saddam Hussein's secret efforts to build a bomb at that time. "We were looking where the light was shining," says a European diplomat involved with the investigations, "but we didn't have the right to look in the shadows where they were building a parallel program." Today the Agency is more inquisitive, but its mandate to investigate is still limited. The United States, prodded in part by concerns for Israel's security, keeps pushing for more aggressive action. And the Israelis—after developing their own nuclear weapons in secret—feel sure they know what the Iranians are up to. An official in Jerusalem directly concerned with the issue, who did not want to be named because he holds a sensitive position in government, says, "Israel is convinced that Iran has three separate sources for developing nukes: a civilian program, a military program that draws off the civilian one and another military program that's completely separate." But as the official explains, "The basic problem is that there's no smoking gun." Iran insists that it's been cooperative. In 2003, it even turned over the names of several individuals and companies involved in covert sales of uranium-enrichment designs and components as part of the A. Q. Khan network. But when Libya decided to fold its nuclear program a few weeks later, the trove of details it supplied about the same network raised questions about just how much the Iranians might still be hiding. Why had they not mentioned plans for more-sophisticated centrifuges? If Libya was given blueprints for the bomb, why hadn't Iran gotten the same thing? As usual, the Iranians supplied explanations: they left those centrifuge plans on a shelf; they just never received the blueprints for the warhead. But the definitive answers—ones that can be believed—are still pending. -------- japan Letters reveal Einstein torn, defensive over atomic bombings of Japan TOKYO (AFP) Jul 04, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050704024936.ef01djla.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/japan/story/0,7369,1521314,00.html Previously unpublished letters by Albert Einstein to a Japanese pen pal show the physicist to be defensive over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki which became possible through his genius. The widow of Seiei Shinohara, a philosopher and German-Japanese translator who corresponded with Einstein in the last years of the scientist's life, has chosen to go public with the letters on the 60th anniversary of the world's only nuclear attacks. Einstein's opposition to nuclear warfare has already been documented, but his letters to Shinohara also show him defending himself on a personal level and trying to reconcile his pacifism. The correspondence began in 1953 when Shinohara sent a letter to Einstein criticizing the physicist over his role in developing nuclear weapons. Einstein responded by hand on the back of the typed letter, beginning his rebuttal without bothering to offer greetings. "I have always condemned the use of the atomic bomb against Japan but I could not do anything at all to prevent that fateful decision," Einstein wrote in German to Shinohara in a letter dated June 23, 1953. This year marks the centennial of Einstein's theory of relativity. He argued that distance and time are not absolute, leading to his most famous formula, E=mc2, essential for the development of the atomic bombs dropped on Japan by the United States. The Hiroshima bombing killed around 140,000 people -- almost half the city population of the time -- immediately or in the months afterward from radiation injuries or horrific burns. More than 70,000 more people died three days later in the bombing of Nagasaki. After six days Emperor Hirohito went on the radio for the first time to announce the surrender of Japan, which since the war has campaigned to abolish nuclear weapons. "The only consolation, it seems to me, in the development of nuclear bombs is that this time the deterrent effect will prevail and the development of international security will accelerate," Einstein wrote in another letter. But Einstein, whose Jewish origins led him to flee Germany in 1933 for the United States after Adolf Hitler came to power, also said that war was sometimes acceptable. "I didn't write that I was an absolute pacifist but that I have always been a convinced pacifist. That means there are circumstances in which in my opinion it is necessary to use force," he wrote. "Such a case would be when I face an opponent whose unconditional aim is to destroy me and my people," he said. "Therefore the use of force against Nazi Germany was in my opinion justified and necessary." Shinohara, who studied philosophy in Germany before returning to Tokyo in 1947, died of a stroke in 2001 at age 89. His letters has since been kept in private by his widow, Nobuko Shinohara. The correspondence ended in July 1954, a year before Einstein died, dashing Shinohara's dream to meet the physicist face to face. "My husband first sent the letter with anger and I guess Dr. Einstein replied with annoyance," said Shinohara, 80. "But later Dr. Einstein and my husband formed a friendship through exchanging letters," she told AFP. She noted that 2005 was designated as "Einstein Year" to mark the 100th anniversary of three of the physicist's four papers that changed the way we view the universe. "I decided to look for a suitable museum to display the letters in public because I reached a conclusion that it's good for a lot of people to have a chance of seeing them directly," Shinohara said. "I hope to donate the letters soon because this year is a remarkable year -- the 60th anniversary of the atomic bombs and the end of World War II," she said. "I think his letters are a great message from Dr. Einstein to everybody in modern times as we are still struggling to reduce nuclear weapons." The couple sent a Japanese doll and traditional pictures to Einstein while receiving in return his black-and-white photogragh with his autograph. "My husband repeatedly told me he really missed Dr. Einstein after his death," Shinohara said. "He told me there were a lot of other things to discuss with Dr. Einstein." Several museums have already made requests seeking the letters for their collections, according to Yutaka Sakuma, a lawyer handling the papers. -------- korea High-level Asian security forum to confront Korean nuclear issue WASHINGTON (AFP) Jul 04, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050704015050.f1rejktp.html With the Korean nuclear talks in limbo for more than a year, officials are looking at the Asia-Pacific region's biggest official security forum this month to help break the deadlock. The ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) ministerial meeting will convene in Vientiane, the capital of Laos, on July 29, in conjunction with the annual ministerial talks of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). All members of the six-party talks aimed at ending North Korea's nuclear weapons program -- the United States, China, the two Koreas, Russia and Japan -- are in the 24-member ARF. "My guess is that the Foreign Minister of North Korea will come again this year. We hope that he does because it would help to have more meaningful discussions," ASEAN Secretary-General Ong Keng Yong told AFP in Washington. "Every year they will not tell us until the very last minute. But we believe the North Koreans see a value in the ASEAN Regional Forum," Ong said. It is believed North Korea had assured Laos that Foreign Minister Paek Nam-Sun would attend the ARF talks. The two are communist states. Last year, Colin Powell, then US Secretary of State, and Paek met on the ARF sidelines in Indonesia's capital Jakarta to review proposals for ending their nuclear standoff in the highest-level talks between the countries in two years. Both sides acknowledged that deep mutual mistrust stood in the way of a quick resolution to the crisis but reconfirmed their commitment to reaching a deal to rid the Korean peninsula of nuclear weapons. But two months later, North Korea rejected a US aid-for-disarmament plan and refused to attend the fourth round of the six-party talks hosted by China, blaming what it called US hostility and insincerity. With the six-party talks in a stalemate, the ARF seems to be the only regional forum where North Korea can be directly engaged on its nuclear ambitions, officials say. The ARF includes the 10 ASEAN countries -- Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam -- plus Japan, South and North Korea, China, India, Pakistan, Russia, Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, the European Union, Canada, the United States and Mongolia. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who called North Korea an "outpost of tyranny" in January, is unlikely to attend the ARF talks this year and is expected to be represented by her deputy Robert Zoellick, diplomatic sources said. North Korea has asked Rice to withdraw her description of the hardline communist state but the top US diplomat stood by her affirmation, saying the nature of the North Korean regime is "self-evident." Rice is reportedly planning a North Asian tour next week covering China, South Korea and Japan to discuss the nuclear crisis. A US State Department official admitted that the backdrop for a possible meeting between US and North Korean officials at the ARF sidelines this year was "different" from that of 2004. "Last year (the meeting was in a) different context," the official told AFP, in an apparent reference to the murky atmosphere following North Korea's decision to boycott the six-party talks two months after the Powell meeting. Washington believes North Korea has one or two nuclear bombs and may have reprocessed enough plutonium for half a dozen more, from spent fuel rods at its Yongbyon nuclear complex. ASEAN's Ong cautioned against expecting too much from the ARF on the nuclear issue. "The priority is to get back to the six party talks," he said. "Those of us who are not in the six party talks have little leverage over North Korea. Even those in the six party talks have limited leverage," he said, apparently referring to China. "It's a good forum to air views and consider possible options to solve difficulties but to expect more than that from the ARF will be a bit unrealistic," he said. The nuclear standoff flared in October 2002 when Washington accused Pyongyang of operating a nuclear weapons program based on enriched uranium in violation of a 1994 agreement. On February 10 this year, North Korea announced it had nuclear weapons. -------- pacific Dialogue needed to resolve US differences with New Zealand: ambassador WELLINGTON (AFP) Jul 04, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050704080419.s3ez53kn.html Strains in the United States' relationship with New Zealand over its anti-nuclear policy could worsen unless the two countries open a more open and honest dialogue, US ambassador Charles J. Swindells said Monday. The relationship between New Zealand and the US dived in 1985 when an incoming centre-left Labour government said it would ban nuclear-armed and propelled warships from its waters. The nuclear-free policy has been enshrined in legislation for nearly 20 years. The US refused to confirm or deny whether its ships were nuclear armed or propelled and the impasse led to US ship visits ending and New Zealand being suspended from the ANZUS tripartite defence agreement which also included Australia. Although most US naval ships are conventionally powered and surface ships no longer carry nuclear arms, the dispute has never been resolved. Swindells, who will soon return to the US, told Independence Day celebrations at the US embassy in Wellington that the effects of the dispute were lingering. "Successive governments in both countries have been unwilling or unable to deal comprehensively with the strains that have accumulated in the bilateral relationship since the mid-80s," he said. Open and honest dialogue was needed to build a mature and trusting relationship between New Zealand and the US, he said. "The past 20 years have witnessed, unfortunately, a somewhat stifled dialogue. We keep disagreeing about the past. But the world moves on and we need to move on." He said leaving the US-New Zealand relationship in its current state would see it slide backwards, a situation the US was keen to avoid. "It needn't happen if both countries open the door to comprehensive dialogue about the issues that have adversely affected the relationship over the last 20 years." Prime Minister Helen Clark told reporters the two countries were talking but any dialogue would still have to remain within the boundaries of New Zealand's anti-nuclear legislation. "There's no way that this government is going to sell out on that," Clark said. Polls show there is still strong support for the anti-nuclear legislation and the major political parties have not challenged the policy. -------- security IAEA to Weigh Strengthening Nuclear Laws By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS July 4, 2005 Filed at 5:17 p.m. ET http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-UN-Nuclear-Agency.html?pagewanted=print VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- Delegates from about 100 countries began work Monday to revamp an international treaty on protecting nuclear material, arguing existing laws fail to do enough to safeguard nuclear power plants from terrorism. The push to shield nuclear facilities has gained urgency since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, amid new security concerns and nightmare scenarios of fuel-laden jumbo jets smashing into an atomic power plants. ''We can't go on with an old instrument in a new world,'' the conference chairman, Alec Jean Baer of Switzerland, said after the opening session. He said the proposed changes to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material would amount to an overhaul. The existing treaty was signed in Vienna and New York in 1980, long before the threat of terrorist nuclear attacks had become a pressing fear. It covers the international transport of nuclear material used for peaceful purposes, as well as some provisions on domestic storage and use. After years of talks on amending the treaty, experts said it was time to undertake the job. But so many changes are necessary, Baer said, that delegates were essentially ''tearing it (the treaty) down and building it up again.'' He likened the convention to an aging building that needed so much renovation that only its outer skeleton could remain intact. For the measure to be updated to meet the current threat, a ''more modern ... of course, more expensive'' structure is needed, he said. The changes under consideration by some 350 delegates would strengthen existing law by establishing an international standard to protect nuclear facilities from sabotage. The new changes also would call for cooperation between countries to locate and recover stolen and smuggled material and to combat such offenses. Though experts have long worried nuclear plants and materials could be targeted by terrorists, drawing up rules to protect them from such attacks has taken time because the efforts cost money and require expertise some countries don't have. Baer had no estimate on how much each country will have to spend to conform to the new rules, but it would be up to states to finance the necessary changes. ''The amendments now before this conference are vitally important and if adopted, will take another significant step in reducing the vulnerability of states, parties and indeed the entire world,'' David B. Waller, an IAEA deputy director general, said in his opening remarks. The session is not expected to produce instant results. Even if experts agree to amend the treaty, the countries that have signed it will all have to ratify the changes -- a process that could take time. ---- UN Urges Tougher Measures on Nuclear Security By REUTERS July 4, 2005 Filed at 11:25 a.m. ET http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-nuclear-security.html?pagewanted=print VIENNA (Reuters) - States must boost security at their nuclear sites and cooperate more to track down stolen or smuggled atomic materials to stop them falling into the wrong hands, the U.N. nuclear watchdog said on Monday. The global body urged delegates from 83 countries gathered in Vienna to close loopholes in an international law on the protection of atomic materials against terrorists and saboteurs. Many countries agree that the 1979 Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material (CPPNM) needs to be adapted to the post-Soviet era, said International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Deputy Director-General David Waller. ``The scope of the CPPNM is not sufficiently comprehensive to for today's world,'' he said. In particular, Waller said, it does not cover the physical protection of nuclear materials being used, transported or stored for peaceful domestic purposes. The amendments to the pact would make it easier to quickly locate and recover stolen or smuggled nuclear material and ``lessen the radiological consequences of sabotage,'' he added. Some 91 pact signatories have promised to attend the week-long conference to strengthen the CPPNM. On the first day of the conference, 83 states had registered to participate, enough to have the legal authority to amend the convention. According to the IAEA's Web site, among the countries not party to the CPPNM are Iran, Georgia and Kazakhstan -- all states that at some time represented significant nuclear security threats, according to non-proliferation analysts. The draft amendments -- submitted jointly by the United States, Canada, Australia, Japan and 20 European states -- require signatories to protect nuclear material by adopting proper legislation, ensuring that a competent regulatory body is chosen and taking any other appropriate measures. Waller said the IAEA's board of governors had met on Sept. 11, 2001 to discuss nuclear security but the proceedings were interrupted by the airline hijack attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. This was ``an event that left no doubt regarding the increased vulnerability we all face,'' he said. -------- treaties IAEA to weigh strengthening nuclear laws 7/4/2005 6:51 PM (AP) http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-07-04-iaea-nuclear_x.htm VIENNA, Austria — Delegates from about 100 countries began work Monday to revamp an international treaty on protecting nuclear material, arguing existing laws fail to do enough to safeguard nuclear power plants from terrorism. The push to shield nuclear facilities has gained urgency since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, amid new security concerns and nightmare scenarios of fuel-laden jumbo jets smashing into an atomic power plants. "We can't go on with an old instrument in a new world," the conference chairman, Alec Jean Baer of Switzerland, said after the opening session. He said the proposed changes to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material would amount to an overhaul. The existing treaty was signed in Vienna and New York in 1980, long before the threat of terrorist nuclear attacks had become a pressing fear. It covers the international transport of nuclear material used for peaceful purposes, as well as some provisions on domestic storage and use. After years of talks on amending the treaty, experts said it was time to undertake the job. But so many changes are necessary, Baer said, that delegates were essentially "tearing it (the treaty) down and building it up again." He likened the convention to an aging building that needed so much renovation that only its outer skeleton could remain intact. For the measure to be updated to meet the current threat, a "more modern ... of course, more expensive" structure is needed, he said. The changes under consideration by some 350 delegates would strengthen existing law by establishing an international standard to protect nuclear facilities from sabotage. The new changes also would call for cooperation between countries to locate and recover stolen and smuggled material and to combat such offenses. Though experts have long worried nuclear plants and materials could be targeted by terrorists, drawing up rules to protect them from such attacks has taken time because the efforts cost money and require expertise some countries don't have. Baer had no estimate on how much each country will have to spend to conform to the new rules, but it would be up to states to finance the necessary changes. "The amendments now before this conference are vitally important and if adopted, will take another significant step in reducing the vulnerability of states, parties and indeed the entire world," David B. Waller, an IAEA deputy director general, said in his opening remarks. The session is not expected to produce instant results. Even if experts agree to amend the treaty, the countries that have signed it will all have to ratify the changes — a process that could take time. ---- Nuclear treaty to be strengthened 9/11 raised fears about the possibility of nuclear terrorism Monday, 4 July, 2005 (BBC) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4647817.stm UN delegates meeting in Vienna are expected to adopt new measures to protect nuclear material from terrorism, sabotage and smuggling. The review of the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material was prompted by the 9/11 attacks. Tougher security measures are envisaged for nuclear sites such as storage plants for spent fuel. Proposals also provide for more co-operation between nations to locate and recover stolen nuclear material. Terror threat Delegates from 80 countries are considering the proposals at the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) headquarters in the Austrian capital. The 1980 convention was designed mainly to protect nuclear material in international transport and includes some provisions on domestic storage and use. But following the 11 September 2001 attacks, a decision was taken to strengthen the convention amid concerns about the possibility of nuclear terrorism. "What is happening now is the realisation that virtually any nuclear reactor could be the target of a highly co-ordinated terrorist attack," said Daryl Kimball, of the Washington-based Arms Control Association. "If damaged, [a reactor] could become a weapon by scattering nuclear material over a broad area." The five-day conference is expected to adopt a series of amendments expanding the scope of the convention, to include the protection of nuclear material within countries. Mohammed ElBaradei, head of the UN's atomic watchdog, said the amendments will be another milestone in international efforts to protect nuclear facilities. -------- u.n. The world according to Bolton Long after the fight over John Bolton's confirmation as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations has ended, the more critical battle over his worldview will continue. By David Bosco July/August 2005 pp. 24-31 (vol. 61, no. 04) © 2005 Bulletin of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists http://www.thebulletin.org/print.php?art_ofn=ja05bosco Code Pink struck at 11:15 a.m. Unfurling a banner that read, "No Bolton, Yes U.N.," activists from the women's peace group staged a protest in the middle of the April 11 confirmation hearing, telling the Senate Foreign Relations Committee precisely what they thought of President George W. Bush's nominee for U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. No doubt, a few members of the diplomatic community were suppressing grins. During his tenure as undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, John R. Bolton was derided by many State Department colleagues as a neoconservative "mole" who took his orders from Vice President Dick Cheney rather than from the secretary of state. After he was nominated, more than 60 former U.S. ambassadors and diplomats rushed a letter to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, warning that Bolton "cannot be an effective promoter of the U.S. national interest at the [United Nations]." An activist group called Citizens for Global Solutions launched a web site--stopbolton.org--that featured video of a pugnacious Bolton informing a conference that "there is no such thing as the United Nations." On paper, Bolton looked like a shoo-in for the post. The Baltimore native and Yale-educated lawyer has a strong academic background, expertise in international law and policy, and a long history of government service, including several years during the George H. W. Bush administration as assistant secretary of state for international organization affairs--the State Department office that supervises U.S. relations with the United Nations. Yet Bolton's penchant for making outrageous statements, intimidating colleagues, and clashing with intelligence analysts made his confirmation one of the year's nastiest political fights. Unfortunately, the furor over Bolton's management skills all but overwhelmed the debate over his views. When Bolton's substance was discussed, the blithe characterizations of him as a neoconservative and the constant repetition of the most egregious "Boltonisms" obscured as much as they illuminated. Bolton may be an unappealing--even abusive--figure, but his amalgam of nationalism and realism are persuasive to many Americans. At the time this article went to press, the Senate had (yet again) delayed the final vote on Bolton's confirmation. But long after the country forgets the congressional brawl, the much more critical battle over his worldview will continue. The undiplomatic diplomat There is no getting around John Bolton's personality. Opponents of his nomination often passed only briefly through the realm of policy before arriving at Bolton's undeniable knack for ticking people off. Ask former colleagues their opinion of Bolton and the most frequent response is the adage that those who have nothing good to say shouldn't say anything at all. (Bolton's office did not respond to an interview request.) One senior government official who worked closely with Bolton told me that many State Department employees would have "slit their wrists" if John Bolton had been elevated to the position of deputy secretary--a post he sought before getting the nomination to the United Nations. That official went on to describe Bolton as "a bully" who should be kept "as far away from European diplomats as possible." At his confirmation hearings, it was Bolton's run-ins with U.S. officials rather than foreign diplomats that dominated debate. Carl Ford, a former assistant secretary of state for intelligence and research, accused Bolton of harassing an intelligence analyst who challenged his findings on biological weapons in Cuba. In blunt, personal testimony, Ford called Bolton a "classic kiss-up, kick-down kind of guy." As the hearings continued, other unsettling examples of Bolton's penchant for bureaucratic rough play emerged, including accusations that he blocked information on Iran from reaching Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her predecessor Colin Powell. The stories weren't news to the diplomatic community. Many foreign officials remembered Bolton's performance at a meeting of the Group of Eight (G-8) industrialized countries last October. The European states leading negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program wanted to exchange views on the issue with the United States. After the European presentations, Bolton formally read out a U.S. position paper. In response to a question, he brusquely read another statement. One participant described the performance as "Soviet-style." Another European diplomat in the meeting remembered, "It wasn't the substance of the message, it was the dynamics--the complete bluntness of the approach shocked people." Bolton's problem, the diplomat told me, "is that he can't communicate." Not all the foreign diplomats with whom Bolton has worked agree that he was ineffective. "There is a lot of respect for him," one European diplomat told me. "People who demonize him are people who have never met him and have never read anything by him. Much of what they've heard about him is hearsay and fourth hand." But hearsay is not usually required. Bolton's long and colorful paper trail ensures that those looking for a reason to dismiss him as an extremist don't have far to go. Many of the choice quotes that emerged during the confirmation fight were penned during the Clinton years, when Bolton took shelter at the conservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI), where he was a senior vice president. There, he poured out tens of thousands of words critiquing the Clinton team's foreign policy. In Bolton's view, President Bill Clinton's policy on Iraq was "worse than incompetent," "duplicitous," and driven by the impeachment process and domestic politics. [1] Clinton's North Korea stance was "egregiously wrong." [2] Clinton's Libya policy led to a "catastrophic loss of U.S. credibility." [3] Bolton even challenged human physiology as he derided Clinton's policies as both "flaccid" and "promiscuous." [4] Just for good measure, U.N. officials were "nabobs." [5] Reading through stacks of Bolton op-eds, it's tempting to dismiss him as a hopeless partisan, a think-tank thug doing a number on his party's opponent. That would be unfair though, and his critics tacitly acknowledge as much by describing the tenacity with which he has fought for his policies within the Bush administration. If Bolton were merely about getting his party into power and securing high office, he could have played nice, made friends at the State Department while nurturing his ties with Vice President Cheney's office, and probably ended up as deputy secretary of state. "John didn't join government for frequent flyer points or for diplomatic receptions, or for having a chauffeur-driven car," says Robert Einhorn, who worked under Bolton for eight months as an assistant secretary of state. "He didn't join for the prestige of occupying a senior position. He joined to get something done." For good or ill, John Bolton is a conviction player. He fought the law Few Boltonisms got more play during the confirmation hearings than his assertion that international treaties are not "legally binding." Delaware Democratic Sen. Joseph Biden told Bolton that "the logical conclusion of your views, in my view, is if the U.S. Embassy is sacked by a foreign state, or a U.S. soldier tortured, then this country and its citizens have no recourse under international law, because in your view there's no such thing as international law." At first glance, Bolton's record in the Bush administration appears to confirm Biden's charge that the president's nominee was an international lawyer with little use for international law. One of Bolton's first steps upon taking office was to remove Clinton's final-hour signature from the statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Bolton described it as "my happiest moment in government service." Then, on his watch, the United States negotiated more than 90 bilateral agreements that help place U.S. citizens beyond the court's reach. Congress has endorsed Bolton's campaign and authorized the administration to cut military aid to states that do not sign the agreements. For their part, some State Department officials complained bitterly that Bolton's ICC obsession was threatening relations with important allies--including some, such as Ukraine and Poland, that were contributing to the effort in Iraq. The ICC is not the only area where Bolton has been able to attack what he sees as a dangerous reliance on treaties and international institutions. He almost gleefully pulled the United States out of negotiations on a protocol to the Biological Weapons Convention in late 2001 and he negotiated the U.S. withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty with Russia so that the United States could deploy its nascent missile defense system. This record of treaty killing seems in synch with his stated doubts about the worth of international law. But Bolton's views are more complicated than they first appear. He has indeed stated that "international law, especially customary international law, meets none of the tests we normally impose on 'law.'" [6] But here, he is actually highlighting an important distinction. When a citizen of the United States breaks the law, that person is subject to coercive measures through the courts and law enforcement agencies. But, if a country ignores or breaks a treaty--say, if North Korea refuses to live up to its nonproliferation obligations or China its human rights undertakings--then what? Because aggrieved nations usually cannot guarantee enforcement, Bolton reasons, most international law isn't law in the sense that term is normally used. In the world of international legal scholarship, this assertion is more shopworn than shocking. The question of whether law can exist without an enforcing power can be heard in most first-year law school classes. The critical issue is what one does with that insight. And here, Bolton actually leans toward the conventional. Although he questions the formal weight of international law, he adds a major caveat: "This is emphatically not to say that the United States should freely ignore its treaty obligations." [7] Bolton believes that, in most cases, the United States is morally and politically bound by treaties. He cites, as an example, Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which states that an "armed attack upon one" shall be deemed "an attack against them all." The obligations embedded in Article 5, Bolton argues, are weak and vague. Yet, it would have been unthinkable for the United States to have quibbled with the wording had the Soviet Union attacked a NATO ally. The corollary to his view is that the only effective treaties are those whose signatories have a genuine desire to adhere to them. As such, it's a caricature to say that Bolton doesn't believe in international law. It is precisely because he believes the United States should and will honor its legal obligations in almost all cases that he has been so intent on keeping the United States out of treaties he believes are not in the national interest. After all, he might have recommended that the United States remain a party to the ABM Treaty or the ICC statute and simply ignore their obligations (a tactic not unknown in international politics). And, it is worth recalling, Bolton himself negotiated a raft of bilateral treaties--a strange activity for someone who allegedly places no value on them. But Bolton also believes that international law is seductive; that it can blind enthusiasts to the realities of power. Supporters of the ICC, he warns, "make a fundamental error in trying to transform matters of power and force into matters of law." [8] In his view, the Clinton administration suffered from a "fascination with arms control agreements as a substitute for real nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction." [9] One can hear echoes of the classic realists in his concerns. Writing in the late 1930s, as the fascist menace grew, British historian E. H. Carr mocked "the metaphysicians of Geneva" who "found it difficult to believe that an accumulation of ingenious texts prohibiting war was not a barrier against war itself." [10] Bolton places himself squarely in this tradition, removing blinkers from idealist eyes. He believes that the same faith in international law that sets up idealists for disaster abroad can be insidious at home. Bolton fears that creeping--and deeply undemocratic--internationalism will undermine American liberties. "To have law in a free society," he argues, "there must be a framework (a constitution) that defines the government's authority, thereby limiting it and preventing the exercise of arbitrary power." [11] This is not a trivial point. Today's international law and institutions are often weak on democratic accountability, a flaw that conservatives are not alone in diagnosing. Environmental and labor activists who worry that free trade agreements undermine important national protections often read from a similar script. Then there is the mushy category of "customary" international law, which develops through the practice of states and the writings of international legal scholars. What happens if there emerges a worldwide consensus, backed up by legal scholars and even U.N. General Assembly resolutions, that the death penalty is repugnant? It is quite possible that the death penalty might then violate customary international law. Is the United States--which has dealt with the issue through its own democratic processes--obliged to ban it? European nations forming their political union have been wrestling with the dilemma of pairing supranational governance and democratic accountability for more than a generation. With its unparalleled power and tradition of fierce independence, the United States has mostly managed to stay aloof. Bolton is anticipating a debate that will almost certainly become more salient as global integration proceeds. His answer to that debate may be crude, but it deserves to be taken seriously. Holding up the court In many respects, the new International Criminal Court is the embodiment of Bolton's twin fears about the direction of international law. The Hague-based court, created in 1998, can prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes when national courts aren't up to the task. Where the court's advocates see an important deterrent against atrocities, Bolton sees a collection of unaccountable international functionaries likely to be imbued with a deep hostility to the United States. Because the court claims to sit above national courts, he contends it is "inconsistent with American standards of constitutional order, and is, in fact, a stealth approach to eroding constitutionalism." [12] In his view, an international court untethered from a legitimate, democratic government cannot pretend to exercise coercive power over U.S. citizens. Bolton bristles particularly over the ICC's claim to exercise jurisdiction over even the nationals of states that have not signed on to the court. Bolton's suspicion of the ICC was hardened by the controversy surrounding the NATO campaign against Serbia in the late 1990s. NATO acted without the approval of the U.N. Security Council, prompting U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan to warn that the international community was on a "dangerous path to anarchy." European and Canadian law professors filed a 1999 complaint with the prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)--established by the United Nations in 1993 to prosecute Balkan war criminals--arguing that NATO had committed aggression and crimes against humanity. The ICTY prosecutor ultimately cleared NATO, but the tribunal's mere consideration of the complaint was a red flag for Bolton. If the ICTY, largely an American creation, could get so out of hand, Bolton shudders to think what the ICC will do, and he does not doubt that its sights are set on Washington. "[T]op leaders in the United States, not just individual soldiers, are the real targets of the ICC," he warns. [13] In issuing these dire predictions, Bolton intentionally ignores the ICC's procedural safeguards and exaggerates its potential anti-Americanism. One senior Clinton administration official who worked on the ICC calls Bolton's views on the court "hysterical" and says that he "distorts the argument so that the entire court is seen as an assault on the United States." Three years after it opened its doors, there is no sign that the ICC is bent on pursuing Americans; its first investigations have been in Uganda, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Sudan. Bolton's hyperbole about the ICC points to a streak of what can only be called nationalist paranoia. He believes fervently that not just the court but the entire international law movement aims to subdue the United States. "If the American citadel can be breached, advocates of binding international law will be well on the way toward the ultimate elimination of Treaty of Westphalia-style nation states." [14] Given the stakes in what he sees as an epochal, almost biblical, battle for national sovereignty, it is no wonder that he fights so fiercely against the advance guard of internationalism. Bolton's view of the court--and of the direction of international law more generally--connects to something powerful in the American psyche, and in American politics. A telling moment came during last year's presidential debates. On two separate occasions, President Bush taunted Massachusetts Democratic Sen. John Kerry for supporting the ICC. "It's the right move," the president said, "not to join a foreign court that could--where our people could be prosecuted. My opponent is for joining the International Criminal Court." Kerry never responded. There were no political points to be won in defending the international court. Passive aggressive Not far behind Bolton's concern about the direction of international law is a conviction that the United States has the power to alter the world's political landscape, including through the use of force. Speaking to the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations last October, Bolton proudly claimed "the Bush administration is making up for decades of stillborn plans, wishful thinking, and irresponsible passivity. After many years of hand-wringing with the vague hope to find shelter from gathering threats, we are now acting decisively. We will no longer accept being dispirited by difficult problems that have no immediate answer." [15] His celebration of action puts Bolton partly in line with the neoconservatives. At a meeting in late 2001 on North Korea policy, one U.S. official made the point that, like it or not, the North Korean regime had to be engaged. "We're in the business of changing regimes," Bolton retorted. When asked by reporters about whether he favored taking a carrot-and-stick approach toward North Korea, Bolton famously responded, "I don't do carrots." According to Einhorn, "His view is that you don't deal with dictators--that the only reliable way of disarming tyrannical regimes is to get rid of the regimes. He doesn't believe that good agreements can make bad regimes behave." But it would be quite wrong to place Bolton in the neoconservative camp. Generally absent from his rhetoric is the neoconservative idealism that sees U.S. power as a catalyst for spreading liberty around the world. Nor is Bolton enamored of using military force to defend human rights. He has derided the "right of humanitarian intervention" as "even more malleable than most principles of international law," adding that it sets a dangerous precedent that authoritarian regimes can manipulate to their own ends. [16] At his confirmation hearing, Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Russell Feingold probed Bolton on his commitment to preventing genocide. What more could have been done in Rwanda, Feingold wanted to know. "We don't know if it was logistically possible to do anything different," Bolton responded, ignoring substantial evidence that an international show of force could have curtailed the killing. The answer left Feingold agape. "Your answer is amazingly passive," he fumed. In Bolton's worldview, passivity in the face of genocide is not a vice. He wants to change the world to keep the United States physically secure, not to pursue utopias. It is a nationalist, rather than a neoconservative mindset. American power serves the American national interest, narrowly defined. Bolton wants to avoid foreign entanglements whenever possible, but when nations choose to tangle with the United States, they will find the steel fist of American power waiting for them. Here again, Bolton reflects a formidable strain in U.S. foreign policy thought: He is a "don't tread on me" kind of guy. Bolton's experience as the State Department's chief arms control official offers a glimpse of this worldview in practice. In addition to the ICC, North Korea and Iran have consumed much of his attention, and the twin nuclear crises have showcased his preference for changing the world, rather than managing its problems through diplomacy. In both cases, Bolton has opposed all but the most constrained negotiations. Yet forcible regime change is out of the question. How does someone who believes in changing the world to safeguard America cope with dangerous regimes that can't be overthrown? At least in part, it appears, by yelling and screaming. Bolton's dealings with North Korea, in particular, have revealed a moralistic streak that is odd for a diplomat who clearly draws inspiration from foreign policy realists. The dean of modern U.S. realists, George F. Kennan, warned repeatedly against moralism in American foreign policy. "Where measures taken by foreign governments affect adversely American interests rather than just American moral sensibilities, protests and retaliation are obviously in order," Kennan wrote in 1985, "but then they should be carried forward frankly for what they are, and not allowed to masquerade under the mantle of moral principle." [17] Bolton himself has often sounded a similar note. In a published debate with a human rights expert in 1999, Bolton lectured, "setting priorities and making choices . . . is what policy is about, not simply talking about condemning this injustice or righting that wrong." [18] And yet moral outrage suffuses Bolton's North Korea statements. That anger surfaced most notoriously when Bolton visited the region in July 2003. "While he lives like royalty in Pyongyang," he said of North Korean leader Kim Jong Il, "he keeps hundreds of thousands of his people locked in prison camps with millions more mired in abject poverty, scrounging the ground for food." Life in North Korea, Bolton went on, is "a hellish nightmare." Unsurprisingly, the North responded in kind, calling Bolton "human scum." The name-calling induced the White House spokesman to publicly defend Bolton, but privately some in the administration expressed frustration at what appeared to be an unnecessary confrontation. Several former officials believe it was a conscious attempt to sabotage negotiations. [19] Unable to change the regimes of Iran and North Korea by force and unwilling to negotiate freely, the administration's policies toward these two countries have meandered painfully. The conviction that negotiations with rogue states are useless has produced odd results when translated into policy. Matthew Bunn, a nonproliferation specialist at Harvard, sees an approach that is inadvertently passive. "In reality, if not in rhetoric, their policy has actually been much softer than the Clinton administration's. The Clinton administration actually communicated a number of red lines. The Bush administration has failed to do that. We've done nothing except to say that it's not a crisis." A senior official who worked with Bolton on developing North Korea and Iran policy agrees: "The ideological attachment to regime change, made it very difficult to pursue practical policies that would have better served our national interests." The proliferation docket is not without its achievements. Bolton often cites Libya's decision to categorically and verifiably reject its WMD program as the only route for Iran and North Korea. Arms control advocates, however, note that Libya's decision was the product of patient, multilateral diplomacy offering a package of incentives--the very approach that Bolton eschews toward Pyongyang and Tehran. And it has been reported that the British government explicitly asked that Bolton not participate in the Libya negotiations, for fear that he might scuttle them. [20] For his part, Bolton has claimed that the turning point for Muammar Qaddafi's regime came when centrifuge parts bound for Libya were seized aboard the cargo ship BBC China in October 2003. À la carte multilateralism Bolton's focus on the seizure of the BBC China is no accident. It highlights one of his most prized projects: the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). President Bush formally announced the initiative to intercept ships carrying WMD and WMD components in May 2003. Eighteen countries are currently core participants in the initiative, and the Bush administration claims that more than 60 nations support it. The PSI is a potent rejoinder to those who believe that Bolton is incapable of effective negotiations and ideologically averse to multilateralism and international law. But Bolton has done it his way. He has made sure that the PSI remains "an activity and not an organization." He has avoided creating new layers of bureaucracy by including only countries that he feels have the desire and ability to participate. He has also firmed up the legal underpinnings of the initiative by signing boarding agreements with states that frequently flag merchant vessels, including Liberia, Panama, and the Marshall Islands. Supporters of Bolton contend that the PSI is not an aberration, but a reflection of Bolton's realistic worldview. AEI scholar James Glassman notes that "the way he structured PSI is in complete accord with his overall views about international agreements--the only agreements that really work are those that a country voluntarily enters into." Critics, however, see this voluntary, informal structure as a limitation. The problem with a maritime "coalition of the willing" is that not every country is willing. China, India, and South Korea have refused to join the initiative despite U.S. prodding. And, Bolton's best efforts notwithstanding, the enthusiasm of some participants is suspect. As Andrew Prosser and Herbert Scoville at the Center for Defense Information note, "the fact that the PSI lacks machinery to ensure participant compliance with PSI operations suggests that PSI states such as Russia, which may possess relatively relaxed understandings of what constitutes a proliferation concern, will feel at liberty to support PSI actions only marginally, offering its permission à la carte to use national territory for PSI interdictions, and mobilizing national law enforcement or military assets to combat weapons trafficking only when economic or other interests are not judged superior." [21] Because the PSI has not been memorialized in a treaty or protocol, a lackadaisical approach would violate no agreement and put Russia under no legal, political, or moral obligation to get with the program. Beneficial as PSI has been, it is not an approach for all problems. Treaties and formal organizations, such as the Biological Weapons Convention and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, are helpful precisely because they can create political and moral costs to departing from their mandates--as the United States knows all too well from the diplomatic damage it incurred in waging war against Iraq without U.N. approval. Bolton is no doubt correct that such strictures are meaningless to outlaw nations. But regimes like North Korea, for all their danger, are anomalous. Most governments respond in some way, however imperfectly and inconsistently, to the pressure of international law and institutions. By disparaging formal treaties and exalting the PSI, Bolton may have damaged tools that are effective with most countries in an effort to craft policy for the exceptional few. Hard cases, as lawyers say, make bad law. That said, the immediate fears of U.S. internationalists that emerged during Bolton's confirmation hearings are probably exaggerated. How many people, after all, could name the most recent U.N. ambassadors or say anything about their effectiveness? When the United States needed to make its case to the U.N. Security Council on Iraq, Colin Powell--not the U.N. ambassador--was the country's voice. Secretary of State Rice always made clear that Bolton would answer to her; the fact that Rice, rather than the president, announced Bolton's nomination was significant in establishing the chain of command. She has also appointed a separate senior adviser on U.N. reform, whose voice may be as influential as the U.N. ambassador's. Oddly, the prevailing image of Bolton as a foaming-at-the-mouth extremist could be seen as a point in his favor. As the PSI demonstrates, he has shown the capacity--if not always the will--to work effectively with foreign governments. Many foreign delegations in New York would be pleasantly surprised after emerging physically unscathed from a meeting with Bolton. In a broader sense, however, Bolton's diplomatic career has represented a defeat for internationalism, and Americans who believe in the development of international law and institutions must combat Bolton's worldview. That will be a much more difficult struggle than the confirmation battle. The beliefs that Bolton represents will not always come attached to a bristling mustache and a nasty personality. His challenges to the efficacy of international law and the democratic credentials of international institutions have merit, and considerable public appeal. (Someone will always have to puncture the illusions of idealists who believe that world order can be constructed on paper.) Bolton's cramped view of U.S. national interests has a strong constituency, particularly in a country tired of conflict. And it will be easy to convince many Americans that global institutions are out to get them, not least because a few international bureaucrats actually do hate the United States. Until American internationalists speak convincingly--yes, even during presidential debates--about the importance of preventing massive crimes against humanity, the possible benefits of ceding some sovereignty, and the need to advance sensible international law and accountable institutions, they will be forced to defend their ground on personality rather than policy. It's not a winning strategy. 1. John Bolton, "Surrendering to Saddam," Weekly Standard, September 7, 1998, and "Bombing Before Ramadan," Weekly Standard, December 28, 1998. 2. John Bolton, "U.S. Must Stand up to North Korea," Los Angeles Times, September 22, 1999. 3. John Bolton, "Clinton's Bluster," Weekly Standard, March 8, 1999. 4. See, for example, John Bolton, "Clinton's Intelligence Failures," Washington Times, May 16, 1999. 5. John Bolton, "The U.N. Steps out of Line," Washington Times, May 31, 1998. 6. John Bolton, "The Global Prosecutors: Hunting War Criminals in the Name of Utopia," Foreign Affairs, January/February 1999. 7. John Bolton, "Is There Really 'Law' in International Affairs?" Transnational Law and Contemporary Problems, Spring 2000. 8. John Bolton, "Courting Danger: What's Wrong with the International Criminal Court," National Interest, Winter 1998/99. 9. John Bolton, "A Legacy of Betrayal," Washington Times, May 12, 1999. 10. E. H. Carr, The Twenty Years' Crisis, 1919-1939, (London: Macmillian, 1981), p. 30. 11. Bolton, "The Global Prosecutors." 12. Bolton, "Courting Danger." 13. Bolton, "Is There Really 'Law' in International Affairs?" 14. Bolton, "The Global Prosecutors." 15. John Bolton, remarks to the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, October 19, 2004. 16. Bolton, "Is There Really 'Law' in International Affairs?" 17. George F. Kennan, "Morality and Foreign Policy," Foreign Affairs, Winter 1985/1986. 18. John Bolton and William F. Schulz, "What Price Human Rights? An Exchange," National Interest, Summer 1999. 19. Barbara Slavin and Bill Nichols, "Bolton a 'Guided Missile,'" USA Today, November 30, 2003. 20. Michael Hirsh and John Barry, "Madmen, Rogues and Nukes," Newsweek, October 11, 2004. 21. Andrew Prosser and Herbert Scoville,"Proliferation Security Initiative in Perspective," Center for Defense Information, June 16, 2004. David Bosco is the senior editor of Foreign Policy magazine and a lawyer with experience in international arbitration, litigation, and antitrust matters. July/August 2005 pp. 24-31 (vol. 61, no. 04) © 2005 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Sidebar: Best of the Bulletin Archive: International law "Responding to Disarmament Violations," by Roger Fisher (September 1962). A Harvard law professor offers practical advice on how to enforce arms control treaties before tensions escalate. "Nuclear Weapons Are Legal Tools," by Harry H. Almond Jr., and "Nuclear Weapons Are Illegal Threats," by Elliott L. Meyrowitz (May 1985). A law professor at the National War College in Washington, D.C., and a New York City attorney debate the legality of nuclear weapons under international law. "International Law: The Damaged U.S. Image," by Richard Falk (January/February 1989). Long before Bolton, the Reagan administration earned a reputation for its cavalier approach to international law. For these articles and more, visit the online Bulletin Archive at www.bulletinarchive.org. -------- u.s. nuc facilities -------- colorado Classified - Colorado's Area 51 Aurora a hub for state's humming - and sometimes hush-hush - aerospace industry By Roger Fillion, Rocky Mountain News July 4, 2005 http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/technology/article/0,1299,DRMN_49_3901852,00.html Call it the Area 51 of the Denver region. It's where hundreds of people are busy doing secretive work for Uncle Sam and who-knows-what other customers. You won't read about these high-tech, cloak-and-dagger projects in the newspaper or see them on the nightly news. Some participating in activities there don't return a reporter's calls, and they want little publicity. To be sure, this local version of Area 51 doesn't have a questionable reputation for performing experiments on the bodies of space aliens, as does the super-secret Air Force test center in the Nevada desert. What this locale does have is nearly 300,000 residents, numerous parks, golf courses and a mayor. Welcome to Aurora. At times a butt of local jokes, the 144-square-mile city actually is home to an aerospace-defense industry that's been generating jobs at a rapid clip. And you'd be forgiven for knowing little about what these companies and their staffers are toiling over. Much of the work is stamped "classified." Not even Aurora's top elected official knows exactly what's going on inside his city's borders. Mayor Ed Tauer, in fact, likes to joke to local aerospace-defense execs: "I have no idea what you're doing here. But I'm damn glad you're doing it here." Eleven of these companies are known to have operations in Colorado's third-largest city. They are big . . . and small: Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, Merrick and Paragon Dynamics, to name a few. What do their employees do? They crunch and transmit satellite data that military brass and civilians can use to make tactical decisions. Some integrate computer systems and write software related to fighting terrorism. Others develop software that controls orbiting satellites. Still others design sophisticated headquarters for such customers as the U.S. Army Space Command in Colorado Springs. These 5,000-plus workers occupy a vital chunk of the Aurora economy. "Outside of retail, I would say the largest industry we have now is aerospace and aerospace-related," said Paul Tauer, who served as mayor from 1987 to 2003 before his son took charge. Aurora's mother ship, so to speak, is Buckley Air Force Base, a sprawling 3,200-acre facility on the city's outskirts. Those inside Buckley's guarded walls rely on a global constellation of spy satellites to keep an eye out for hostile missile launches around the globe. As a key military outpost, Buckley plays a big role in nurturing Aurora's aerospace industry. "Many of the satellite operations that go on there make Aurora a prime spot for aerospace operations," said Douglas Hartmann, CEO of Paragon Dynamics, an Aurora company itself cloaked in secrecy. Hartmann should know Buckley's importance. His company engineers satellite and ground-processing systems. But Hartmann won't say a lot more than that. Ninety-five percent of Paragon's work is classified. Aurora's emergence as an aerospace-defense hub comes amid growth in Colorado's own space-related industries. The state has the No. 4 space economy in the nation with more than 142,500 jobs, according to recent data. The annual payroll totals $9.7 billion. Many of the companies have operations in Colorado Springs, Denver and Boulder. Recently, however, Aurora has been grabbing more headlines. Chalk it up to an expanding federal defense budget, particularly in the post-Sept. 11 era. Also, officials at the Aurora Economic Development Council have been busy wooing and keeping aerospace-related companies and their higher-paying jobs. Consider the case of Raytheon, Aurora's largest private employer with 2,600 people. That's up about 600 since the start of 2003. And this year the Waltham, Mass.-based aerospace-defense contractor unfurled plans to expand the company's already big Aurora footprint. It's building a 150,000-square-foot office building to house up to 750 employees. The company's 45-acre Aurora campus already has four buildings. About 70 percent of the work done there is classified. What is known is that Raytheon's systems and software engineers in Aurora build ground-control systems that control civilian and military satellites. The Aurora unit got a big shot in the arm in 2002 after landing a $1 billion deal to build ground systems for the nation's new weather-satellite system. Century City, Calif.-based Northrop Grumman also is expanding. Last month, Northrop officials gathered with local dignitaries for a ribbon-cutting ceremony to toast the opening of an 80,000-square-foot addition to the company's office park in Aurora. Northrop's approximately 1,000 Aurora employees perform sensitive work: Engineers and scientists develop algorithms and data-management techniques to collect and analyze data for military and spy operations. The company's Aurora work force already has expanded 30 percent in the past two years. There's no sign the growth is set to halt. "We are expecting a steady increase in our work force over the next two to three years," said Charles "Pepper" Fey, vice president of Northrop Grumman Mission System's data systems operations in Aurora. Aurora wasn't always a cloak- and-dagger-type place. When the East Colfax Trust Co. platted a subdivision called Aurora in 1889, it was little more than a prairie outpost. The once-sleepy farm town has undergone explosive change since then. Former Mayor Paul Tauer recalled Aurora as "a nice homey town" when he bought a house there in 1962. Retail was Aurora's dominant business at the time, with J.C. Penney, Woolworth's and grocers dotting the landscape. Many roads were dirt. An early aerospace tenant was Stanley Aviation, which relocated to Aurora from Buffalo, N.Y., in 1954. Founder Robert Stanley, a Navy test pilot, liked the Denver-Aurora area. It helped that Stanley - who had his own plane - secured land with access to the former Stapleton Airport. (The adventurous Stanley died in a 1977 plane crash in the Bermuda Triangle.) Another early tenant: Merrick & Co., an engineering and architectural firm that serves the military. It also supplies high-tech geographic and mapping information. Sears Merrick co-founded the company in 1955 and relocated it to Aurora from Denver in 1973. "He could visualize the growth in Aurora. And he wanted to be part of that," said CEO Ralph Christie. The roots of nearby Buckley Air Force Base date to World War II. The base was named after 1st Lt. John Buckley, a World War II flier from Longmont. In 1941, Denver donated land to the War Department. The next year, a $7.5 million deal was signed to build 700 structures. Buckley has carried various names, including Denver Naval Air Station. It was renamed Buckley Air Force Base in 2000 and has been growing. More than 10,000 military and civilian types work there. For local aerospace companies, Buckley offers valuable work and information - information that can spell new contracts. "We have a steady dialogue with some of the customers over there about what they're going to need in the future," Northrop's Fey said. The base also serves as a talent pool for companies wanting to hire departing military personnel. Over the years, Buckley's satellite-based spy operations have attracted protests from peace activists, some of whom have even scaled the barbed-wired fencing there. The spying is yet another part of Aurora's secretive side. "We can see things that are happening in Afghanistan and Iraq," said Col. Martin Whelan, vice commander of the 460th Space Wing at Buckley. The secrecy surrounding Aurora's aerospace industry dates back decades. Paul Tauer recalled going to a celebration in the 1980s that marked the opening of a new building occupied by Hughes Aircraft Defense Electronics, bought by Raytheon in 1997. "There were parts of the building that we didn't see," Tauer said. "It was top-secret kind of stuff." Even today, Aurora officials can't always keep track of the growth in local aerospace-related companies. "It seems every time we touch base with a company, they've grown more than we expected," said Dick Hinson, vice president of the Aurora Economic Development Council. To be sure, the secrecy has eased, to a degree. In contrast to Hughes, Raytheon has sought to reach out to the local community, although much of the company's work remains off-limits to the public. "It's more of a public organization and much more engaged with the community," said Raymond Kolibaba, Raytheon vice president for space systems and the top executive for the company's Aurora operations. He said Raytheon employees "spend a lot of time" doing local volunteer work. "Part of that is giving back to the community," he said. For example, workers have fanned out to give math and science tutoring at Rangeview High School, Gateway High School and Aurora Hills Middle School. But that doesn't mean Aurora's aerospace-defense companies are throwing open their doors to the public. Asked how much of his company's Aurora activities are classified, Boeing spokesman Joseph Tedino fired back a two-word e-mail: "Nearly all." By the numbers • What we know about Aurora's cloak-and-dagger industry: 11 Number of aerospace-defense companies known to have operations in Aurora 5,000+ Number of people the companies employ 10,000+ Number of military and civilian workers at Buckley Air Force BaseSources: Companies, Aurora Economic Development Council, Rocky Mountain News, Buckley Afb Aurora's aerospace-defense players COMPANY MAIN HQ AURORA EMPLOYEES BEGAN AURORA PRESENCE TYPE OF WORK Boeing Co. Chicago 347 1986 Supports government customers and Boeing business units with information-technology engineering and services Lockheed Martin Bethesda, Md. 800-plus 1985 Receives, analyzes and transmits satellite data to U.S. major military commands and other government customers. Merrick & Co. Aurora About 300, with total of more than 400 worldwide 1973 Provides architectural and engineering work for special-use buildings such as U.S. Army's Space Command headquarters in Colorado Springs Also processes and supplies high-tech geographic information Northrop Grumman Century City, Calif. Approximately 1,000 2002 through purchase of TRW Inc. 2002 through purchase of TRW, Inc. Integrates military computer systems used in mission planning and command-and-control operations. Work allows military and intelligence and data. Opnet Technologies Bethesda, Md. Not available Not available Not available Paragon Dynamics (Acquired by New York-based Zannett Inc. in 2003) Aurora 37, with total of 55 nationwide 1997 1997 Engineers satellite and ground-processing systems Serves federal government and aerospace companies Raytheon Co. Waltham, Mass. 2,600 1997 through purchase of Hughes Aircraft Defense Electronics Builds ground-control systems for controlling civilian and military satellites Scitor Corp. Herndon, Va. 109 "prior to 1995" Provides consulting services dealing with systems engineering, management of projects, software development and computer programming Signal Research Corp. Littleton Varies, usually no more than 12 2002 Provides radio-frequency technology and aerospace engineering used in satellite payloads and other aerospace products Stanley Aviation Corp. (Acquired by U.K.-based Cobham PLC in 1981) Aurora 200, with total of 300 worldwide 1954 Builds fluid-delivery systems for commercial and military aircraft as well as "support" equipment for transporting large jet engines for commercial and military aircraft Titan Corp. San Diego Not available Not available Not available Sources: companies, Aurora Economic Development Council, Rocky Mountain News fillionr@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-892-2467 -------- new york Cirrus Pilot Deploys Chute By Mary Grady Newswriter, Editor July 4, 2005 AVweb http://www.avweb.com/newswire/11_27a/briefs/190097-1.html A Cirrus SR22 pilot escaped from his airplane after deploying the ballistic chute and landing in a cove near a nuclear power plant off New York's Hudson River on Thursday afternoon. Ilan Reich, 50, had been flying westbound when he issued a mayday and then pulled the chute, according to local news reports. Cirrus Design spokeswoman Kate Dougherty told AVweb yesterday that details are still sketchy but it appears that Reich experienced a medical emergency while flying. The airplane splashed down about 50 feet from shore and Reich broke through a window with a hammer, which is provided in the cockpit for just such an occasion. Reich was treated at a local hospital and went home on Friday. The aircraft was recovered from about 30 feet of water on Saturday. The crash raised concerns among local officials about the security of the nearby Indian Point nuclear reactor. "A catastrophe at Indian Point would be an emergency for the entire metropolitan region," State Assemblyman Ryan Karben told TheJournalNews.com. "We need to take proper preventative measures and minimize the potential for any sort of accident to occur." A spokesman for the plant said there is already a restricted zone around the plant and a small plane crashing into the building would not damage the structure. -------- tennessee Y-12 safe, official says Federal manager at plant disputes recent critical security reports By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com July 4, 2005 Knoxville News-Sentinel http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/local_news/article/0,1406,KNS_347_3902011,00.html OAK RIDGE - Bill Brumley, federal manager at the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant, offers an unequivocal response to the plant's critics and naysayers: "Y-12 is safe. It is secure." The Oak Ridge complex houses what may be the world's largest collection of bomb-making uranium. There have been persistent reports raising questions - and doubts - about the plant's ability to protect those nuclear assets from terrorists. Brumley said he knows better. "Our protective force execution is outstanding," he said. "There may be people who have other agendas at work, and I just cannot get sucked into that. I just worry about the day-to-day protection of SNM (special nuclear material). That's something I personally take very seriously. I spend time in the plant and around the plant, and my folks are looking at the issues on a technical basis. I can assure you that the material we have here is extraordinarily well protected." The latest criticism came from the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Inspector General, which issued a report last week. Inspectors raised concerns about "excessive" overtime, saying Y-12 security police officers routinely worked more than 60 hours a week. The report also criticized aspects of the Oak Ridge training program. The IG said guards got credit for training never received and that some training elements - such as refresher work on combat readiness - were below standards or expectations. The National Nuclear Security Administration and its security contractor, Wackenhut Services Inc., defended the Oak Ridge efforts and criticized the critics. Jean Burleson, Wackenhut's general manager, said the IG inspectors were a bunch of accountants and "bean counters" who didn't understand security practices. More meaningful, he said, were the results of a comprehensive security review at Y-12 conducted recently by DOE's Office of Independent Oversight and Performance Assurance, known as OA. "We came out 'green,' highest in all areas," Burleson said. Yellow and red markers are used to identify security weaknesses or vulnerabilities, he said. According to Burleson, there were 207 different security tests, ranging from recognition of special nuclear materials to firearms capabilities to protective force exercises. "We came out above 90 percent every time," Burleson said. "They (the OA team) said it was the best they'd ever seen." Brumley said he couldn't discuss details because the assessment report is still in draft form. But he said he was pleased with the results. Steven Wyatt, a spokesman for the NNSA, said federal funding for security has grown during the past four years. The Oak Ridge warhead plant will spend about $120 million this year on security operations, he said. The latest OA review "clearly demonstrates that we are making major improvements in security at Y-12," Wyatt said. Peter Stockton, senior investigator with the Project On Government Oversight, said he was not familiar with the recent OA results at Y-12, but he said previous tests have identified plenty of security problems. One such test indicated terrorists could penetrate Y-12's fences and get inside critical buildings at the plant within 45 seconds, Stockton said. He said the Inspector General report identified some of the same Y-12 problems that POGO has been preaching about for months, including overworked guards. "Fatigue is a huge problem," he said. Burleson and other Oak Ridge officials said the union contract, supported by a DOE order, allows Y-12 guards to work up to 76 hours a week. Stockton called that a bizarre arrangement and said guards who worked that many hours would be walking around like zombies. Even if guards want to work that many hours to make overtime money, that shouldn't be allowed because it's a threat to national security, he said. "If they come under withering fire and they're not emotionally set for that, they're going to have a hell of a time (against terrorists)," he said. There simply aren't enough security forces at Oak Ridge, the analyst said. Burleson said Wackenhut currently has about 500 guards at Y-12, with plans to increase that to about 700. Wyatt offered similar figures, saying the plan was to go from 520 to 650 in the next couple of years. There also are plans expand the overall guard force in Oak Ridge to about 1,000, with beefed up numbers at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the East Tennessee Technology Park - a former uranium-processing plant. Stockton said Y-12 is probably the biggest concern of all U.S. nuclear facilities because it houses such a huge stockpile of highly enriched uranium. The exact amount of bomb-grade material is classified, but he estimated it at between 400 and 500 metric tons. "I do not think it is safe," Stockton said. The POGO investigator said he believes Y-12 guards would be "dog meat" if forced to go up against some the terrorist scenarios presented in the government's new "design basis threat," a planning document that's based on the latest intelligence. Federal nuclear facilities, such as Y-12, are required to upgrade their protective capabilities to meet terrorist threats of the future. "The threat has gone up both in the number of adversaries and their capabilities," Brumley said. "Anybody can look at the events of 9/11 and understand that." Details of the threat planning are classified, however. "We simply don't want to tell people the numbers of people or capabilities on which we're postulating our defense," the federal official said. "That would be the dumbest thing we could do." Dennis Ruddy, president and general manager of BWXT, the government's contractor at Y-12, said the Oak Ridge plant is in good shape to comply with the new security requirements. There is a 2006 deadline for some changes, and another deadline in 2008, he said. Y-12 is greatly enhancing its security operations by building a new hardened storage center to consolidate the stockpile of highly enriched uranium, Ruddy said. Construction of that facility won't be completed until 2008, but Y-12 will meet security needs in the interim by boosting the number of guards, improving their weapons, and making "physical changes" to existing buildings, he said. "There are some places on the site that we couldn't harden enough to protect (against a full-fledged terrorist attack), so we're relocating things so that we can guard them better, so that they're in a more central location in the plant," Ruddy said. BWXT a couple of years ago began stacking boxes of low-level radioactive waste around key facilities, bulking up the barriers against armed intruders. Brumley said these waste "forts" are an effective defense, and he suggested more are in the offing. "It is possible that the use of the boxes are barriers may expanded, but it is not appropriate to be more specific about future security features," Wyatt said. "These same boxes are also used to address current needs for material storage, with the result that we do have a sufficient supply to meet any needs for use as barriers." Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329. ---- Y-12 safe, official says Federal manager at plant disputes recent critical security reports By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com July 4, 2005 Knoxville News-Sentinel http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/local_news/article/0,1406,KNS_347_3902011,00.html OAK RIDGE - Bill Brumley, federal manager at the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant, offers an unequivocal response to the plant's critics and naysayers: "Y-12 is safe. It is secure." The Oak Ridge complex houses what may be the world's largest collection of bomb-making uranium. There have been persistent reports raising questions - and doubts - about the plant's ability to protect those nuclear assets from terrorists. Brumley said he knows better. "Our protective force execution is outstanding," he said. "There may be people who have other agendas at work, and I just cannot get sucked into that. I just worry about the day-to-day protection of SNM (special nuclear material). That's something I personally take very seriously. I spend time in the plant and around the plant, and my folks are looking at the issues on a technical basis. I can assure you that the material we have here is extraordinarily well protected." The latest criticism came from the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Inspector General, which issued a report last week. Inspectors raised concerns about "excessive" overtime, saying Y-12 security police officers routinely worked more than 60 hours a week. The report also criticized aspects of the Oak Ridge training program. The IG said guards got credit for training never received and that some training elements - such as refresher work on combat readiness - were below standards or expectations. The National Nuclear Security Administration and its security contractor, Wackenhut Services Inc., defended the Oak Ridge efforts and criticized the critics. Jean Burleson, Wackenhut's general manager, said the IG inspectors were a bunch of accountants and "bean counters" who didn't understand security practices. More meaningful, he said, were the results of a comprehensive security review at Y-12 conducted recently by DOE's Office of Independent Oversight and Performance Assurance, known as OA. "We came out 'green,' highest in all areas," Burleson said. Yellow and red markers are used to identify security weaknesses or vulnerabilities, he said. According to Burleson, there were 207 different security tests, ranging from recognition of special nuclear materials to firearms capabilities to protective force exercises. "We came out above 90 percent every time," Burleson said. "They (the OA team) said it was the best they'd ever seen." Brumley said he couldn't discuss details because the assessment report is still in draft form. But he said he was pleased with the results. Steven Wyatt, a spokesman for the NNSA, said federal funding for security has grown during the past four years. The Oak Ridge warhead plant will spend about $120 million this year on security operations, he said. The latest OA review "clearly demonstrates that we are making major improvements in security at Y-12," Wyatt said. Peter Stockton, senior investigator with the Project On Government Oversight, said he was not familiar with the recent OA results at Y-12, but he said previous tests have identified plenty of security problems. One such test indicated terrorists could penetrate Y-12's fences and get inside critical buildings at the plant within 45 seconds, Stockton said. He said the Inspector General report identified some of the same Y-12 problems that POGO has been preaching about for months, including overworked guards. "Fatigue is a huge problem," he said. Burleson and other Oak Ridge officials said the union contract, supported by a DOE order, allows Y-12 guards to work up to 76 hours a week. Stockton called that a bizarre arrangement and said guards who worked that many hours would be walking around like zombies. Even if guards want to work that many hours to make overtime money, that shouldn't be allowed because it's a threat to national security, he said. "If they come under withering fire and they're not emotionally set for that, they're going to have a hell of a time (against terrorists)," he said. There simply aren't enough security forces at Oak Ridge, the analyst said. Burleson said Wackenhut currently has about 500 guards at Y-12, with plans to increase that to about 700. Wyatt offered similar figures, saying the plan was to go from 520 to 650 in the next couple of years. There also are plans expand the overall guard force in Oak Ridge to about 1,000, with beefed up numbers at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the East Tennessee Technology Park - a former uranium-processing plant. Stockton said Y-12 is probably the biggest concern of all U.S. nuclear facilities because it houses such a huge stockpile of highly enriched uranium. The exact amount of bomb-grade material is classified, but he estimated it at between 400 and 500 metric tons. "I do not think it is safe," Stockton said. The POGO investigator said he believes Y-12 guards would be "dog meat" if forced to go up against some the terrorist scenarios presented in the government's new "design basis threat," a planning document that's based on the latest intelligence. Federal nuclear facilities, such as Y-12, are required to upgrade their protective capabilities to meet terrorist threats of the future. "The threat has gone up both in the number of adversaries and their capabilities," Brumley said. "Anybody can look at the events of 9/11 and understand that." Details of the threat planning are classified, however. "We simply don't want to tell people the numbers of people or capabilities on which we're postulating our defense," the federal official said. "That would be the dumbest thing we could do." Dennis Ruddy, president and general manager of BWXT, the government's contractor at Y-12, said the Oak Ridge plant is in good shape to comply with the new security requirements. There is a 2006 deadline for some changes, and another deadline in 2008, he said. Y-12 is greatly enhancing its security operations by building a new hardened storage center to consolidate the stockpile of highly enriched uranium, Ruddy said. Construction of that facility won't be completed until 2008, but Y-12 will meet security needs in the interim by boosting the number of guards, improving their weapons, and making "physical changes" to existing buildings, he said. "There are some places on the site that we couldn't harden enough to protect (against a full-fledged terrorist attack), so we're relocating things so that we can guard them better, so that they're in a more central location in the plant," Ruddy said. BWXT a couple of years ago began stacking boxes of low-level radioactive waste around key facilities, bulking up the barriers against armed intruders. Brumley said these waste "forts" are an effective defense, and he suggested more are in the offing. "It is possible that the use of the boxes are barriers may expanded, but it is not appropriate to be more specific about future security features," Wyatt said. "These same boxes are also used to address current needs for material storage, with the result that we do have a sufficient supply to meet any needs for use as barriers." Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329. -------- texas One town's nuclear option In far West Texas, flagging oil town of Andrews eagerly embraces nation's radioactive waste. By Mark Lisheron AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF Monday, July 04, 2005 http://www.statesman.com/metrostate/content/metro/stories/07/4andrews.html ANDREWS — Texas 176 between Andrews and the New Mexico border is lush with yellow wildflowers, the gift of 40 inches of rainfall after a decade of drought. In the ranch fields on either side, long-idle pumps have been jolted to life by $50-a-barrel oil. This is a place where roadside signs warn of poison gas drifting from the wells, and they say you can't go to a party without seeing someone missing a digit or a limb. Folks here learned long ago to live with danger, to enjoy spring flowers and oil's prosperity, because neither will be around long. The business of nuclear waste, on the other hand, will almost certainly be here long after all 10,000 people living in Andrews have passed on. Over the next year, Andrews County will welcome tons of nuclear waste for storage and eventual burial. Near the border, about 30 miles from downtown Andrews, is the city's most coveted economic gambit, Waste Control Specialists. On an asphalt slab 600 feet by 600 feet, surrounded by more than 1,300 exhaustively permitted and licensed acres, radioactive waste encased in concrete and carbon steel will be temporarily stored. If Waste Control Specialists gets the proper permits, the Dallas-based company will become the first in the country licensed to profit from burying and guarding nuclear waste. There might be danger in this new venture, but people here say they've carefully assessed it. For Andrews, the exchange is waste for jobs. Waste Control will bring at least 110 of them: many college-educated people, the kind who made up the middle class in Andrews when big oil ruled. With any luck, people here think, spinoff businesses and university research will follow. In good times or in bad, this is a community proud of not looking for a handout, of doing for itself, of contributing to the commonweal. There is little exaggeration in the road sign welcoming people that says, "Andrews Loves God, Country & Supports Free Enterprise." "As hokey and idealistic as it sounds, this community has a feeling that we have provided a solution to a true state and national problem," Andrews City Manager Glen Hackler said. It's no surprise to hear the city manager tout a new business opportunity. But the Ol' Soreheads approve, too. The self-described group of retired oil men and ranchers who take over the boardroom of the Commercial State Bank every morning, drink the bank's Folgers out of little styrofoam cups and hold forth, express views of the waste site typical around here. There has been almost no opposition. "I think it's good for us and good for the whole nation," said Kenneth Martin, 76, who came to Andrews looking for an oil job in 1956. Going on faith The first shipment — two carbon steel cylinders, each nearly 7 feet high and weighing nearly 10 tons — arrived by flatbed truck in the humid, mosquito-ridden early morning of June 8. It had traveled more than 1,300 miles over two days from Fernald, Ohio. Inside each cylinder, encased in concrete, were radioactive tailings, waste that piled up in Fernald from 1952 to 1989, when the U.S. Department of Energy made weapons-grade uranium there. The drums will continue to arrive two at a time, 80 trailers a week, more than 3,000 deliveries in all over the next 10 to 11 months. Fluor Corp., the contractor that developed this encasement, is paying Waste Control Specialists $7.5 million to store the cylinders aboveground on the asphalt slab until the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and the Texas Department of State Health Services approve permits to bury them in chambers hollowed out of a red clay so fine and impermeable that it is like rock. If the burial permits do not come through, federal and state officials say, the waste can sit safely on the slab for years until another site is found. The red clay bed at the site ranges from 400 to 800 feet thick beneath a shallow layer of caliche, one of the best natural waste disposal sites in the country, according to Tom Jones, the general manager of the Waste Control operation in Andrews. Although state regulators are still weighing the permit applications, Susan Jablonski, a radioactive waste specialist for the environmental commission, said the proposal "is very reasonable." As the first load was tested for radioactivity, Jones posed for photographs in front of the flatbed with various local officials, including County Judge Richard Dolgener, the only person in a suit and tie, and Len Wilson, the former city manager who helped bring Waste Control to Andrews in the early 1990s. Company officials saw a very hopeful sign in the presence of Richard Ratliff, radiation program officer for the Department of State Health Services. "They have a good compliance record," Ratliff said. He declined to elaborate on his evaluation for a permit, which should be decided by early 2006. Since the first shipment, Waste Control has posted guards around the clock. Jones said the company will get assistance from the Andrews County sheriff's department and the Department of Homeland Security. Before storage or disposal permits are issued, he said, the state must approve the company's security plan. Because Dolgener spent 26 years with the county sheriff's department, most recently as chief deputy, he has unshakable faith in the government's ability to protect the public. "When you've lived in my world, you believe there are safeguards provided by the government," he said. "You have to trust that. Federal law was passed 25 years ago saying states are responsible for handling this problem. Let Texas be the model for how to do it. Let us be the example." There is defiance in Dolgener's message, a streak you'll find beneath the warm cordiality that greets you everywhere in this part of the country. 'A different world' In the early 1980s, when the public shouted the MX Missile project out of Lubbock and Amarillo, the people of Andrews begged unsuccessfully for the base. "One of the generals leaned over and said to me, 'Are they kidding?' " said Kent Hance, an Austin lawyer and lobbyist who represented Andrews in Congress at the time. "I told the general, 'If you had a missile right here, they'd take one home in the back of a pickup truck.' It's a different world out there." In 1991, when Ken Bigham, a Houston waste operator, was looking for a community that truly wanted a hazardous waste site, Hance steered him to Andrews and became a minority shareholder in the project. When hearings were held on the proposal, hundreds of Andrews residents stood together at the high school's Little Theater in assent. Peggy Pryor kept her seat, devastated by the show of support. "I came home crying. I was furious. I felt like they'd already made up their minds," Pryor said. Pryor has since questioned everything to do with the nuclear waste plan, refusing to meet with company officials who Jones said have offered to answer her questions. "I know, in 20 years, we are going to start to have problems here, and in 50 years, there will be brown fields," Pryor said, sitting on a sofa in the home she shares with her sister. "If they think they can convince me this site is safe, they're wrong. People here have been hoodwinked. I don't know when they'll realize it." The only other local person who has voiced opposition is John Post, whose ranch is 11 miles south of the site. "I believe that the long-term storage and/or disposal of radioactive material at this site is extremely dangerous for the health and well being of future generations," Post wrote to state Rep. Buddy West, R-Odessa. Post has since amended his stance to say he is concerned more about the condition of the nonpotable water on his property that his cattle drink. Rancher Gordon Cox, Post's neighbor and one of the Soreheads, said he shares at least some of Post's uncertainty. "I haven't fought it. I'm not going to fight it. But what happens down the road, 50 years from now? What you have out there is the unknown," Cox said. But Waste Control Specialists has enjoyed almost unanimous community support, Hance said. Even the Andrews Garden Club has endorsed the site. One man's influence It is safe to say that nothing planned for or carried out in Andrews was done without James Roberts' blessing. Before his death in December 1997, Roberts published the Andrews County News and used its editorial pages to drive opinion for a diverse economy to survive. He spent his last six years helping bring Waste Control specialists here. "James Roberts happens to be the godfather of Andrews," said Gary Gaston, a longtime Andrews County judge who now heads the 17-county Permian Basin Regional Planning Commission. "He was constantly talking about and looking for economic opportunities." Roberts had seen what could happen to a community that owes its existence to oil. With World War II and the economic boom that followed, Andrews County became the nation's leading oil producer, filling pipelines with more than 50 million barrels a year, a billion barrels by 1965. About 16,000 people lived in and around Andrews in the 1950s, said Len Wilson, the city manager for 34 years until retiring in 2001. Community leadership came from more than 200 white-collar workers, most of them engineers, posted in offices of major oil companies. Flush with oil money, Andrews developed a first-rate school system, paying teachers well enough to lure them from bigger cities. The community developed a park system and built an airport, Wilson said. During one month in 1961, Andrews opened a hospital, a city hall and a high school, the first in the country with wall-to-wall carpeting, he said. But oil prices dropped and fluctuated for the next 20 years, changing the oil and gas business in Texas. The major oil companies closed their Andrews offices and a well-paid, educated part of the community left. "I'll never forget when I was in high school in the 1960s," said Don Ingram, Roberts' nephew and his successor at the News. "There were like 60 or 70 homes on the northeast side of town, nice ones, vacant. People just up and left." Economic development was fitful. Soliciting subscriptions from local businesses in the 1960s, Andrews raised $100,000 and built a factory. A South Carolina company made smock dresses for such stores as Sears and J.C. Penney, Wilson said. "The miniskirt craze came along and killed the business," Ingram said. It was a few years before Andrews lured the Kirby Vacuum Cleaner Co. and its 250 jobs. Kirby is the county's largest single employer today. The economic uncertainty explains the eagerness for new business, but it would be a mistake to say Andrews is grasping for anything, said Russell Shannon, president of the Bank of Andrews. "This is a community that looked at prison a few years ago and said, 'That's not an industry for us,' " Shannon said. "We aren't saying, 'Oh, woe is me; we're going broke, and we need something to help us out.' " The community did not relax when Waste Control agreed to come. Over the past several years, voters approved a half-cent sales tax that raises $400,000 a year for economic development. The City Council approved $750,000 to get grant money for the $2.7 million Andrews Business and Technology Center, scheduled to start offering vocational classes in January. The city recently reopened a shuttered grocery store as a senior center. New baseball soccer and football fields are being completed, a concrete walkway was just built around reclaimed wetlands, and the city's wastewater holding ponds have been landscaped into a small but lovely bird-watching area. The seed money, $300,000 of it, for these projects came from local taxpayers. "Waste Control is a piece of the economic puzzle, a big piece," said Dee Dee Wallace, the city's director of economic development. Wallace moved back with her family in 2001 after years in Austin and Johnson City because she believes that the people of Andrews possess a special energy. "Is it critically important? I think yes. But a savior? No," she said. But no waste disposal plant job is going to hold Esteban Villafuerte Jr. The valedictorian of this year's Andrews High School senior class is going to Columbia University on scholarships and grants. Like his older sister, one of five who have gone off to big cities to live, Esteban wants to be a doctor. His father works 55 hours a week as a floor hand on oil rigs. He started in the oil business almost 30 years ago after coming to Andrews illegally from Central Mexico. Because his wife, Ermalinda, has had a stroke, he makes dinner each night, still in his work clothes. The Villafuertes have always stressed school, despite knowing that education would almost certainly drive their children away. Ermalinda is pleased that the waste site will bring jobs, but one of them will not go to her son. "I realize they'd like me to, but I don't want to come back," Esteban said, picking at a piece of chicken fried by his father. "Can I cry now?" Ermalinda shot back with good-humored sarcasm. "You're going to do what you're going to do. I've always said let 'em do it." Even if not everyone can stay, Andrews hasn't given up on trying to keep some of its children without forcing them into the oil patch, Ingram said. Had James Roberts lived, Ingram thinks his uncle would be pleased. "As James always said, we can turn a liability into an asset," Ingram said. -------- MILITARY -------- africa Global arms dealers still fuel Congo unrest-report By David Lewis Mon Jul 4, 8:37 PM ET (Reuters) http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050705/wl_nm/congo_arms_report_dc_1 KINSHASA - Weapons and ammunition shipped by a web of international arms traffickers are fueling killings and torture by militia groups in eastern Congo, Amnesty International said on Tuesday. Amnesty said brokers and transporters from countries including the United States, Britain, Israel and Russia were involved in supplying arms to governments around Africa's Great Lakes region, who were then passing them on to the militias. The shipments had continued despite a United Nations arms embargo and an ongoing peace process in Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), the rights group said in a report. "Armed men are still raping, looting and killing civilians as arms deliveries continue," Kolawole Olaniyan, director of Amnesty's Africa program, said in a statement. "If the international community, the U.N. and neighboring states fail to halt this proliferation, the fragile peace process will collapse with disastrous consequences for human rights," he said. The report comes a week before governments, U.N. agencies and non-governmental organizations meet at United Nations headquarters in New York to discuss the small arms trade. Congo's civil war killed around 4 million people, mainly from war-related hunger and disease, in a nation roughly the size of western Europe. It was officially declared over in 2003, having at one point sucked in six countries. Despite a peace deal, the resource-rich nation has seen little economic progress and the government has failed to impose its authority over vast areas of the east, where armed gangs still pillage and kill with impunity. SURPLUS AMMUNITION Eastern Congo has long been a flashpoint in central Africa's volatile Great Lakes region. Uganda warned last month that armed groups based over the border were planning to attack its territory, while Rwanda has invaded Congo twice in the past decade to attack rebels based there, including some from groups involved in its 1994 genocide. "International arms flows into the region have been channelled by powerful agents close to the governments of DRC, Rwanda and Uganda to various armed groups and militia in eastern DRC," said Brian Wood, Amnesty's research manager on the arms and security trade. Amnesty said it had evidence that up to 400 tonnes of mostly surplus Kalashnikov ammunition had been shipped from Albania and Serbia to Rwanda with the involvement of Israeli, Rwandan, South African and British companies since the end of 2002. Among other arms transfers, it said it also had evidence of arms-for-diamonds agreements involving the Congolese government and companies in the Czech Republic, Israel and Ukraine. Many residents in eastern Congo say efforts to stabilize their region are doomed as long as the race for gold and diamonds continues to go unchecked. A British report into gun running in the region in December 2004 said a lack of effective government -- leaving borders and airspace largely unpoliced -- was a key reason why the 2003 U.N. arms embargo had failed so dismally. Amnesty said the U.N. Security Council needed to renew and strengthen the U.N. embargo and impose heavy restrictions on any state found to be exporting weapons to armed groups in eastern Congo. It said airports in the region should be monitored 24 hours a day by U.N. inspectors. -------- britain UK MoD plans Iraq troop withdrawal By Jimmy Burns and Peter Spiegel Published: July 4 2005 22:02 Financial Times http://news.ft.com/cms/s/a1384df4-ecbc-11d9-9d20-00000e2511c8.html The Ministry of Defence has drafted plans for a significant withdrawal of British troops from Iraq over the next 18 months and a big deployment to Afghanistan, the Financial Times has learnt. In what would represent the biggest operational shake-up involving the armed forces since the Iraq war, the first stage of a run-down in military operations is likely to take place this autumn with a handover of security to Iraqis in at least two southern provinces. Defence officials emphasised that all plans for Iraqi deployments were contingent on the ability of domestic security forces to assume peacekeeping duties from UK troops. Iraqi forces have so far proven unable to take over such roles in areas where the insurgency is most intense, and progress has disappointed coalition officials. But senior UK officers believe the four south-east provinces under UK command, which are largely Shia and have not seen the same violence as more Sunni-dominated areas north of Baghdad, may be ready for a handover earlier than those under US command. Any reduction of UK troops could be timed to coincide with plans being developed to deploy a total of up to 3,000 troops to Afghanistan before the end of next year. This deployment would take the lead in a Nato force to take over from US troops in the south of Afghanistan. In that role, the UK forces would help fight insurgents and provide support for the war on narcotics in the region. While the MoD insisted that no decision had been made on Afghan or Iraqi deployments, John Reid, defence secretary, said yesterday that Iraqi forces could begin to take charge of security in their country within a year. In an interview with the BBC Radio 4 Today programme, Mr Reid suggested that plans were consistent with the recent prediction of Donald Rumsfeld, US defence secretary, that it could take take up to 12 years to defeat the Iraqi insurgency. He told the BBC that while the insurgency in Iraq may go on for “some considerable time”, there remained a second question. “Who will lead the security efforts against the insurgency? And I think in a relatively short period of time we can start the process of that being led by the Iraqi security forces themselves,” he said. Mr Reid went on: “So although Donald Rumsfeld may have said, correctly, that this may take years before it is finally completed, that did not imply that all that period will have to be led by the multi-national forces or the British forces. “I personally think that within a year we could begin that transition to the Iraqi forces leading the effort themselves.” It is a view echoed by military commanders. Air Chief Marshall Jock Stirrup, the current Royal Air Force commander who will become chief of the general staff next year, said more stable Iraqi provinces – including those under UK command – were likely to be handed over to local security forces more quickly than first thought. By next April, a best case scenario would see current troops levels of 8,500 reduced to about 4,000-5,000, with a further cut in the period leading to the first quarter of 2007, when the British military presence is expected to fall to about 1,000 advisers and training personnel. Additional reporting by Victoria Burnett in Kabul --------- mideast Egypt: Civil Society Groups Severely Restricted Government Must End Role of Security Services in Policing NGOs July 4, 2005 Human Rights Watch http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2005/07/04/egypt11217.htm (Cairo, July 4, 2005) — Civil society groups in Egypt face severe restrictions under the law governing nongovernmental organizations, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. In addition, the country’s security services scrutinize and harass civil society activists even though the law does not accord them any such powers. If people cannot form civil society organizations and run them without heavy state interference, the chances of developing a functioning democracy will shrink. Joe Stork, deputy director of the Middle East and North Africa division at Human Rights Watch The 45-page report, “Margins of Repression: State Limits on Nongovernmental Organization Activism,” discusses the impact of the law governing associations, Law 84/2002, which came into effect in June 2003. The report concludes that the most serious barrier to meaningful freedom of association in Egypt is the extra-legal role of the security services. Human Rights Watch documented numerous cases where the security services rejected NGO registrations, decided who could serve on NGO boards of directors, harassed NGO activists, and interfered with donations reaching the groups. Although Law 84/2002 is an improvement over the previous law, its provisions—and the broad and arbitrary way it is applied—violate Egypt’s international legal obligations to uphold freedom of association. The law prohibits political and union-related activity, and allows the authorities to dissolve organizations by administrative order. It continues a host of intrusive administrative practices that stunt organizing by civil society groups, and provide ample means for state interference in their affairs. “There is a difference between ensuring that civil society groups are accountable to the public and enhancing the state’s power to police and stifle the work of these groups,” said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “Egypt’s laws and practices fall squarely in the latter category.” Human Rights Watch called on the government to amend Law 84/2002 to make NGO registration voluntary and abolish penalties for participating in unregistered NGOs. The authorities should also remove all restrictions on peaceful activities that amount to the exercise of freedom of expression, freedom of association, and freedom to participate in public life. “Government regulations should help citizens to form groups, raise money, and carry out needed work,” Stork said. “If people cannot form civil society organizations and run them without heavy state interference, the chances of developing a functioning democracy will shrink.” The Egyptian government has no legitimate interest in choosing who can sit on a board of directors, approving invitations to conferences, or reviewing minutes of meetings and deciding how often executive committees can meet, Human Rights Watch said. -------- ACTIVISTS Peace caravan will challenge U.S. blockade of Cuba Portsmouth Herald July 4, 2005 http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/07042005/news/51017.htm PORTSMOUTH - On Tuesday at 7 p.m., the Pastors for Peace Caravan to Cuba will make a stop in the city. Miguel Hammond, who has been on several caravans and has Cuban-American roots, will speak to the work of Pastors For Peace. Local activist Michael Murray will briefly discuss his recent trip to Cuba with Witness for Peace. Seacoast Peace Response is sponsoring this event at the Unitarian-Universalist (South) Church, 292 State St. This is the Pastors for Peace 16th Nonviolent Challenge to the U.S. Blockade of Cuba. Hundreds of Pastors for Peace volunteers from the United States and seven foreign countries will challenge the U.S. blockade and travel restrictions against Cuba at the U.S.-Mexico border on July 21. They expect to collect 200 tons of humanitarian aid during a two-week caravan across the United States before going to Cuba. "As people of faith and conscience, it is our duty to resist and condemn this cruel U.S. policy," said the Rev. Lucius Walker Jr., executive director and founder of Interreligious Foundation for Community Organization, a 36-year old ecumenical agency. "IFCO/Pastors for Peace rejects this licensing system as both immoral and illegal. "It is immoral because it endangers the lives of millions of Cubans and inflicts suffering on innocent children, as well as adults. It is illegal under international law because it uses medicine and food as weapons of war to force another nation to change its government," Walker said. "Licensing is also unconstitutional because it requires people of faith to submit their acts of conscience and friendship to government licensing, in violation of our right to freedom of religious expression, political thought, association and travel." The caravan will traverse 14 routes across the country and stop in all 48 mainland states. Along the way, the caravan will be hosted in 130 communities. This year, members of those communities have collected aid for Cubans with special needs. Since 1992, Pastors for Peace has used hunger strikes and mass mobilizations to successfully challenge U.S. government attempts to confiscate vehicles and humanitarian aid bound for Cuba, according to a press release from the group. The ecumenical initiative is a project of IFCO, the Interreligious Foundation for Community Organization, and has delivered more than 2,350 tons of urgently needed assistance to the Cuban people without seeking a U.S. Treasury license. Financial donations for the caravan will be accepted. For more information, contact Amy Antonucci at amyla44@juno.com or 750-7506. For more information on this event, upcoming events and Seacoast Peace Response, visit http://www.seacoastpeaceresponse.org. ---- Earth Day Founder Gaylord Nelson Dead at 89 Story by Bill Trott REUTERS USA: July 4, 2005 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/31502/story.htm WASHINGTON - Former Wisconsin Senator Gaylord Nelson, who founded Earth Day 35 years ago to propagate his lifelong devotion to the environment, died at his home early on Sunday. Nelson, 89, whose congressional legacy included environmental measures such as the 1964 Wilderness Act and a stand against the Vietnam War, had been suffering from cardiovascular disease, according to his family. Nelson, a Democrat, served three terms in the Senate before losing a 1980 election. After that, he joined the Wilderness Society as a counselor, although his daughter, Tia Nelson, referred to his job as "resident pontificator." "He had an extraordinary sense of humor and an extraordinary commitment to public service all his life," she said. "He was a great raconteur. Nobody could tell a story like he could. He had a life of commitment and public service, all done with a great sense of humor." In giving Nelson the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian award, in 1995, President Bill Clinton said: "As the father of Earth Day, he is the grandfather of all that grew out of that event: the Environmental Protection Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act." Nelson said her father continued to work at the Wilderness Society until March. "When someone asked why he still went to work, he said, 'Because the job's not done,'" she said. Nelson was born in Clear Lake, Wisconsin, and developed a love of the outdoors at an early age. After serving in the Army in Okinawa during World War II, he returned to Wisconsin, serving in the state senate and as governor, always with an emphasis on environmental issues. Nelson managed to push the environment into the national spotlight with the first Earth Day on April 22, 1970, and it has become an annual event that has spread around the globe. Writing for the Wilderness Society earlier this year, Nelson said his goal for the first Earth Day was to wed the public's environmental concerns with the energy of the student anti-war movement. He was surprised that it brought out 20 million Americans to take part in recycling programs, clean-up efforts and other environmental work. "Earth Day worked because of the spontaneous response at the grass-roots level," he said. "We had neither the time nor resources to organize 20 million demonstrators and the thousands of schools and local communities that participated. That was the remarkable thing about Earth Day. It organized itself." In the Senate Nelson had key roles in the 1964 Wilderness Act and in legislation banning the pesticide DDT, preserving the Appalachian trail corridor and creating a national hiking trail network. He also worked for automotive fuel efficiency standards and against strip mining. Tia Nelson said a public memorial service would be held in about a week at the Capitol rotunda in Madison, Wisconsin, followed by a family service at a cemetery in Clear Lake. Nelson's survivors include his wife, Carrie Lee Nelson of Kensington, Maryland, whom he met when she was an Army nurse. The relationship was chronicled in Tom Brokaw's book "The Greatest Generation." ---- Peace caravan will challenge U.S. blockade of Cuba Mon. July 4, 2005 Portsmouth NH Herald http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/07042005/news/51017.htm PORTSMOUTH - On Tuesday at 7 p.m., the Pastors for Peace Caravan to Cuba will make a stop in the city. Miguel Hammond, who has been on several caravans and has Cuban-American roots, will speak to the work of Pastors For Peace. Local activist Michael Murray will briefly discuss his recent trip to Cuba with Witness for Peace. Seacoast Peace Response is sponsoring this event at the Unitarian-Universalist (South) Church, 292 State St. This is the Pastors for Peace 16th Nonviolent Challenge to the U.S. Blockade of Cuba. Hundreds of Pastors for Peace volunteers from the United States and seven foreign countries will challenge the U.S. blockade and travel restrictions against Cuba at the U.S.-Mexico border on July 21. They expect to collect 200 tons of humanitarian aid during a two-week caravan across the United States before going to Cuba. "As people of faith and conscience, it is our duty to resist and condemn this cruel U.S. policy," said the Rev. Lucius Walker Jr., executive director and founder of Interreligious Foundation for Community Organization, a 36-year old ecumenical agency. "IFCO/Pastors for Peace rejects this licensing system as both immoral and illegal. "It is immoral because it endangers the lives of millions of Cubans and inflicts suffering on innocent children, as well as adults. It is illegal under international law because it uses medicine and food as weapons of war to force another nation to change its government," Walker said. "Licensing is also unconstitutional because it requires people of faith to submit their acts of conscience and friendship to government licensing, in violation of our right to freedom of religious expression, political thought, association and travel." The caravan will traverse 14 routes across the country and stop in all 48 mainland states. Along the way, the caravan will be hosted in 130 communities. This year, members of those communities have collected aid for Cubans with special needs. Since 1992, Pastors for Peace has used hunger strikes and mass mobilizations to successfully challenge U.S. government attempts to confiscate vehicles and humanitarian aid bound for Cuba, according to a press release from the group. The ecumenical initiative is a project of IFCO, the Interreligious Foundation for Community Organization, and has delivered more than 2,350 tons of urgently needed assistance to the Cuban people without seeking a U.S. Treasury license. Financial donations for the caravan will be accepted. For more information, contact Amy Antonucci at amyla44@juno.com or 750-7506. For more information on this event, upcoming events and Seacoast Peace Response, visit www.seacoastpeaceresponse.org. ---- 2,000 in nuclear demo July 4, 2005 IC Scotland http://icscotland.icnetwork.co.uk/news/scottish/tm_objectid=15698950&method=full&siteid=50141&headline=2-000-in-nuclear-demo-name_page.html Protesters campaigning against nuclear weapons have ended their demonstration at Faslane naval base on the Clyde. Organisers CND and Trident Ploughshares said 2,000 people travelled to the base to protest against the amount of money spent by G8 countries on weapons. Protest organisers praised the police, who they said had remained good-natured throughout the demonstration. ---- Anti-nuke protest in Scotland (AP) Monday, July 4, 2005; Posted: 4:38 a.m. EDT (08:38 GMT) http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/04/g8.naval.protest.ap/ FASLANE, Scotland -- Anti-nuclear campaigners on Monday massed outside the major naval base for Britain's nuclear-armed Trident submarine fleet, in a protest timed to coincide with the G8 summit. About 450 activists sat in the road, blocking the entrance to the Clyde Naval Base in rural western Scotland. Some waved rainbow peace flags, and many carried placards reading "No War, No Nukes." A samba band added a carnival atmosphere. "It is vitally important that people make the link between the industrial war machine and the poverty that so many people are suffering from around the world," said protester Jenny Gaiawyn, 26. "If the workers here cannot get to work, then it will slow down part of the machine." Dozens of buses packed with demonstrators traveled from the Scottish capital Edinburgh and from Glasgow and other towns across Scotland for the protest, dubbed the "big blockade." An annual event, the protest this year has been billed as one of the major demonstrations ahead of the Group of Eight industrialized nations summit which begins Wednesday. "We went to war in Iraq on the pretext that they had weapons of mass destruction. At the same time we have weapons of mass destruction just a few yards from here," said Maureen Jack, a member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, standing in front of the four-meter (13-foot) high fence topped with razor wire that runs around the base. "I invite Prime Minister Tony Blair to take a stand for peace and security by dismantling our nuclear weapons program," she added. Yoshi Maruta, originally from Japan, gently tapped what she said was a celestial Buddhist peace drum as she stood outside the gate in front of a line of police officers. "We had the experience of Hiroshima," she said. "With many nuclear weapons millions of people will be killed. We want to close this base down so people can live peacefully." Sally Williams, who had traveled from her home in Horsham, south of London, for the demonstration, said Britain's nuclear submarines represented a "dreadful threat." "How can we press Iran not to go ahead with a WMD program when we've got our own? This is a real threat to everybody," Williams said. ---- MAKE POVERTY HISTORY: FASLANE NUCLEAR PROTEST ARRESTS Jul 5 2005 UK Daily Record http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=15700461&method=full&siteid=89488&headline=make-poverty-history--faslane-nuclear-protest-arrests--name_page.html ANTI-NUCLEAR protesters marched on the Faslane Naval Base on the Clyde yesterday. Only a fraction of the thousands expected turned up to stage a sit-down at the base, the home of Britain's Trident nuclear subs. Security was tight, with several hundred police positioned along the length of the base's perimeter fence. But the demo took on a carnival atmosphere as folk bands played protest tunes and marchers in dinner suits enjoyed cocktails. Up to 15,000 had been expected to take part, but the Navy estimated numbers at just 550 while the organisers put it at 2000. Politicians, an adviser to former UN weapons inspector Hans Blix and former CND leader and churchman Bruce Kent joined the march. Busloads of protesters from across Scotland, the UK and Europe had set off at first light and as they neared Helensburgh, their number plates were checked by police. Officers in fluorescent yellow jackets formed a guard in front of the base's three main entrances. But fears of widespread violence were unfounded and only four protesters was arrested after scaling fences at the base. One of them, 33-year-old Johnny Barton from Aberchirder, Aberdeenshire, sat on top of a fence for over six hours as officers waited on the ground to arrest him. Both sides claimed victory on the day. A demo spokesman said: 'We have closed the base and let people know the government wants to replace Trident with new nuclear submarines.' But a Royal Navy spokesman said: 'We are still operating and have two subs at Faslane today.' SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon said: 'We're not happy to live in a world where millions do not have enough to eat while they're spending billions on nuclear weapons. It is obscene -------- Protestors clash with police, blockade British base ahead of G8 summit EDINBURGH (AFP) Jul 04, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050704202921.6fgwwfct.html Protesters turned up the heat ahead of this week's Group of Eight summit in Scotland, clashing with police in Edinburgh and blocking the gates of Britain's main nuclear submarine base. Anarchists and anti-globalization demonstrators in the Scottish capital pelted police with stones, bottles and wooden and metal bars after ripping apart public benches, leading police to make 60 arrests. Police also detained four people at Faslane naval base, where more than 700 mainly young protesters -- dancing, beating drums, or lying on the pavement -- blocked the gates in and out of the facility. The protests heightened fears of violent confrontation on the streets when leaders of the world's top industrialised nations convene at the secluded Gleneagles golf resort from Wednesday. Some 20 police officers and demonstrators were injured in Edinburgh, none of them seriously, said police, who put the number of protesters at about By nightfall -- when the roads began to clear and police started to pull out -- three people were still in hospital. "Their agenda was not lawful protest, this was about bringing disruption," said Tom Halpin, assistant chief constable of Lothian/Borders Police. He said outbreaks of disorder broke out around the Princes Street shopping area of the city during the day, prompting the police to respond in a "robust and proportionate" manner. Halpin said police were "facing a hard core of determined activists, supported by hangers-on. Large numbers have been facing up to the police, they are clearly organised and co-ordinated." Substantiating these words, officers at the scene recovered maps, radios, mobile telephones and weapons, including stones and staves and other missiles which have been thrown at police officers. "There is evidence of weapons being brought into the city centre by protesters, despite their apparent outward display of good humour," said Halpin, adding that key ringleaders had been arrested. "Our police officers have behaved in a measured and professional way, despite extreme provocation and indeed violence," he said. Riot police had been on alert for the protests, which took place two days after more than 200,000 marched peacefully in Edinburgh to demand robust G8 initiatives to counter poverty in Africa. More than 10,000 police, many imported from other parts of Britain, are deployed at Gleneagles and elsewhere in Scotland this week in the biggest security operation ever mounted in Britain for an international summit. "This protest is about anti-militarism and the G8," spokeswoman Ruth Tanner of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament told AFP at the main North Gate of Faslane, home of the Royal Navy's Trident-toting strategic submarines. "Ninety percent of arms dealing comes out of G8 countries. You can't make promises about poverty when you're pumping so much into arms," Tanner said, alluding to Prime Minister Tony Blair's desire to see the Gleneagles summit produce an agreement on African aid, trade and debt. A Ministry of Defence spokesman called the protest, under partly sunny skies, "much more low key than we expected". "The reason I'm doing this is to raise awareness about the scandalous spending on Trident nuclear weapons," said Johnny Barton, 33, who spent all day sitting uncomfortably atop Faslane's 10-foot (three-metre) perimeter fence. He was arrested upon descending for breaching the peace, but soon released -- much to the cheers of his fellow demonstrators. Three other people were arrested for jumping over the fence into the less-secure oil depot area -- a 24-year-old male and two young women who told AFP they were from Sweden. This week's summit of G8 countries -- Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United States -- is to discuss joint steps to combat extreme poverty in Africa as well as ways to deal with climate change. Four Vanguard-class nuclear submarines which carry Trident missiles are based at Faslane, on the Clyde estuary. Some 9,000 Royal Navy personnel, civilian defense workers and subcontractors work there. Literally hundreds have been arrested at previous Faslane protests for attaching themselves to the gates of the base in acts of "direct action" and civil disobedience. ---- Four arrested in nuclear protest Two protesters have so far scaled fences at Faslane naval base July 4, 2005 (BBC) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/4647707.stm#startcontent Photo of fence jumper: http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41263000/jpg/_41263723_manfencepa203300.jpg Four people have been arrested during a blockade at the home of the UK's Trident nuclear submarine fleet on the west coast of Scotland. Organisers said 2,000 people were involved in the demonstration at the Faslane naval base on the Clyde. Police put the number at between 600 and 700. The protest was organised to highlight links between militarisation, war and world poverty ahead of the G8 summit. It was the eighth of its kind at the base since 2000. As the blockade began a trumpet player sounded a mournful note but as the crowds began to gather, drummers took over and tried to create more of a carnival atmosphere. The event at the base 30 miles west of Glasgow was organised by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) and Trident Ploughshares. It was supported by groups such as the Campaign Against Arms Trade, Stop The War Coalition and G8 Alternatives. Picnicking for peace at Faslane protest Organisers estimated the number present at about 2,000 split between the base's north and south gates. If their numbers are correct, it would be exceed the previous highest turnout of 1,000 for a protest which took place in 2001. However, police gave a lower estimate. Politicians who took part included Green MEP for south east England, Caroline Lucas, along with Green, Scottish Socialist Party and Scottish National Party Members of the Scottish Parliament. 'Useless instruments CND vice-president Bruce Kent, who was at the protest, explained the reasoning behind the blockade. "What we're saying is that to spend money on these illegal and useless instruments is really ridiculous when you talk about poverty in the world," he said. "I'm sure that there are many people who would agree with what we're doing here today. "It's a serious demonstration to point out that we're spending a trillion dollars a year on weapons and the poor are starving in the world - that's the message." SSP MSP Tommy Sheridan was one of the first to sit down outside the north gate. He said: "The message to G8 leaders is quite simple - if you are serious about saving millions of lives then stop spending £646bn a year on arms and start spending the money on food, medicine and clothing. "That way, we can stop 50,000 humans a day from dying prematurely. "These weapons are the most expensive scrap metal in the world because they won't be used. If they were used, the planet itself would be destroyed." 'WMDs on our doorstep' Deputy leader of the Scottish National Party Nicola Sturgeon said: "We have got some of the most powerful guys in the world meeting in our country and I think it is important to let them know that people in Scotland find it immoral that we are living in a world where millions of people don't have enough to eat and yet we have very expensive weapons of mass destruction on our own doorstep." Chris Ballance MSP, Greens speaker on nuclear issues, said: "It has been a very successful day so far and there is a very positive atmosphere. "Our aim has been to expose the unacceptability of militarism and nuclear weapons, and we have been successful in doing that." --- Sitting on the fence: G8 protester answers nature's call FASLANE, Scotland (AFP) Jul 04, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050704180009.nz20uj4q.html Sitting atop the fence that rings the home of Britain's nuclear submarine fleet, Johnny Barton learned there can be more important things that outrage against the world's deadliest weapons. Like answering the call of nature. "Does anybody know a discreet way of having a pee up here?" cried Barton, 33, to the boisterous crowd of fellow protesters below him at the Faslane naval base, after a couple of uncomfortable hours on his awkward perch. More than 700 people virtually shut down the base -- home of the deep-sea subs that carry Britain's nuclear Trident missiles -- as part of a series of protests ahead of the Group of Eight rich nations' summit at Gleneagles. Solutions for Barton's predicament, steeped in laughter, were quick to be heard, together with a lively debate on the legality of urinating onto the military side of the fence, or onto the civilian sidewalk outside. Option two posed the distinct risk of giving a golden shower to the poker-faced police officers who stood between the chain-link fence and the 250-odd demonstrators at Faslane's oil depot. Ingenuity finally prevailed, as Barton, from Aberdeen on Scotland's east coast, careful not to cut himself on the barbed wire atop the 10-foot (three-metre) fence, covered his modesty with a tartan wool jacket. With a demonstrator adding extra privacy with a US flag defaced with the words "Make Imperialism History", Barton made best use of a couple of paper cups, then discreetly emptied the contents on the inside of the fence. "This is street theatre at his best," he declared, to cheers all around. In an impromptu interview with AFP as the protesters took a break from drumming and dancing, Barton -- sporting a three-day beard, jeans and maroon sweater -- spoke for many when he expressed his disgust at nuclear weapons. "The reason I'm doing this is to raise awareness about the scandalous spending at this time every year on Trident nuclear weapons," he said, noting that Britain spends 1.5 billions pounds (2.6 billion dollars) a year on the sea-going missiles. Such spending was ludicrous in the context of the G8 leaders discussing ways to deal with climate change and poverty in Africa at their three-day summit that begins Wednesday, he said. "I'm not affiliated with any group or organisation," said Barton, who did however become a card-carrying member of the Scottish Green Party whilst literally sitting on the fence. "I'm a British citizen. I'm one of many opposed to nuclear weapons. They cost too much. They're too dangerous. And they are illegal." Barton spent the entire day on the fence, before descending -- to protesters' cries of "Let him go!" -- to be arrested for breaching the peace, a common-law offence in Scotland. He was later released, police said. Over at Faslane's main north gate, a morning of almost non-stop drumming and freestyle dancing was interrupted at mid-day by the saying of mass by David Platt, a retired vicar and longtime Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament activist. "We pray for those (Royal Navy sailors) on the other side of the fence... May God's light shine upon them and give them peace and understanding in their hearts," he said, before leading a solemn recital of "The Lord's Prayer".