NucNews - July 7, 2005


-------- NUCLEAR 

Hot idea: Fight warming with nuclear power
Bush takes message to Group of 8; some activists listening

By Miguel Llanos
Reporter MSNBC
Updated: 2:54 p.m. ET July 7, 2005
 
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8120563/

When it comes to global warming, President Bush's refusal to endorse mandatory action means he is largely isolated on the world stage. But when the curtain rose at the Group of Eight summit on Wednesday, he was poised to tout a climate strategy shared by some peers, and more surprisingly, by a few environmentalists: nuclear power.

Nuclear power's downsides are well known: the potential for meltdowns, the question of how to safely store radioactive waste and the dangers of  plutonium reaching terrorists' hands.

But Bush, as well as British Prime Minister Tony Blair, host of the G8 summit, has been stressing a positive quality of nuclear power: the fact that it doesn't burn fossil fuel and therefore produces no carbon dioxide emissions, a key greenhouse gas that many scientists tie to global warming.

"It's time for this country to start building nuclear power plants again," the president said in a televised appearance in June at the Calvert Cliffs nuclear plant in Maryland. Nuclear power still produces 20 percent of the total U.S. electricity, but the Nuclear Regulatory Commission estimates that 100 new reactors would be needed over 20 years just to maintain that share.

"Nuclear power is one of America's safest sources of energy," Bush added, all "without producing a single pound of air pollution and greenhouse gases.

The president has made similar pitches in recent months, and the message appears to be getting some traction.

"The growing pressure to confront global warming and reduce greenhouse gas emissions has breathed new life into zero-emissions nuclear power like nothing else," says Dan Esty, director of the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, which commissions an annual survey on Americans' energy attitudes.

Now, even some environmentalists are breaking the ranks that formed after the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979 and the Chernobyl disaster in 1986. They say that the warming threat is so serious and so widespread that nuclear power should be reconsidered.

A few venture even further, saying it's time to ramp up nuclear power.

Ex-hippie fuels debate

Stewart Brand, a one-time hippie and founder of the Whole Earth Catalog, stirred the pot with his "Environmental Heresies" essay in the May issue of Technology Review magazine.

"The only technology ready to fill the gap and stop carbon dioxide loading of the atmosphere is nuclear power," he wrote.

Energy conservation and renewable energy are "still key" strategies, Brand told MSNBC.com. "The only issue is that it's not really enough."

Mainstream environmentalists "treat nuclear as if it is a trade-off against conservation" — use less energy and nuclear won't be needed, he said.

"But it's really a trade-off against burning coal," Brand said. By ramping up nuclear, he said, nations can phase out coal, which is the dirtiest fossil fuel and causes hundreds of premature deaths each year in the United States alone.

China, which relies on coal, understands that, Brand said, and plans to build 27 nuclear reactors by 2020.

"You do move ahead with what you've got and not wait. The time to reduce CO2 loading was 10 years ago," he said.

Brand's position was partly inspired by other environmentalists who earlier went public in support of nuclear energy. They include Greenpeace cofounder Patrick Moore; James Lovelock, creator of the Gaia hypothesis, which views Earth as a self-regulating organism; and Hugh Montefiore, a former Anglican bishop in Britain who was asked to resign his longtime board seat at Friends of the Earth when he published his position last October.

Moore, who left Greenpeace over strategy differences a decade ago, told the House Energy and Resources Subcommittee last April that nuclear power's "benefits far outweigh the risks."

"If the U.S. is to meet its ever-increasing demands for energy while reducing the threat of climate change and reliance on overseas oil, then the American nuclear industry must be revitalized and permitted to grow," he said.

The 'maybe some day' camp

Still other environmentalists, while not embracing nuclear power, are saying it could some day be a viable option — if safety issues can be resolved and steps are taken to ensure that plutonium produced as a byproduct from the process doesn't end up in the hands of terrorists.

"The problem of global warming is so serious that we must thoroughly consider every low-carbon option for producing power," the group Environmental Defense says on its Web site.

The Natural Resources Defense Council has a similar position. "These problems" — safeguarding plutonium, reactor safety and nuclear waste disposal — "need to be solved before expanding our commitment to nuclear power," Thomas Cochran, head of the group's nuclear program, told Western governors last year.

And Jonathan Lash, president of the World Resources Institute, has gone on the record saying:  "I don't believe we should a priori exclude any viable alternative" for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, "including safe nuclear power, provided we address issues of waste disposal and security."

New reactors safer

Jim MacKenzie, a climate researcher at the institute and a physicist by training, says that a new design known as the pebble-bed reactor is "substantially safer" than existing reactors and "basically meltdown proof."

But he also sees significant obstacles, starting with what he calls a "culture" at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission that favors the existing reactor designs. And he feels the industry is more focused on getting U.S. government subsidies than on addressing the nuclear waste and proliferation concerns.

MacKenzie favors fostering a mix of greater efficiency and clean energy resources, not building dozens of nuclear plants.

The 'no way' activists

Still other environmentalists refuse to entertain the nuclear notion at all, and took a public stand in June as the Senate debated bipartisan legislation to curb greenhouse gas emissions in part by providing incentives for nuclear and other low-carbon energy sources.

“While we are committed to tackling the challenge of global warming, we flatly reject the argument that increased investment in nuclear capacity is an acceptable or necessary solution," the coalition led by Greenpeace, the Sierra Club and U.S. PIRG said in a statement. "Instead we can significantly reduce global warming pollution and save consumers money by increasing energy efficiency and shifting to clean renewable sources of energy.”

That legislation, championed by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., died for other reasons but it reflected a move by some opposition Democrats to push the nuclear ball forward.

Joining Lieberman, for example, were New Mexico Sen. Jeff Bingaman, the senior Democrat on the Senate Energy Committee, and Delaware Sen. Tom Carper.

David Hamilton, the Sierra Club's global warming director, said he suspected nuclear advocates were testing whether some environmental groups would accept the financial incentives "as some kind of price to pay for moving global warming legislation forward."

That didn't happen, with even the maybe-some-day camp saying subsidies don't make sense.

Lash, the World Resources Institute president who left the nuclear option on the table, emphasized that "subsidizing a mature technology like nuclear power makes about as much sense as subsidizing Mr. Trump to build another tower."

Opinion polls and smart money

Where do Americans stand on all this?

A Gallup survey in March 2005 found 54 percent were strongly or somewhat in favor of nuclear power. That's up from 48 percent in 2001 and down from 57 percent in 1994.

A Washington Post/ABC News poll last June asked a slightly different question — whether to build more nuclear plants — and got a much lower approval rating: just 37 percent somewhat or strongly in favor.

The 2005 Gallup survey touched a nerve as well when the question became more personal. Asked how they'd feel about construction of a nuclear power plant in their area, only 35 percent were in favor.

That skittishness is also reflected among investors like billionaire Warren Buffett. His holding company already owns utilities, and he told the Wall Street Journal last month that he's keeping an "open mind" about investing in new nuclear power plants.

"The price of making a mistake (by not acting) is such that you should err on the side of the planet," he said. But he also made clear that it would take guidance from Washington for him to commit. "We're here to participate in the dialogue," he said, "but not to set policy."

----

Nuclear power - The shape of things to come?

Jul 7th 2005
From The Economist 

http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=4149623

Climate change is helping a revival of the nuclear industry, though its economics still look dodgy

THINGS have not gone well for the nuclear industry over the past quarter century or so. First came the Three Mile Island accident in America in 1979, then the disaster at the Chernobyl plant in Ukraine in 1986. In Japan, Tokyo Electric Power, the world's largest private electricity company, shut its 17 nuclear reactors after it was caught falsifying safety records to hide cracks at some of its plants in 2002. And the attacks on September 11th 2001 were a sharp reminder that the risks of nuclear power generation were not only those inherent in the technology.

Nor was safety the only worry: there were financial problems too. British Energy, Britain's nuclear-energy operator, required successive government bail-outs. Britain also recently finalised a £50 billion ($90 billion) scheme to deal with the nuclear-waste liabilities of British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL), an inept re-processor of nuclear waste that is itself bust.

But lately, things have brightened for the nuclear industry. In Asia, which never turned against it in the way the West did, the prospects are excellent. China already has nine nuclear reactors, and is planning to commission a further 30. New capacity is being built or considered in India, Japan, Taiwan and South Korea. Russia has several plants under construction.

Now western governments are increasingly looking anew at nuclear energy. A few weeks ago TVO, a Finnish consortium, started work on the first new nuclear plant to be built on either side of the Atlantic in a decade. Pertti Simola, TVO's chief executive, proclaims that, “Finland has opened the door to a new nuclear era! Many western countries will come behind us.”

France's parliament has recently given its approval for a new nuclear plant. Guillaume Dureau of Areva, the world's largest nuclear supplier, captures the dizzy mood that has overtaken vendors: “We are pretty convinced of a nuclear revival and [we] need to prepare for it. We need to hire 1,000 engineers.”

Despite its earlier doldrums, the nuclear industry is still a sizeable business. In 2004 Areva had sales of €6.6 billion ($8.2 billion). That figure includes mining uranium, designing power plants and reprocessing waste fuel. General Electric's nuclear division, which designs and builds plants but does not handle fuel or waste, turned over about $1.1 billion last year (its turnover was double that figure if sales of non-nuclear bits of nuclear plants, such as generators and turbines, are included). Westinghouse, an American brand currently owned by BNFL, which recently put it up for sale, had sales of around £1.1 billion ($2 billion).

The main reason for the shift is climate change. As it has risen up the political agenda, so the impetus for a nuclear revival has grown.

More, and more respected, voices have been making the case that nuclear energy is essential if the rate of change is to be slowed. As a result, there is an unlikely alliance between the nuclear industry and many environmentalists, as a growing number of greens have come to believe that nuclear energy is the best way to reduce carbon emissions. Industry lobbyists are finding support from unexpected areas. Keith Parker of the Nuclear Industry Association, a British trade group, points to a recent quote from James Lovelock, a founder of Greenpeace: “Only nuclear power can halt global warming.”

Scientists are also lending their support. Sir David King, Tony Blair's chief scientist, recently argued that one further generation of nuclear power stations is needed (in Britain at least) to buy time, in order to keep down emissions of carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas, while new carbon-free non-nuclear technologies are developed. He thinks that renewable sources of energy are not currently up to the task: “We need another generation of nuclear-fission stations.” Others agree. The World Nuclear Association, an industry body, dismisses its green rivals in a recent report: “the potential scope for renewables contributing to the electricity supply is very much less because the sources, particularly solar and wind, are diffuse, intermittent and unreliable.”

Such opinions have caused consternation among nuclear energy's long-standing opponents, notably Europe's green movement. Anti-nuclear sentiment was so strong in Germany at the end of the 1990s that the ruling socialist-green alliance banned new plants. Sweden was the first country to turn against nuclear plants, in a referendum back in 1980; at the end of May it shut down its second nuclear plant. Yet in both countries opinion polls suggest waning public opposition to the nuclear option. Indeed, Germany's Christian Democrats now say they may overturn the ban if they win the forthcoming national election. In Finland, says TVO's Mr Simola, concern about climate change was the chief reason why his country pushed ahead with the new power plant.

In America, although the Bush administration remains hostile to any mandatory action on slowing global warming, it is keen to boost nuclear power. That has led some greens to take the view that a nuclear revival is better than doing nothing much about climate change. Leaders of respected environmental outfits such as Environmental Defence and the World Resources Institute have recently made positive noises about nuclear power as part of a response to global warming.

Of course, nuclear power is not the only carbon emission-free option. Making existing energy production more efficient, and reducing waste in the use of energy by consumers, would have a big economic and environmental impact. Renewable energy sources such as wind and waves have plenty of backers.

There are also direct rivals to new nuclear plants, such as fossil-fuel plants with carbon sequestration that can provide baseload power. A flurry of investment and experimentation, from Algeria to China to America, is already under way in this area.

Vattenfall, a Swedish nuclear utility, is investing in technology to remove carbon from its newish coal plants in eastern Germany and Poland. Cinergy, an American utility just bought by Duke, is looking into coal gasification and carbon sequestration in Indiana. A Scottish consortium led by BP recently announced the first commercial-scale project to produce carbon-free power from natural gas, re-injecting the waste carbon dioxide into fields in the North Sea—thus not only storing the gas underground, but also enhancing hydrocarbon recovery from the field. And combined heat and power, which allows companies and householders to use the heat created by power generation as well as the electricity it produces, is booming. But the nuclear industry has the momentum right now. That's partly because its economics have improved markedly.

Better management allows companies to make existing plants much more efficient. In America, for instance, the country's 103 nuclear plants are no longer owned by individual municipalities. “Nuclear consolidators are the key,” argues Michael Wallace of Constellation Energy, a utility that owns several plants and hence can retain good managers, share best practices, gain economies in maintaining parts and inventories and so on. The top ten nuclear firms now own 61% of the sector. Exelon, the largest firm, has a 15% share. American nuclear power plants' capacity utilisation has risen from 56% in 1984 to more than 90% today.

This is a lesson that France had already learned, says Bernard Dupraz of Electricité de France. EDF is responsible for all the country's nuclear plants. Unlike America, where no two nuclear plants are exactly alike, France stuck with a few standard designs. “We standardised nuclear plants like Ford did the Model T.” The results: 20% lower operating costs and 30-40% lower capital costs than those of one-off designs used elsewhere, notably in Britain.

CERA, a consultancy, calculates that 31 countries have commercial nuclear-power reactors today. Taken together, these 439 reactors produce about 16% of the world's electricity, worth annually $100 billion-125 billion. And the pot is growing.

Expansion in China alone is likely to involve some $50 billion or more of capital spending. That's quite a prize—though it is important to put China's nuclear interest into perspective. Even if it really builds all 30 mooted plants, nuclear power will still make up only about 5% of its electricity mix in 2030. Meanwhile, natural gas is expected to grow from a 1% share today to over 6%, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).

In many power markets today, nuclear electricity is the cheapest you can buy. Entergy's deregulated nuclear plants produced 13% of its revenues but a quarter of its profits last year. It costs German utilities perhaps 1.5 (American) cents per kW-hour to make nuclear electricity, estimates Vincent Gilles of UBS, an investment bank, but they can sell it for three times that amount once credits from Europe's carbon-trading scheme are included. In contrast, it costs 3.1-3.8 cents to produce power from natural gas in Germany and 3.8-4.4 cents to produce it from coal. In America, where there is no mandatory carbon regulation (and hence no penalty on fossil fuels), nuclear power has less of an edge: coal power costs about 2 cents per kW-hour on average today, gas-fired power costs about 5.7 cents, while nuclear cranks out electricity at 1.7 cents or so.

But the economic case is not as clear-cut as it seems. The costs of nuclear power produced by existing plants are likely to be far lower than the costs of newly built plants, because the capital costs of nuclear plants—typically reflecting half to two-thirds the value of the project in present-value terms—are long forgotten. Most of today's plants were built in an era when central planners or state utility boards had no idea of the true cost of capital. Today's low interest rates are good for big capital projects like nuclear, but those rates may change sharply in the future. At the same time, gas and oil prices—whose current astronomical levels enhance nuclear's charms—may well fall.

Subsidy, what subsidy?

Critics also argue that the best designs the nuclear industry can come up with are not competitive with rival energy technologies in the open market. The nuclear industry points to some studies that seem to suggest that nuclear plants might be economic if only their “life cycle” benefits (such as lack of greenhouse gases) and their rivals' disadvantages (such as fuel costs for natural gas plants) are factored in.

For example, the Nuclear Energy Agency, an arm of the OECD, has just released a study done jointly with the International Energy Agency (IEA). After reviewing the economics, it seems to conclude that there is indeed a bright future for nuclear: “on a global scale, there is room and need for all baseload technologies.” Assuming a discount rate of 5%, it argues that the cost of generating power from new nuclear plants would cost between $21/MW-hour and $31/MW-hour; costs for gas-fired power, it reckons, would range from $37/MW-hour to $60/MW-hour. (The report also assumes high gas prices, which favour nuclear, a view contradicted by the IEA's official forecast of a medium-term reduction in gas prices.)

But there's plenty of scope for argument about the economics of nuclear power generation, because they are so sensitive to assumptions about the cost of power from other sources. As Ed Cummins of Westinghouse insists, “The biggest motivator for nuclear today is $6 [the price per MBtu] natural gas. If gas goes back to $3.50, then nuclear plants aren't competitive.”

The other source of uncertainty is the disposal of radioactive waste. That's what messed up the economics of Britain's nuclear programme: Britain decided to reprocess its waste, which proved hugely expensive. America, by contrast, just stuck it in swimming pools—literally—at the power plants. The current consensus is that the best solution is geological storage—that is, to bury the waste very deep. The bad news is that nobody is making much progress getting there, or knows how much it will all cost in the end.

Taking into account the uncertainties, most studies done on nuclear economics (including the most authoritative ones, done by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and by Britain's Royal Institute of International Affairs) conclude that new plants built by the private sector, with investors bearing the full brunt of risks, are not economic without subsidy.

Though nuclear vendors are promising that their new designs will cost only $1,500 per kW of installed capacity, that assumes ideal conditions and no delays. A more realistic assessment (indeed, the consensus view among experts not aligned with the nuclear industry) is that new plants will probably cost close to $2,000 per kW. That may be less in real terms than the capital cost of previous generations of nuclear plants, but it is still about double the capital cost of a conventional coal plant today. The upshot of all this is that even today's cheaper, safer nuclear designs are still more expensive than coal or gas.

The money men are not very enthusiastic. Standard & Poor's, a rating agency, recently declared, “The industry's legacy of cost growth, technological problems, cumbersome political and regulatory oversight, and the newer risks brought about by competition and terrorism may keep credit risk too high for even (federal legislation that provides loan guarantees) to overcome.”

Part of the problem is that nuclear plants are seen as too “lumpy” and uncertain as investments. A 1,000MW nuclear plant would cost $2 billion and take at least five years to build. A coal plant of that size would cost perhaps $1.2 billion and take three to four years, while a combined-cycle gas plant that size costs about $500m and takes less than two years to get up and running. The bigger the project, the more susceptible it is to delays—and UBS's Mr Gilles estimates that a two-year delay in nuclear projects wipes out 20-25% of the project's value to investors.

Political risk is a problem, too. The links between nuclear power and weapons hurt the business—as was sharply illustrated last week. Westinghouse was in the bidding against French and Russian companies for a Chinese contract. But the House of Representatives, fearful of giving China access to American nuclear know-how, voted down a $5 billion loan from America's Export-Import Bank.

So, if the economics are so unpromising, why is so much nuclear capacity being built? Some of it—in China, for instance—may be the result of mixed motives. China could be after the technology that America wants to deny it. Security might also be a factor: energy importers may want a proportion of their needs met by sources over which they have control.

Nuclear fans point to Finland where a private consortium seems to have managed to finance a new power plant without government subsidy. But was it done without subsidies or unfair state aid? Absolutely, insists TVO's Mr Simola. “You must be joking,” retorts UBS's Mr Gilles.

In fact, the answer is unclear. TVO is a consortium involving six shareholders—but one of them is a state-owned utility, Fortum. TVO's owners are also its only customers. Some of those customers are big paper and pulp companies, who use a lot of power; others are municipalities, which may not be sensitive to market economics. Indeed, the €3 billion deal is not a conventional commercial transaction. Mr Simola explains that there is a lifetime power-purchase contract agreed at zero profit: “We pay dividends in the form of competitive power,” he jokes.

The plant is to be built by France's Areva on a fixed-price bid. If there are delays or massive cost overruns, Areva must cover them. Areva's Mr Dureau vigorously denies that French government ownership means that that country's taxpayers will be subsidising Finnish power: his firm will yield all its assets and go bust before the French taxpayer will pay a penny, he insists. But if it does go bust, the French taxpayer must write that cheque to TVO.

Even if the Finnish experiment is not explicitly subsidised, the model may nevertheless be tricky to replicate elsewhere. If it can be—and there is some interest in France and America among heavy energy users—then the nuclear industry may yet be justified in claiming that new nuclear plants can be built without state aid.

Yet most studies reckon that even a moderate carbon tax would not make nuclear power generation competitive in a free energy market. Europe's emissions-trading system (ETS) is, in effect, that sort of a tax. And according to Oxera, a British consultancy, even with that implicit tax on carbon-based power generation, new nuclear plants would not be economic without government help.

But if the implicit tax rose, that might change. The point of a carbon tax is to reflect the cost to society of damage that using carbon does. Setting a price on those social costs is difficult. Europe's ETS implies that the social costs of carbon dioxide are €20 per tonne; but a British government study in 2002 estimated them at £70 (€112). Such estimates are necessarily vague; but if that higher figure is fed into Oxera's model, new nuclear plants begin to look economically viable.

However, politics make it unlikely that carbon is going to pay its full social costs—for some time to come. That's why some governments—including America's—are thinking of subsidising nuclear instead.

President Bush is trying to shoehorn a provision into his energy bill that would give the nuclear industry about $500m in insurance against the risk of regulatory delays, and a further $6 billion or so in subsidies now being considered for new nuclear plants. American utilities want several billion dollars for the engineering and construction costs associated with building the first three or four such plants. They are also hoping for over $500m in subsidies to go through the licensing process, and an extension of the government's blanket insurance policy against catastrophic accidents.

They may get them. There's a powerful business lobby in America that's hostile to the idea of importing emissions trading from Europe. Subsidising nuclear is one of the only ways of squaring that lobby's interests with the electorate's rising awareness of the need to do something about climate change. With President Bush and the tree-huggers both on its side, the nuclear industry is back in the game. 

---

Nuclear power

Jul 7th 2005
From Economist.com

http://www.economist.com/background/displayBackground.cfm?story_id=4149623

Nuclear power is a growing source of energy, especially due to concerns about climate change through other forms of energy generation. Brazil, which fears electricity shortages, wants a large nuclear-power industry. Sweden is divided, and Asia's enthusiasm for nuclear power flagged after the financial crisis of 1997-8. Britain, home to both a pro- and an anti-nuclear lobby, is struggling with the botched privatisation of its nuclear-power generator, British Energy. Much effort and cash that could have been spent on other forms of clean energy research has been poured into a joint fusion-reactor project involving America, most of the European Union, Japan, China, Russia and South Korea.

Yet the prospects for nuclear power are clouded by doubts about both the economics and the safety of the plants. Russia’s decrepit nuclear industry threatens the whole world. EU candidate countries will be forced to close their most rickety reactors. Earthquake-prone Taiwan has its own worries, as does accident-prone Japan. Another difficulty is the disposal of nuclear waste. No country yet has a permanent waste-disposal facility, though America—where rising oil and gas prices have made nuclear power more attractive—wants to build one in the Nevada desert. Italy last produced nuclear power in 1987 but is still pondering where to store its radioactive waste. Some scientists hope that uranium-eating bacteria will help.

----

Fusion vs Breeder Reactor

July 8, 2005 07:33 AM - John Laumer, Philadelphia

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/07/fusion_vs_breed.php

The fusion reactor holy grail is only 60 years old; yet it's prospective commercial value is every bit as obscure as DaVinci himself could have intended in his art. As reported in the London Observer last month:-- Stemming from the G8 summit "will be a much-awaited decision - the winner of the race to build the International Tokamak Experimental Reactor (Iter)",..."The pounds 3 billion project is intended to pool the world's best scientific resources to prove once and for all that electricity can be produced by nuclear fusion"..."Leading scientists, including the government's chief scientific adviser, David King, believe that within 30 or 40 years Iter could unlock a carbon-free energy future. If successful,it will deliver what could be the world's most important energy source over the next millennium...".

"Nuclear fusion works by heating a large volume of gas, containing deuterium, found in sea water, and tritium, derived from lithium, to 100 million degrees centigrade, 10 times the temperature of the sun. This causes the atoms to collide and fuse, releasing enormous amounts of energy and leaving only helium as waste. King says that the 'the lithium from one laptop battery and deuterium from a bath of water would generate enough energy to cover the needs of a UK citizen for seven years".

Elsewhere in the article:-- "....there is a danger it [fusion reactor technology] could be overtaken by a new generation of breeder reactors the Russians have been developing that use uranium 60 times more efficiently than thermonuclear reactors - though with 100 times the plutonium".

TreeHuggers don't have much to add to a 40-year long cold war over which new nuclear technology is best. But, while the 50/50 odds play out, we have some unrelated ideas we'll be working on without government help. And. along the way, TreeHuggers would be delighted to see the energy bills and the carbon emissions stemming from the Fusion engineers' globe-trotting, construction, and operation of the various prototypes. Send us the data and we'll try to do the posting for you, 'cause we know things will be very busy.


-------- africa

Limited access to energy sources hinders progress

Port Elizabeth, South Africa, Herald, July 7, 2005

http://www.theherald.co.za/herald/2005/07/07/news/n22_07072005.htm

Abuja – The International Atomic Energy Agency said yesterday that limited access to modern energy sources was one of the major constraints to socio-economic development in most African countries.

Agency representative in Nigeria Nkong-Njock Vincent said placing the energy consumption in most African states against the global consumption showed a great imbalance. “In Nigeria per capita electricity consumption is only 70kW per hour per year,” he said.

“That translates to an average availability of eight watts, less than a normal light bulb, for each Nigerian citizen.”

Vincent said the level was grossly inadequate for the country’s present and future energy demand and stressed the need for the establishment of cost effective systems of energy production. He called on African countries to adopt nuclear energy as an “economical and environmentally friendly” means of increasing the energy per capita consumption.

He said the adoption of nuclear energy required technical co-operation within the international agency. – Sapa-DPA



-------- britain

Thorp officials open with Bellona as they work to restore UK nuke reprocessing facility

Charles Digges, 2005-07-07 15:51 Bellona 

http://www.bellona.no/en/energy/renewable/38990.html

WEST CUMBRIA, England — In the first visit to the Thorp reprocessing facility at Sellafield in West Cumbria by an environmental NGO since an April spill of radioactive liquid, the Bellona foundation found Thorp to be in stabile condition as officials and engineers there work to bring it back online.

There is as yet, according to Thorp plant technicians, no set date as to when or if the reprocessing unit will come into operation again. Repairing damage that occurred during an April 18th pipe rupture in what is called the plant’s fuel clarification cell is set to take “months” officials at the Thorp plant told Bellona Web on a visit to Thorp this week.

They could not be more specific as the approach to setting the results of the accident right are a first-time event, and plant operators do not wish to be pinned down by a particular deadline, as much of the plant’s technical re-evaluation has to literally be invented as works progress.

But according to officials from both British Nuclear Group (BNG) —which now operated Sellafield under the authority of the newly formed Nuclear Decommissioning Authority as of April 1st this year—the aim is to get the plant functioning again, contrary to previous reports in the British media.

BNF has meanwhile published a public report on the incident that is unprecedented in its self-criticism and depth, which is available on the and BNG web sites.

British media and Bellona Web conversations with highly placed NDA officials previously indicated that the new decommissioning body had been considered shutting it down after it publicised a highly radioactive leak of 83 cubic meters of plutonium, uranium and nitric acid onto the floor of the plant’s clarification cell—an incident the construction of the cell is designed to handle. Plant officials say it is designed to hold more than 250 cubic meters of leaked liquor.

A final decision on whether or not the Thorp plant will, in fact, go back on line, is dependent on the decision of the British Government based on BNG calculations as to how much money it will cost to put the plant back into operation. The NDA will weigh these considerations as well, and make its own independent recommendation.

What is the clarification cell?

Thorp’s fuel clarification cell comprises a stainless steel-lined space 60 metres long, 20 metres wide and 20 metres high and its concrete walls are 2 to 3 metres thick to absorb radiation. BNG Sellafield said the cell was designed to withstand the possibility of a leak and, because stainless steel does not dissolve in nitric acid, the leak has been contained.

There has been no radiation dose to Sellafield workers as a result of the leak and no release of radioactivity into the atmosphere, confirmed a spokesman for UK’s Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII).

Thorp’s raw materials are the used fuel rods from nuclear power stations. After receipt at Thorp, they are stored for several months to allow the radioactivity of short-lived fission products to decay to safer levels. The tubular rods are then cut up into small chunks and lowered in baskets into strong nitric acid.

The uranium, plutonium and fission products dissolve and the remnants of the steel rods are removed. But the fluid remaining from the process, called liquor, still contains small shards of steel, or tailings, from burrs created as the rods were chopped up. So the liquor must be centrifuged to get rid of the steel contaminants, a process called clarification. It is at this clarification stage that the leak occurred.

Chronology of the incident

The chronology of the incident is as follows: On April 18th, a camera inspection of the clarification cell was initiated to determine why one of the two so-called accountancy tanks was experiencing a drop in the level of plutonium and uranium. Measurements of how much liquor each of the tanks hold are taken by weight.

During the camera inspection process it was noted that liquor had been leaking onto the floor of the clarification cell for as long as nine months through a single pipe leading into accountancy tank B. It was first suspected that a manufacturer’s welding error had been the cause of the leak. But further investigations shows that, though the leak in the 40 millimeter wide pipe—one of several dozen running into the accountancy chamber—had occurred near a welding point, it was a matter of metal fatigue that had caused the rupture.

The radioactive liquor has long been drained from the floor of the facility, and the task now, according to Thorp engineers, is no longer determining the cause of the accident and cleaning it up, but looking forward to making the complicated system of pipes and tanks workable again—and how to avoid similar incident in the future.

Next steps Specifically, said one Thorp engineer, technicians will be examining the gravimetric approach to measuring the amount of liquor in the accountancy tanks. When Thorp was commissioned in 1994, one of its unique features distinguishing it from other plants was that the amount of liquor held in the accountancy tanks was measured by weight. This means that the maze of pipe-work leading into the tanks has to move horizontally and vertically to accommodate rising levels of liquor in the accountancy tanks

It is in this design scheme that Thorp engineers interviewed by Bellona Web think the fault for the accident may lie, because more motion that is applied to the pipes, the more likely they are to succumb to metal fatigue. As NDA and BNG officials described it, the pipe rupture was roughly akin to taking a standard aluminum soda can and bending it several times in the middle.

“Eventually, after doing this for some time, you will crack the can,” said one Thorp engineer. He was quick to emphasise, however, that, of the numerous pipes running into the accountancy tank, only one had ever faced such a crisis, and the the tubular walls of the ruptured pipe are certainly several millimeters thicker than the walls of a soda can. Nonetheless, inspections of pipe integrity are on going. One option for ensuring the further safe usage of Thorp is to fix the entire assembly of pipe works and tanks in place rather than relying on gravimetric accountancy procedures. Accountancy would then take place under more standard methods such as regular measurements of the accountancy tanks’ contents of uranium and plutonium.

Public notification could have been improved, says BNG NDA and BNG officials interview by Bellona Web openly admitted that they had dropped the ball somewhat on notifying stakeholders, or interested parties, about the incident. Even though BNG officials had held local public consultations locally in the weeks following the incident, it was not made pubic nationally until the London Guardian ran something of a scare piece on the incident on May 2nd. After Bellona’s visit this week, the organisation can confirm that much of the information contained in the Guardian piece was exaggerated.

BNG officials were regretful that they were not quicker to notify the public and international governments—among them the Norwegian government, which was taken off guard by the Guardian piece—and offered Bellona Web its apologies for not communicating events sooner.

“We were not being secretive,” said one BNG official. “It was simply that our early assessments, given that the entire incident was contained and no plant or public personnel were affect, did not warrant an international alarm.”

BNG officials, however, especially under the guidance of the NDA have pledged to be more forthcoming with stakeholders in the future.

Nonetheless, the event was classified as a “serious incident,” which corresponds to level three on seven level International Nuclear Event Scale (INES) that was developed in the wake of Chernobyl. As a level three event, the Sellefield spillage classified at one step below an “accident.” A rating of “4” corresponds to “an accident without serious off-site risk.”

NDA and BNG officials interviewed during Bellona Web’s incident expressed surprise that the Thorp incident—which was entirely contained and resulted in no external or employee exposure to radiation—had been ranked so high. But technicalities within the language of the rating scale itself officially pushed it up to a “3” incident. 



-------- business

GE Energy Announces Alliance With FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company

(Business Wire)-- July 7, 2005

http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2005/jul/1161510.htm

WILMINGTON, N.C. -- GE Energy's nuclear business has signed a strategic alliance agreement with FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) of Akron, Ohio.

The six-year alliance, agreed to this year, will cover operational support at FirstEnergy's Perry Nuclear Power Plant and Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station.

The goal of the alliance is to maximize equipment and refuel outage performance at the two facilities, which are located in Ohio, along the northern shores of Lake Erie.

Such alliances help enhance plant performance while lowering a facility's operational costs.

GE's nuclear business, the leading designer of boiling water reactor (BWR) facilities, was the nuclear steam supply system designer for Perry, and the original equipment manufacturer of the Perry and Davis-Besse turbine generators.

Located in Perry, FirstEnergy's 1,260-megawatt Perry plant is a BWR and serves northern Ohio and various regions of FirstEnergy's service territory. Serving the same regions, the 877-megawatt Davis-Besse plant in Oak Harbor is a pressurized water reactor (PWR). Both reactors are examples of light water reactor technology.

"We are extremely pleased to be forging this new alliance, which is dedicated to the principles of safety, teamwork, accountability and added value," said Andy White, President and

CEO of GE Energy's nuclear business. "The alliance places us on the same side of the table as FirstEnergy, putting each company in a winning situation. GE will be more closely aligned with FirstEnergy's goals, which will positively affect their bottom line. Because of the unique set-up, GE will have a more predictable business flow. Both companies' goals are achieved through our alliance."

The agreement actually represents a new paradigm in alliances, in which GE will more closely align its core competencies with FENOC's business plan, focusing both vendor and owner on technology and services that will drive customer value. The initial scope of work will involve GE's nuclear services, turbine island services, water technology and performance-optimization offerings.

GE's nuclear business and FENOC have identified other leadership focus areas including Nuclear Fuel, Preventative Maintenance, System Health Monitoring, Design Information, Parts and Obsolescence. Leaders from both companies have been assigned to each focus area.

GE's nuclear business, headquartered in Wilmington, N.C., develops advanced light water reactors and provides a wide array of technology-based products and services to help owners of both boiling and pressurized water reactors safely operate their facilities with greater efficiency and output.

FENOC is a subsidiary of Akron, Ohio-based FirstEnergy Corp., a registered public utility holding company. In addition to Perry and Davis-Besse in Ohio, the company operates a third nuclear facility in Pennsylvania.

About GE Energy

GE Energy is one of the world's leading suppliers of power generation and energy delivery technology, with 2004 revenues of $17.3 billion. Based in Atlanta, Georgia, GE Energy provides equipment, service and management solutions across the power generation, oil and gas, distributed power and energy rental industries.



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

-------- depleted uranium

US ships prompt nuclear protest

July 7, 2005 - 5:39PM - AAP

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/us-ships-prompt-nuclear-protest/2005/07/07/1120704484756.html?oneclick=true

Australians have a right to know if US warships moored in Sydney Harbour are carrying nuclear weapons, anti-nuclear activists say.

The US Navy's oldest active warship, the USS Kitty Hawk, arrived on Sunday.

Accompanied by the guided-missile destroyers USS John Paul Jones and USS Cowpens, the ships have been moored at Garden Island Naval base.

About 20 protesters, including NSW Greens MP Sylvia Hale, church representatives and Greenpeace activists, today protested outside the base, demanding to know whether the ships have nuclear capabilities.

They claim the vessels are equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles which sometimes have depleted uranium-tipped warheads, but the US Navy will not comment on whether the missiles in Sydney Harbour are nuclear.

Ms Hale today said the US Navy had no right to bring nuclear weapons into Australian waters.

"The United States policy of refusing to confirm or deny whether such weapons are present can only lead the community to conclude that those ships are bearing nuclear weapons," she told reporters.

Just minutes before the protest, Hobart man Martin Wyness and his 11-year-old daughter Sophie used their car to block the front entrance of the base, then handcuffed themselves to the front gate, also in protest against the ships presence in Sydney.

Police took them to Kings Cross police station but both were released without charge.

Mr Wyness, who worked as a freelance photographer in Chernobyl following the 1986 nuclear meltdown disaster, says he has seen first-hand the horrors which can result from nuclear energy.

"I know it (my protest) seems like a strong thing to do, but I'm rather concerned at the possibility of nuclear weapons habitually coming into our ports," he said.

Mr Wyness said to deter protesters the US Navy was intentionally ambiguous about the capability of its ships.

"If the Australian people had all the information, then the Australian people could make an informed decision," he said.

A spokesman for the ships could not be reached.

They are due to leave tomorrow.

----

Depleted Uranium Horror Stories Emerging For For Returning US Servicemen

July 7, 2005 Coastal Post

http://www.coastalpost.com/05/07/04.html

Radioactive depleted uranium (DU) is 1.7 times as heavy as lead. According to the Federation of American Scientists, "These solid metal projectiles have the speed, mass and physical properties to perform exceptionally well against armored targets."

During the Gulf War, munitions and armor made with depleted uranium were used for the first time in a military action; and during the recent war in Iraq, the US government has used more than 2200 tons of depleted uranium weapons.

However, in the aftermath of the Gulf War, some startling statistics have started to emerge.

Former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark, who has been campaigning against the use of depleted-uranium weapons for years, says, "Of the 697,000 US troops who served in the Gulf, over 90,000 have reported medical problems. Symptoms include respiratory, liver and kidney dysfunction, memory loss, headaches, fever, and low blood pressure. There are birth defects among their newborn children. DU is a leading suspect for a portion of these ailments. The effects on the population living in Iraq are far greater. Under pressure, the Pentagon has been forced to acknowledge Gulf War Syndrome, but they are still stonewalling any connection to DU."

As well as immediate illnesses, returning servicemen have experienced other, even more far-reaching effects. A US Department of Veterans study of the families of 251 Gulf War veterans found that 67% had children with severe illnesses or birth defects.

The World Health Organization and NATO both steadfastly deny that there is a problem. However, increasing evidence, including the spate of deformed babies born to US servicemen who have returned from the Gulf in the last year or two, will change that.

In a recent expose in the New York Daily News, Democracy Now! co-host Juan Gonzalez interviewed Army National Guard Specialist Gerald Darren Matthew, who returned from active duty in Iraq suffering from constant migraine headaches, blurred vision, blackouts and a burning sensation whenever he urinated.

His daughter, conceived shortly after he returned from Iraq, was born without three fingers and most of her right hand. This is just one in an increasing dossier of stories in the same vein.

Testing is a starting point. However, what is the next step?

According to the New York Times bestseller Clear Body, Clear Mind by writer and humanitarian L. Ron Hubbard, there is something that can be done to remove the residual effects of drugs and other toxins, including radiation, which are stored in the fatty tissues. The book offers a carefully balanced program of exercise to increase circulation, vitamin and mineral supplements and time sweating in the sauna.

This program specifically reports successes with individuals who have been exposed to radiation. One graduate, who grew up in Utah and as a child was exposed to radioactive fallout from nuclear tests in Nevada, stated, "I feel I have now run out all the extreme radiation that I was exposed to in this lifetime. I regained my affinity for people there have been times on this program when I felt such exhilaration and felt the way I felt when I was a kid. My energy level has picked up tremendously."

Other graduates consistently report increased mental clarity, ability to face up to and resolve the problems of life, vitality and positive attitude. They are mentally and spiritually much improved by the program.

For more information on this program, visit

http://www.clearbodyclearmind.com

----

Blair put us in the firing line

Depleted Uranium Bill Introduced Into Congress

By The Lone Star Iconoclast
July 7, 2005

http://www.coastalpost.com/05/07/04a.html

Washington, DC - Congressman Jim McDermott (D-WA), a medical doctor, on May 17 introduced legislation with 21 original co-sponsors in the House of Representatives that calls for medical and scientific studies on the health and environmental impacts from the US Military's use of depleted uranium (DU) munitions in combat zones, including Iraq. The McDermott bill also calls for cleanup and mitigation of sites in the US contaminated by DU.

"The need is urgent and imperative for full, fair and impartial studies," McDermott said. "We may be endangering the health and lives of US soldiers and Iraqi civilians. All we've gotten so far from the Pentagon are assurances. We need facts backed by science. We don't have that today."

Because of its density, the military uses DU as a protective shield around tanks, and in munitions like armor piercing bullets and tank shells. DU tends to spontaneously ignite upon impact, disintegrating into a micro-fine residue that hangs suspended in the air where it can be inhaled and falls to the ground to leach into the soil.

"I've been concerned about DU since veterans of the first Gulf War began to experience unexplained illnesses, commonly called 'Gulf War Syndrome' that remain mysterious," McDermott said.

McDermott added that there are reports from Iraqi doctors and others today of seemingly unexplained serious illnesses including higher rates of cancer and leukemia, and even birth defects.

"We pretended there was no problem with Agent Orange after Vietnam and later the Pentagon recanted, after untold suffering by veterans. I want to know scientifically if DU poses serious dangers to our soldiers and Iraqi civilians."

The Depleted Uranium Munitions Study Act of 2005 has 21 original co-sponsors, all Democrats, including: Reps. Charles Rangel, Pete Stark, Sherrod Brown, Peter DeFazio, Maurice Hinchey, Raul Grijalva, Jan Schakowsky, Robert Wexler, Sam Farr, Tammy Baldwin, Robert Andrews, Bob Filner, Jay Inslee, Jose Serrano, Lynn Woolsey, Earl Blumenauer, Bart Stupak, Mike Honda, Tom Udall, Barney Frank and Ed Markey. 


-------- india 

Where terror and the bomb could meet

Asia Times South Asia Jul 7, 2005 
By Amir Mir

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/GG07Df05.html

Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf's June 25-26 unscheduled trip to Saudi Arabia has raised many an eyebrow in Islamabad's diplomatic circles, where it is believed the visit was meant to seek the assistance of the kingdom to circumvent the ongoing International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) investigations into reports that the Saudis might have purchased nuclear technology from Pakistan. The speculation goes that Musharraf aimed to chalk out a joint strategy on what stance the two leaders should adopt to satisfy the IAEA and address its concerns.

Saudi Arabia is under increasing pressure to open its nuclear facilities for inspection as the IAEA suspects that its nuclear program has reached a level (with Pakistani cooperation) where it should attract international attention. The pressure has also come from Europe and the United States, which want Riyadh to permit unhindered access to its nuclear facilities.

Well before the IAEA probe began, the US had been investigating whether or not the father of Pakistan's nuclear program, Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan, sold nuclear technology to the Saudis and other Arab countries. Acting under extreme pressure from the IAEA, the Saudi government signed the Small Quantities Protocol on June 16, which makes inspections less problematic. However, the US, European Union and Australia want it to agree to full inspections. The Saudi stand is that they will agree to the demand only if other countries do so, including Israel.

International apprehensions that Saudi Arabia would seek to acquire nuclear weapons have arisen periodically over the past decade. The kingdom's geopolitical situation gives it strong reasons to consider acquiring nuclear weapons: the volatile security environment in the Middle East; the growing number of states (particularly Iran and Israel) with weapons of mass destruction; and its ambition to dominate the region. International concerns intensified in 2003 in the wake of revelations about Khan's proliferation activities. The IAEA investigations show that Khan sold or offered nuclear weapons technology to Saudi Arabia and several Middle Eastern states, including Iran, Iraq, Libya and Syria.

Last year's unearthing of the black market nuclear technology network increased international suspicions that Khan had developed ties with Riyadh, which has the capability to pay for all kinds of nuclear-related services. Even before the revelations about Khan's activities, concerns about Saudi-Pakistani nuclear cooperation persisted, largely due to strengthened cooperation between the two countries. In particular, frequent high-level visits of Saudi and Pakistani officials over the past several years raised serious questions about the possibility of clandestine Saudi-Pakistani nuclear cooperation.

In May 1999, a Saudi Arabian defense team, headed by Defense Minister Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz, visited Pakistan's highly restricted uranium enrichment and missile assembly factory. The prince toured the Kahuta uranium enrichment plant and an adjacent factory where the Ghauri missile is assembled with then Pakistani prime minister Nawaz Sharif, and was briefed by Khan. A few months later, Khan traveled to Saudi Arabia (in November 1999) ostensibly to attend a symposium on "Information Sources on the Islamic World". The same month, Dr Saleh al-Athel of the Science and Technology ministry, visited Pakistan to work out details for cooperation in the fields of engineering, electronics and computer science.

Interestingly, Saudi defector Mohammed Khilevi, who was first secretary of the Saudi mission to the United Nations until July 1994, testified before the IAEA that Riyadh had sought a bomb since 1975. In late June 1994, Khilevi abandoned his UN post to join the opposition. After his defection, Khilevi distributed more than 10,000 documents he obtained from the Saudi Arabian Embassy. These documents show that between 1985 and 1990, the Saudi government paid up to US$5 billion to Saddam Hussein to build a nuclear weapon. Khilevi further alleged that Saudis had provided financial contributions to the Pakistani nuclear program, and had signed a secret agreement that obligated Islamabad to respond against an aggressor with its nuclear arsenal if Saudi Arabia was attacked with nuclear weapons.

In 2003, Musharraf paid a visit to Saudi Arabia, and former Pakistani premier Zafarullah Khan Jamali visited the kingdom twice. But the US had warned Pakistan for the first time in December 2003 against providing nuclear assistance to Saudi Arabia. Concerns over possible Pakistani-Saudi nuclear cooperation intensified after the October 22-23, 2003, visit of Saudi Arabia's de facto ruler, Crown Prince Abdullah, to Pakistan. The pro-US Saudi Defense Minister Prince Sultan, who is next in line to succeed to the throne after Abdullah, was not part of the delegation. During that visit, American intelligence circles allege, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia concluded a secret agreement on nuclear cooperation that was meant to provide the Saudis with nuclear-weapons technology in exchange for cheap oil.

However, in 2005, the US claims to have acquired fresh evidence that suggests a broader government-to-government Pakistani-Saudi atomic collaboration that could be continuing. According to well-placed diplomatic sources, chartered Saudi C-130 Hercules transporters made scores of trips between the Dhahran military base and several Pakistani cities, including Lahore and Karachi, between October 2003 and October 2004, and thereafter, considerable contacts were reported between Pakistani and Saudi nuclear scientists. Between October 2004 and January 2005, under cover of the hajj (pilgrimage), several Pakistani scientists allegedly visited Riyadh, and remained "missing" from their designated hotels for 15 to 20 days.

The closeness between Islamabad and Riyadh has been phenomenal and it is not without significance that the first foreign tour of Musharraf, who ousted Sharif in October 1999, was to Saudi Arabia. Moreover, Sharif himself, his younger brother, Shehbaz Sharif and their families live in Saudi Arabia after a secret exile deal between Musharraf and Sharif, in which Riyadh had played a key role. During Sharif's prime ministerial tenure, the Americans believe, Saudi Arabia had been involved in funding Islamabad's missile and nuclear program purchases from China, as a result of which Pakistan became a nuclear weapon-producing and proliferating state. There are also apprehensions that Riyadh was buying nuclear capability from China through a proxy state, with Pakistan serving as the cut-out.

Following Khan's first admission of proliferation to Iran, Libya and North Korea in January 2004, the Saudi authorities pulled out more than 80 ambassador-rank and senior diplomats from its missions around the world, mainly in Europe and Asia. The pullout is widely thought to have been meant to plug any likely leak of the Pakistani-Saudi nuclear link.

Before September 11, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Pakistan were the only countries that recognized and aided Afghanistan's Taliban regime, which had been educated in Pakistan's religious schools (madrassas). Despite the fall of the Taliban regime in late 2001, the Saudis continue to fund these seminaries that are a substitute for Pakistan's non-existent national education system and largely produce Wahhabi extremists and Islamist terrorists. Also, a substantial proportion of their curricula, including the sections which preach hatred, has also emerged from Saudi Arabia.

Pakistan, with a crushing defense burden, only spends 1.7% of gross domestic product on education (compared to 4.3% in India and 5% in the United States). An estimated 15,000 religious schools provide free room and board to some 700,000 Pakistani boys (ages six to 16) where they are taught to read and write in Urdu and Arabic and recite the Holy Koran by heart. No other disciplines are taught, but students are indoctrinated with anti-American, anti-Israeli and anti-Indian propaganda, and encouraged to engage in jihad to defeat a "global conspiracy to destroy Islam". These schools supplied thousands of recruits for the Taliban militia in Afghanistan and are still being used to recruit militants to fight the US-led forces and Afghan troops in that country.

While Saudi Arabia actively uses charities to promote Wahhabi extremism across the world, Pakistan has been the recipient of huge direct economic assistance from the desert kingdom. The Saudis have bailed out Islamabad over the past decade by supplying Pakistan with an estimated $1.2 billion of oil products annually, virtually free of cost. Just after the visit of Khan to Saudi Arabia in November 1999, a Saudi nuclear expert, Dr Al Arfaj, stated in Riyadh that "Saudi Arabia must make plans aimed at making a quick response to face the possibilities of nuclear warfare agents being used against the Saudi population, cities or armed forces".

Following the departure of American troops from its soil, the biggest problem for the Saudi Kingdom is how to deal with such nuclear contingencies. More recently, Saudi officials have discussed the procurement of new Pakistani intermediate-range missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads. Some concern remains that Saudi Arabia, like its neighbors, might be seeking to acquire nuclear weapons, apparently by purchase rather than indigenous development. The 2,700-kilometer range CSS-2 missiles the kingdom obtained from China in 1987 are useless if fitted only with conventional warheads. One cannot, therefore, avoid the inference that, like the Pakistan-North Korean "nukes for missiles deal", Khan might have struck an "oil for nukes" deal with Saudi Arabia on behalf of Islamabad at a time when there was a growing homogeneity of strong pan-Islamic affiliations worldwide. If Khan's interaction with the scientists of Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Libya were similar to those during his reported visits to North Korea, norms of the non-proliferation regimes can be expected to have been more brazenly violated.

While the aspirations of a few Islamic countries to acquire nuclear weapons are wedded to the idea of the "Islamic bomb", al-Qaeda's quest for components and know-how relating to weapons of mass destruction reflect on the potential rise of nuclear terror throughout the world. The role of wealthy and politically connected Saudi Arabian families in secretly funding al-Qaeda and other Islamist terror organizations has, until now, been kept deliberately in the background by Washington, largely out of sensitivity to the precarious internal situation in Saudi Arabia itself.

King Fahd is near death, and his designated successor, Crown Prince Abdullah, is known to be more actively hostile to American foreign policy, and more sympathetic to militant Wahhabi Sunni currents in the Islamic world. Washington knows well that a head-on clash with the Saudi royal house at present would serve the interests only of the radical faction inside the Royal family. A major strategic goal of al-Qaeda's terror attacks within Saudi Arabia in recent years has been to escalate pressure on what are regarded as Westernized corrupt elements of the Saudi royal house, with the aim of replacing them with fanatical feudal Wahhabi elements - a kind of Talibanization of the Saudi Kingdom.

The internal Saudi situation is complicated by the fact that many powerful Saudi families financially support the al-Qaeda effort as part of a strategy to purge the kingdom of "infidels and Western corruption". In many cases these influential Saudis reach into the extended royal family, including the murky figure of the former Saudi intelligence chief, Turki al-Faisal, son of the late King Faisal. The Americans had accused Turki's Faisal Islamic Bank of involvement in running accounts for bin Laden and his associates.

Turki himself maintained ongoing ties with bin Laden even after the latter fled Saudi Arabia in the mid-1990s, after imprisonment by order of the king. Considered close to both bin Laden as well as Khan, it was Turki who had persuaded King Fahd to grant diplomatic recognition to the Taliban. The possibility of Turki having played a role in a nuclear deal between bin Laden and Khan cannot, consequently, be ruled out, especially when many members of the Pakistani military and nuclear establishments have been found involved in holding meetings with the al-Qaeda leader.

The first indications of the presence of pro-jihadi scientists in Pakistan's nuclear establishment came to notice during the US-led allied forces' military operations in Afghanistan against al-Qaeda and the Taliban, when documents recovered by troops reportedly spoke of the visits of Pakistani nuclear scientist, Sultan Bashiruddin Mahmood, to Kandahar when bin Laden was operating from there before September 11. Bashiruddin was the first head of the Kahuta uranium enrichment project before Khan, who replaced Bashiruddin in the 1970s.

Subsequent investigations carried out by American intelligence discovered that bin Laden had contacted these scientists for assistance in making a small nuclear device. On February 12, 2004, Khan appeared on Pakistan's state-run television after holding a lengthy meeting with Musharraf and confessed to having been "solely responsible" for operating an international black market in nuclear-weapon materials. The next day, on television again, Musharraf, who claimed to be shocked by Khan's misdeeds, nonetheless pardoned him, citing his service to Pakistan (he called Khan "my hero").

For two decades, the Western media and their intelligence agencies have linked Khan and the Pakistani Inter Services Intelligence to nuclear-technology transfers, and it was hard to credit the idea that the successive governments Khan served had been oblivious of these activities. In the post-September 11 period, analysts continue to express fears about the possibility of extremist Islamic groups like al-Qaeda gaining access to Pakistan's nuclear weapons or fissile or radioactive materials. Secret deals with Saudi Arabia can only aggravate such risks and concerns.

Amir Mir is a senior Pakistani journalist affiliated with the Karachi-based monthly, Newsline.

(Published with permission from the South Asia Intelligence Review of the South Asia Terrorism Portal )

----

What Indian Left won't say when it opposes US ties
Left parties hold rallies today, complaint that CMP is violated doesn't match facts

C. RAJA MOHAN
Indian Express 7 July 2005 

http://www.newindpress.com/NewsItems.asp?ID=IEH20050706223805&Page=H&Title=Top+Stories&Topic=0

This isn't the CMPNEW DELHI, July 6 As the Left parties hit the
streets tomorrow to protest against the nation's expanding engagement
with the United States-10 days before Prime Minister Manmohan Singh
heads to Washington-they have the potential to complicate a major
foreign policy initiative by the Government.

The question India's interlocutors will soon ask is whether the
Manmohan Singh government will allow its coalition partners to
exercise a veto over the nation's foreign and security policies.

Ever since India began re-adjusting its foreign policies since the
end of the Cold War, the Left has accused the governments of the
day-whether led by the Congress or the BJP-of selling out to
Washington.

That might be consistent with Left ideology, but not the core
principles of India's foreign policy or its practice over the decades.

The Left's claim that in expanding defence cooperation with the US,
the Government departs from either a presumed national consensus on
foreign policy or the common minimum programme (CMP) of the United
Progressive Alliance does not stand up to scrutiny.

Jawaharlal Nehru himself turned to defence cooperation with the U.S.
after the 1962 war with China. It was Rajiv Gandhi who launched
defence technological cooperation with the US in the mid 1980s. Since
the early 1990s, defence engagement with the US has steadily expanded.

The CMP, like any other document on foreign policy, cannot
pre-determine all future outcomes. The nation's foreign policy has to
move on, especially amidst the current dynamic international
context.The CMP, for example, says India should pursue talks with
China and Pakistan seriously. It does not say how.

The Manmohan Singh Government has, rightly, gone beyond that mandate
to sign an agreement on "guiding principles and political parameters"
on the contentious question of boundary settlement with China. It has
also agreed to negotiate the future of Jammu and Kashmir with
Pakistan.

These sensitive negotiations raise questions about the Parliament
resolutions of 1962 and 1994 on territorial questions involving China
and Pakistan respectively. The government is in the process of
creating a new consensus on these issues beyond that stated in the
CMP.

The Left has backed these negotiations, but objects to mere defence
cooperation with the US. The Left opposition might have less to do
with the sanctity of the CMP than its desire to cherry pick on
foreign policy. The Left parties know, more than any one else, they
were not always part of the national consensus on foreign policy.

Well into the 1960s, the Left derided non-alignment as immoral
neutrality between the regressive west and the progressive east. It
was only in the 1970s that it discovered the "anti-imperialist
virtues" of non-alignment.

While not objecting to China's nuclear weapons programme, the Left
until recently demanded India's denuclearisation. While it was silent
on Chinese nuclear and missile assistance to Pakistan in the 1980s
and 1990s, it now opposes India's limited efforts to build defences
against nuclear missiles.

The Left objects to participating in multinational operations other
than those authorised by the United Nations. India has used force
outside its borders many times and has not always sought UN
authorisation to do so. The liberation of Bangladesh was just one of
those occasions.

In any case the framework agreement with the US says, the two sides
will "collaborate in multinational operations, when it is in their
common interest". Decisions on all such operations are inevitably
arrived at on a case-by-case basis. No one can force India.

Even reading it literally, the CMP lays down only one test for
India's external relations-independent foreign policy. Defence
cooperation with the US expands India's options in terms of sourcing
of weapons and technology as well as providing the much needed
strategic space.

The CMP also talks of India working for "multipolarity". But the Left
seems to interpret "multipolarity" as acting against the US. That
interpretation of multipolarity has no takers in Russia, China, or
Europe, for all of whom the US is the topmost foreign policy partner.

----

The concern is no longer if, but when

Hugh White SMH July 7, 2005

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/the-concern-is-no-longer-if-but-when/2005/07/06/1120329505126.html?oneclick=true

Discouraging proliferation in the age of atomic weapons is becoming harder than ever, writes Hugh White.

WHEN India and Pakistan tested their nuclear weapons in 1998, a wise and experienced diplomat gave me a sober prediction. Australia would respond with outrage, he said, but the US would acquiesce to these new nuclear powers, and the rest of the world would follow. India and Pakistan would therefore pay no substantial penalty.

On the contrary, he predicted that India would gain immense new status and self-confidence as a nuclear power. How then, he asked, could we ever expect to persuade Iran and North Korea to stop building nuclear weapons? Would the whole global non-proliferation framework crumble?

There are certainly some gloomy signs he was right. In May at the United Nations, countries from around the world met to review the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. The meeting was a complete failure. And last month's election of the hard-line conservative Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as Iran's new President set back hopes that moderate reformers in Iran might be persuaded to slow Iran's nuclear program. In fact those hopes were probably always a bit forlorn. Few Iranians think Iran should abandon development of weapons-related nuclear technology. If India and Pakistan - and Israel - can have nuclear weapons, why not Iran? Not an easy question to answer.

After the Cold War, it seemed reasonable to hope we might be able to eliminate nuclear weapons. In 1995 Paul Keating convened a high-powered global commission to promote the idea. Now, unfortunately, it is becoming plain that nuclear weapons are going to be with us for a long time to come. Instead of hoping they will go away, we need to work hard on practical measures to make sure we can continue to live with them.

The darkest points on the non-proliferation map at present are Iran and North Korea. The diplomatic campaigns to persuade them to abandon their nuclear weapons program are going nowhere. This is not necessarily the fault of the diplomats: it is a reflection of the raw facts of power and influence. The international community cannot or will not impose on either country the kind of pressure needed to persuade them to abandon programs which both governments apparently believe is critical to their national interests.

Diplomacy has been backed by threats that unless each country's nuclear program is abandoned, the matter will be referred to the UN Security Council, which might impose economic sanctions. But these threats are empty. Both China and Russia have a veto on the Security Council and would probably oppose sanctions on either Iran or North Korea. They have their reasons: China, for example, is building a strong relationship with Iran as a supplier of energy. And even if the Security Council did agree to impose economic sanctions, it is not clear they would work. They seldom do.

Beyond economic sanctions lie the military options: either limited strikes against nuclear facilities, or full-scale invasion and regime change. Neither option is practical policy against Iran or North Korea.

Limited strike campaigns suffer from a fatal lack of intelligence. Without a lucky intelligence break, the US and its allies simply do not know enough about where either country's critical facilities are hidden to be able to reliably target their nuclear programs effectively.

How about invasion? Even if America's ground forces were not already at full stretch in Iraq, it would be doubtful that an invasion of either Iran or North Korea would seem practical policy even to the Bush Administration.

But with the bulk of its army in Iraq indefinitely, the US simply lacks the forces to invade Iran or North Korea.

It seems then that there is no way to stop them. The most likely outcome is that within a few years both Iran and North Korea will have nuclear weapons. North Korea most probably has a small number already. So we need to start asking how we can best live with these new nuclear powers.

Nuclear proliferation in Iran and North Korea poses four kinds of risk. The first risk is that either government would choose to use their weapons deliberately. To guard against this we have no alternative but to rely on old-fashioned deterrence. The men who rule in Tehran and Pyongyang will need to be brought to understand they cannot use their nuclear weapons without risking nuclear retaliation.

Deterrence is not foolproof, because there is always a chance of miscalculation. But the long dangerous decades of the Cold War showed that it can work. There is no reason why Israel and Iran, for example, should not establish the kind of more or less stable nuclear deterrent balance that characterised the Cold War. Fortunately that is what seems to be happening between India and Pakistan. We need to look for ways to strengthen deterrence in these situations.

Second, nuclear weapons might be fired by a regime in the final stages of collapse. For example, there are fears the leaders of an imploding North Korea might launch nuclear attacks as an irrational act of defiance and revenge. This risk can hardly be dismissed in a place like North Korea, where regime collapse seems a real possibility, and it cannot be deterred. They provide the best argument for modest national missile defences.

Third, nuclear weapons could find their way into the hands of terrorists. This is perhaps the biggest danger from nuclear proliferation today. Iranian and North Korean stockpiles add to the existing risks that nuclear weapons could be sold or stolen from Pakistani or Russian arsenals.

This suggests that some of the counter-proliferation policy focus should shift from trying to stop the Iranian and North Korean nuclear programs to trying to stop leakage from those programs. The Proliferation Security Initiative is one important step in this direction.

Finally, there is the fear that each time another country acquires nuclear weapons, it encourages yet more to do the same.

Who might be next? The lesson of recent years is that it is hard to stop a nuclear weapons program once it has begun. So the best place to focus our efforts is on discouraging countries from starting down this path in the first place. With nuclear energy again on the global agenda, this will be harder, and more important, than ever.

Hugh White is a visiting fellow at the Lowy Institute, professor of strategic studies at ANU. Miranda Devine is on leave.


-------- iran

Iran Asks IAEA Permission to Remove
Seals from Nuclear Equipment

July 7 (RIA Novosti, by Nikolai Terekhov) 

http://nyjtimes.com/cover/07-08-05/IranAsksIAEASealPermission.htm

TEHRAN-- Iran has asked the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for permission to remove seals on the equipment of the Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center, an Iranian news agency said.

"We have asked the IAEA for permission to remove seals on the equipment of the Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center in the presence of an Agency inspector," Iran's Fars news agency said citing Dr. Mohammad Saidi, the vice president of the Iranian Atomic Energy Organization.

According to Saidi, the request is not connected with Iran's moratorium on uranium enrichment works.

"The measures are connected with the need to check the status and operability of some units and components," he said.

In accordance with an agreement signed in May between Iran and the European "troika" (Britain, France and Germany), the European Union promised to present proposals on resolving the problems around Iran's nuclear programs in July. Iran in its turn promised that it would not reactivate its works on the uranium enrichment.

Meanwhile, Iranian officials have begun to remind the EU that its proposals should take into account the rights of Iran to use nuclear energy, including the uranium enrichment work, for peaceful purposes.

The Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center process uraniferous ore, which, according to Iranian scientists, must later be sent for enrichment to a nuclear facility in Natanz. That plant's operation has also been suspended.


-------- japan

Total elimination of nuclear weapons possible: U.S. ambassador

(Thursday July 7, 5:28 PM Kyodo)

http://asia.news.yahoo.com/050707/kyodo/d8b6fbco0.html

U.S. Ambassador to Japan Thomas Schieffer said Thursday in Hiroshima that the United States believes it is possible to achieve the total elimination of nuclear weapons.

Schieffer said the United States is making steady efforts to that end.

He made the remarks as he visited the Peace Memorial Park in Hiroshima's Naka Ward with Hiroshima Gov. Tadatoshi Akiba.

It is the first time Schieffer has visited Hiroshima since assuming the post as ambassador in April.

Schieffer said it is impossible for U.S. President George W. Bush or himself to attend the Aug. 6 peace memorial event to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the 1945 atomic bombing, declining an invitation by the Hiroshima municipal government. 

----

60th Hiroshima/Nagasaki commemoration August 2005 in Belgium

From: FoE Sydney - Nuclear Campaign <foesyd4@ihug.com.au>
Date: Thu Jul 7, 2005 1:01am

Mayor of Hiroshima calls people to participate in peace walk to NATO and U.S. nuclear base in Belgium Almost half of Belgian mayors joined call for elimination of nuclear weapons by 2020

The mayor of Hiroshima, Mr. Akiba Tadatoshi, calls people to participate between July 26th and August 9th in the peace walk from Ypres to the NATO nuclear weapon base in Kleine Brogel, in the north of Belgium (letter attached). The peace walk organised by For Mother Earth, the Flemish member of Friends of the Earth International, marks the 60th anniversary of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6th and 9th 1945. The walkers receive active support of Belgian mayors as almost half of them  have recently joined the 2020 Vision of the mayor of Hiroshima, calling for the total elimination of nuclear weapons by 2020. In Flanders, the northern region of Belgium, over half of the mayors already joined the Mayors for Peace network.

In a letter to For Mother Earth the mayor of Hiroshima writes "I hope  many will join -even for one day- and walk in solidarity with the survivors of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, whose wish is "No more Hiroshimas, no more Nagasakis ever again".

Letter on http://www.motherearth.org/walk/akiba.pdf

Mr. Yoshio Sato, a survivor of the A-bomb in Hiroshima will also join the walkers in Belgium. On August 6, 1945, Mr. Yoshio Sato was exposed to the atomic bomb as he was just one kilometer away from ground zero. Meetings are set up with mayors all along the route and of course Mr. Sato will be the main speaker at the Hiroshima and Nagasaki commemorations and actions.

Mr. Akiba Tadatoshi, the mayor of Hiroshima states that "At a time when apathy and ignorance are common enemies, I applaud the walkers who are taking this action to expose the double standard of the Western states concerning weapons of mass-destruction. Of course, we cannot condone nuclear weapons in North-Korea, Iran or Iraq. But why should we tolerate nuclear weapons in Belgium, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey or anywhere else?".

For Mother Earth designed this walk to increase pressure on NATO member states to work towards a treaty for a global ban on nuclear weapons, as stipulated in Article VI of the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Today SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute) estimates there are 13,470 operational nuclear warheads in the world. If one includes the number of inactive warheads, the total global inventory is some 27,600 warheads. The U.S. deploys an estimated of 480 tactical nuclear weapons on NATO bases in six European countries, a nuclear force larger than the entire Chinese nuclear stockpile. Furthermore the U.S. is the only nuclear weapon state to deploy nuclear weapons outside of its own territory. The NATO base at Kleine Brogel has a capacity to store up to 20 US B61 nuclear bombs, each of which has a lethal power that exceeds the power of the Hiroshima bomb by up to 14 times. In 1945 140,000 people died in Hiroshima because of that single atomic bomb.

On April 21st the Belgian Senate approved a resolution asking for the withdrawal of U.S. nuclear weapons from Europe. This is the first time that a parliamentary assembly has dared to ask for the withdrawal of U.S nukes.

Asking for the withdrawal of the estimated 480 U.S. nuclear weapons deployed in Europe is an issue that concerns to each and one of the European citizens, involving human rights, public health and environmental impacts. Nuclear weapons within a society have the potential to distort social and economic priorities.

On the other hand, nuclear weapons are illegal. They fail to discriminate between military, civilian targets and personnel; fail to comply with the principle of neutrality in time and place. Because of their very nature, nuclear weapons cannot be used without violating international law. The use or threat of nuclear weapons is therefore clearly illegal.

The approximately 250 km long walk will start on Tuesday, July 26th, in the peace town of Ypres, and will end at the secret NATO nuclear weapons base at Kleine Brogel, passing via NATO Headquarters in Brussels where an action is planned on Monday August 1st. The walkers will appeal to the mayors of towns and cities along the route, to ask for their active support for the international emergency call of the 'Mayors for Peace'. At Kleine Brogel, a peace camp will be held from August 6th, the anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing, until August 9th, the day of the commemoration of the Nagasaki nuclear bombing.

Practical

The walk will constist in an average of 25 km/day. Your luggage will be on a support vehicle. The famous mobile dutch kitchen collective 'Rampenplan'  will be providing excellent vegetarian and vegan meals. We will camp outside, so please bring a tent.

Three organic meals, camp sites and participation costs only 10 euro/day. A very democratic price.

Because of previous negative experiences the use of alcohol and illegal drugs is strongly discouraged. Do not bring animals.

Please register as soon as possible - this will help us to make practical arrangements for campsites, food and agreements with city and town councils.

Route

Tue., July 26th             Ypres - Roeselare
Wed., July 27th           Roeselare - Tielt
Thu., July 28th             Tielt - Ghent
Fri., July 29th               Ghent - Aalst
Sat., July 30th Aalst - Brussels
Sun., July 31st rest day and action training
Mon., Aug. 1st            NATO (Evere)
Tue., Aug. 2nd             Brussel - Leuven
Wed., Aug. 3rd           Leuven - Diest
Thu., Aug. 4th Diest - Leopoldsburg
Fri., Aug. 5th               Leopoldsburg - Kleine Brogel
Sat., Aug. 6th              Kleine Brogel, Hiroshima commemoration actions
Sun., Aug. 7th Kleine Brogel, Peace action camp
Mon., Aug. 8th            Kleine Brogel, Peace action camp
Tue., Aug. 9th Nagasaki commemoration action in
Ghent  <http://www.nagasaki60.be/>www.nagasaki60.be

For Mother Earth has been organising peace walks since 1991. Eleven For Mother Earth walks have covered over 12.000 km in their  campaign for a nuclear test ban and the abolition of nuclear weapons.

More information and registrations:
<http://www.motherearth.org/walk/index_en.php>http://www.motherearth.org/walk/index_en.php

Letter of the mayor of Hiroshima to For Mother Earth
http://www.motherearth.org/walk/akiba.pdf

Biography of Mr. Yoshio Sato, survivor of A-bomb
<http://www.motherearth.org/walk/hibakusha.php>http://www.motherearth.org/walk/hibakusha.php


Voor Moeder Aarde vzw,
lid van Friends of the Earth International
K. Maria Hendrikaplein 5
9000 Gent - Belgium
Tel       +32-9-242 87 04
GSM +32 495 28 02 59
Fax      +32-9-242 87 51
<mailto:pol@motherearth.org>pol@motherearth.org
http://www.moederaarde.be

--------  korea

U.S. will never be able to use arms on N.Korea-Roh

Thursday, 7 July 2005 (Reuters)

http://www.rednova.com/news/international/167963/us_will_never_be_able_to_use_arms_on_nkorearoh/

SEOUL  - The United States will never be able to resort to military means to end the North Korean nuclear crisis, South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun said on Thursday.

The standoff over Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions pits the world's most stubborn country, North Korea, against the country with the strongest voice in the world, the United States, and therefore a resolution is inherently complicated, Roh said.

"But neither side has the freedom to take the situation to a breakdown," Roh told senior South Korean journalists at the presidential Blue House.

"Under no circumstances can the North choose nuclear weapons, and under no circumstances can the United States choose military means," Roh said.

Foreign media were not invited to the event, but a transcript of the discussions was later provided by the Blue House.

Six-country talks on ending the North's nuclear programs in return for aid and security guarantees have been on hold for a year because Pyongyang refuses to talk until Washington ditches what the North says is a hostile policy.

The United States has said it harbors no hostile intent, but it generally does not rule out any option to ensure the North does not use or enhance its declared nuclear arsenal. The six-party talks have brought together the two Koreas, the United States, Japan, Russia and China for three rounds.

The key to the nuclear problem lies between the North and the United States, making a summit between the two Koreas unlikely soon, Roh said, when asked whether he would be willing to meet with the North's leader, Kim Jong-il.

"My assessment is it would be difficult for a summit under the circumstances to be successful," Roh said.

Diplomatic hopes were raised after Kim told a South Korean envoy last month Pyongyang could rejoin the talks in July if the United States met certain conditions, such as showing respect.

South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon said on Wednesday there were enough favorable conditions to expect the talks to resume in July and called on Pyongyang to announce a firm date.

Ban cited in particular recent contacts by U.S. and North Korean officials, which he said helped them understand each other's position better.

China also encouraged more of such contacts.

"We hope all parties concerned can emit more goodwill and emit more positive information to create favorable conditions for the early resumption of the six-party talks," Foreign Ministry Spokesman Liu Jianchao told a news conference.

But such optimism is not shared by Japan and some analysts, who say there is little to support the view.

North Korea is believed to be engaged in the spread of its nuclear capabilities, including the provision of the technology to Iran, according to a recent intelligence report obtained by Reuters in Vienna from a non-U.S. diplomat.

(Additional reporting by Benjamin Kang Lim in Beijing) 


-------- mideast

Where terror and the bomb could meet

By Amir Mir
Jul 7, 2005 Asia Times
	
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/GG07Df05.html

Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf's June 25-26 unscheduled trip to Saudi Arabia has raised many an eyebrow in Islamabad's diplomatic circles, where it is believed the visit was meant to seek the assistance of the kingdom to circumvent the ongoing International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) investigations into reports that the Saudis might have purchased nuclear technology from Pakistan. The speculation goes that Musharraf aimed to chalk out a joint strategy on what stance the two leaders should adopt to satisfy the IAEA and address its concerns.

Saudi Arabia is under increasing pressure to open its nuclear facilities for inspection as the IAEA suspects that its nuclear program has reached a level (with Pakistani cooperation) where it should attract international attention. The pressure has also come from Europe and the United States, which want Riyadh to permit unhindered access to its nuclear facilities.

Well before the IAEA probe began, the US had been investigating whether or not the father of Pakistan's nuclear program, Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan, sold nuclear technology to the Saudis and other Arab countries. Acting under extreme pressure from the IAEA, the Saudi government signed the Small Quantities Protocol on June 16, which makes inspections less problematic. However, the US, European Union and Australia want it to agree to full inspections. The Saudi stand is that they will agree to the demand only if other countries do so, including Israel.

International apprehensions that Saudi Arabia would seek to acquire nuclear weapons have arisen periodically over the past decade. The kingdom's geopolitical situation gives it strong reasons to consider acquiring nuclear weapons: the volatile security environment in the Middle East; the growing number of states (particularly Iran and Israel) with weapons of mass destruction; and its ambition to dominate the region. International concerns intensified in 2003 in the wake of revelations about Khan's proliferation activities. The IAEA investigations show that Khan sold or offered nuclear weapons technology to Saudi Arabia and several Middle Eastern states, including Iran, Iraq, Libya and Syria.

Last year's unearthing of the black market nuclear technology network increased international suspicions that Khan had developed ties with Riyadh, which has the capability to pay for all kinds of nuclear-related services. Even before the revelations about Khan's activities, concerns about Saudi-Pakistani nuclear cooperation persisted, largely due to strengthened cooperation between the two countries. In particular, frequent high-level visits of Saudi and Pakistani officials over the past several years raised serious questions about the possibility of clandestine Saudi-Pakistani nuclear cooperation.

In May 1999, a Saudi Arabian defense team, headed by Defense Minister Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz, visited Pakistan's highly restricted uranium enrichment and missile assembly factory. The prince toured the Kahuta uranium enrichment plant and an adjacent factory where the Ghauri missile is assembled with then Pakistani prime minister Nawaz Sharif, and was briefed by Khan. A few months later, Khan traveled to Saudi Arabia (in November 1999) ostensibly to attend a symposium on "Information Sources on the Islamic World". The same month, Dr Saleh al-Athel of the Science and Technology ministry, visited Pakistan to work out details for cooperation in the fields of engineering, electronics and computer science.

Interestingly, Saudi defector Mohammed Khilevi, who was first secretary of the Saudi mission to the United Nations until July 1994, testified before the IAEA that Riyadh had sought a bomb since 1975. In late June 1994, Khilevi abandoned his UN post to join the opposition. After his defection, Khilevi distributed more than 10,000 documents he obtained from the Saudi Arabian Embassy. These documents show that between 1985 and 1990, the Saudi government paid up to US$5 billion to Saddam Hussein to build a nuclear weapon. Khilevi further alleged that Saudis had provided financial contributions to the Pakistani nuclear program, and had signed a secret agreement that obligated Islamabad to respond against an aggressor with its nuclear arsenal if Saudi Arabia was attacked with nuclear weapons.

In 2003, Musharraf paid a visit to Saudi Arabia, and former Pakistani premier Zafarullah Khan Jamali visited the kingdom twice. But the US had warned Pakistan for the first time in December 2003 against providing nuclear assistance to Saudi Arabia. Concerns over possible Pakistani-Saudi nuclear cooperation intensified after the October 22-23, 2003, visit of Saudi Arabia's de facto ruler, Crown Prince Abdullah, to Pakistan. The pro-US Saudi Defense Minister Prince Sultan, who is next in line to succeed to the throne after Abdullah, was not part of the delegation. During that visit, American intelligence circles allege, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia concluded a secret agreement on nuclear cooperation that was meant to provide the Saudis with nuclear-weapons technology in exchange for cheap oil.

However, in 2005, the US claims to have acquired fresh evidence that suggests a broader government-to-government Pakistani-Saudi atomic collaboration that could be continuing. According to well-placed diplomatic sources, chartered Saudi C-130 Hercules transporters made scores of trips between the Dhahran military base and several Pakistani cities, including Lahore and Karachi, between October 2003 and October 2004, and thereafter, considerable contacts were reported between Pakistani and Saudi nuclear scientists. Between October 2004 and January 2005, under cover of the hajj (pilgrimage), several Pakistani scientists allegedly visited Riyadh, and remained "missing" from their designated hotels for 15 to 20 days.

The closeness between Islamabad and Riyadh has been phenomenal and it is not without significance that the first foreign tour of Musharraf, who ousted Sharif in October 1999, was to Saudi Arabia. Moreover, Sharif himself, his younger brother, Shehbaz Sharif and their families live in Saudi Arabia after a secret exile deal between Musharraf and Sharif, in which Riyadh had played a key role. During Sharif's prime ministerial tenure, the Americans believe, Saudi Arabia had been involved in funding Islamabad's missile and nuclear program purchases from China, as a result of which Pakistan became a nuclear weapon-producing and proliferating state. There are also apprehensions that Riyadh was buying nuclear capability from China through a proxy state, with Pakistan serving as the cut-out.

Following Khan's first admission of proliferation to Iran, Libya and North Korea in January 2004, the Saudi authorities pulled out more than 80 ambassador-rank and senior diplomats from its missions around the world, mainly in Europe and Asia. The pullout is widely thought to have been meant to plug any likely leak of the Pakistani-Saudi nuclear link.

Before September 11, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Pakistan were the only countries that recognized and aided Afghanistan's Taliban regime, which had been educated in Pakistan's religious schools (madrassas). Despite the fall of the Taliban regime in late 2001, the Saudis continue to fund these seminaries that are a substitute for Pakistan's non-existent national education system and largely produce Wahhabi extremists and Islamist terrorists. Also, a substantial proportion of their curricula, including the sections which preach hatred, has also emerged from Saudi Arabia.

Pakistan, with a crushing defense burden, only spends 1.7% of gross domestic product on education (compared to 4.3% in India and 5% in the United States). An estimated 15,000 religious schools provide free room and board to some 700,000 Pakistani boys (ages six to 16) where they are taught to read and write in Urdu and Arabic and recite the Holy Koran by heart. No other disciplines are taught, but students are indoctrinated with anti-American, anti-Israeli and anti-Indian propaganda, and encouraged to engage in jihad to defeat a "global conspiracy to destroy Islam". These schools supplied thousands of recruits for the Taliban militia in Afghanistan and are still being used to recruit militants to fight the US-led forces and Afghan troops in that country.

While Saudi Arabia actively uses charities to promote Wahhabi extremism across the world, Pakistan has been the recipient of huge direct economic assistance from the desert kingdom. The Saudis have bailed out Islamabad over the past decade by supplying Pakistan with an estimated $1.2 billion of oil products annually, virtually free of cost. Just after the visit of Khan to Saudi Arabia in November 1999, a Saudi nuclear expert, Dr Al Arfaj, stated in Riyadh that "Saudi Arabia must make plans aimed at making a quick response to face the possibilities of nuclear warfare agents being used against the Saudi population, cities or armed forces".

Following the departure of American troops from its soil, the biggest problem for the Saudi Kingdom is how to deal with such nuclear contingencies. More recently, Saudi officials have discussed the procurement of new Pakistani intermediate-range missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads. Some concern remains that Saudi Arabia, like its neighbors, might be seeking to acquire nuclear weapons, apparently by purchase rather than indigenous development. The 2,700-kilometer range CSS-2 missiles the kingdom obtained from China in 1987 are useless if fitted only with conventional warheads. One cannot, therefore, avoid the inference that, like the Pakistan-North Korean "nukes for missiles deal", Khan might have struck an "oil for nukes" deal with Saudi Arabia on behalf of Islamabad at a time when there was a growing homogeneity of strong pan-Islamic affiliations worldwide. If Khan's interaction with the scientists of Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Libya were similar to those during his reported visits to North Korea, norms of the non-proliferation regimes can be expected to have been more brazenly violated.

While the aspirations of a few Islamic countries to acquire nuclear weapons are wedded to the idea of the "Islamic bomb", al-Qaeda's quest for components and know-how relating to weapons of mass destruction reflect on the potential rise of nuclear terror throughout the world. The role of wealthy and politically connected Saudi Arabian families in secretly funding al-Qaeda and other Islamist terror organizations has, until now, been kept deliberately in the background by Washington, largely out of sensitivity to the precarious internal situation in Saudi Arabia itself.

King Fahd is near death, and his designated successor, Crown Prince Abdullah, is known to be more actively hostile to American foreign policy, and more sympathetic to militant Wahhabi Sunni currents in the Islamic world. Washington knows well that a head-on clash with the Saudi royal house at present would serve the interests only of the radical faction inside the Royal family. A major strategic goal of al-Qaeda's terror attacks within Saudi Arabia in recent years has been to escalate pressure on what are regarded as Westernized corrupt elements of the Saudi royal house, with the aim of replacing them with fanatical feudal Wahhabi elements - a kind of Talibanization of the Saudi Kingdom.

The internal Saudi situation is complicated by the fact that many powerful Saudi families financially support the al-Qaeda effort as part of a strategy to purge the kingdom of "infidels and Western corruption". In many cases these influential Saudis reach into the extended royal family, including the murky figure of the former Saudi intelligence chief, Turki al-Faisal, son of the late King Faisal. The Americans had accused Turki's Faisal Islamic Bank of involvement in running accounts for bin Laden and his associates.

Turki himself maintained ongoing ties with bin Laden even after the latter fled Saudi Arabia in the mid-1990s, after imprisonment by order of the king. Considered close to both bin Laden as well as Khan, it was Turki who had persuaded King Fahd to grant diplomatic recognition to the Taliban. The possibility of Turki having played a role in a nuclear deal between bin Laden and Khan cannot, consequently, be ruled out, especially when many members of the Pakistani military and nuclear establishments have been found involved in holding meetings with the al-Qaeda leader.

The first indications of the presence of pro-jihadi scientists in Pakistan's nuclear establishment came to notice during the US-led allied forces' military operations in Afghanistan against al-Qaeda and the Taliban, when documents recovered by troops reportedly spoke of the visits of Pakistani nuclear scientist, Sultan Bashiruddin Mahmood, to Kandahar when bin Laden was operating from there before September 11. Bashiruddin was the first head of the Kahuta uranium enrichment project before Khan, who replaced Bashiruddin in the 1970s.

Subsequent investigations carried out by American intelligence discovered that bin Laden had contacted these scientists for assistance in making a small nuclear device. On February 12, 2004, Khan appeared on Pakistan's state-run television after holding a lengthy meeting with Musharraf and confessed to having been "solely responsible" for operating an international black market in nuclear-weapon materials. The next day, on television again, Musharraf, who claimed to be shocked by Khan's misdeeds, nonetheless pardoned him, citing his service to Pakistan (he called Khan "my hero").

For two decades, the Western media and their intelligence agencies have linked Khan and the Pakistani Inter Services Intelligence to nuclear-technology transfers, and it was hard to credit the idea that the successive governments Khan served had been oblivious of these activities. In the post-September 11 period, analysts continue to express fears about the possibility of extremist Islamic groups like al-Qaeda gaining access to Pakistan's nuclear weapons or fissile or radioactive materials. Secret deals with Saudi Arabia can only aggravate such risks and concerns.

Amir Mir is a senior Pakistani journalist affiliated with the Karachi-based monthly, Newsline. 


-------- missile defense

BMD Watch

 WASHINGTON, (UPI) July 7, 2005
 By MARTIN SIEFF

http://www.spacewar.com/upi/2005/WWN-UPI-20050707-14542700-bc-bmdwatch.html

Three outside experts commissioned by the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency have warned that the ground-based strategic missile defense system being developed by the Bush administration is bound to suffer additional test failures and may not function properly if its testing regime is not revamped and made a higher priority.

Arms Control Today reported this week that the experts, who were appointed in February to evaluate the system's last three test flops, had already presented this grim assessment to Lt. Gen. Henry Obering in a March. 31 report.

The Independent Review Team included former NASA administrator William Graham; Maj. Gen. Bill Nance, a former program manager of the ground-based missile defense system; and William Ballhaus, president and chief executive officer of The Aerospace Corp., ACT reported.

The three experts found that development of the missile defense system, which is intended to protect the United States from long-range ballistic missile attacks, has been driven by a White House schedule rather than performance benchmarks.

They acknowledged that the MDA "met the challenge" of providing an initial ground-based system in accordance with President George W. Bush's December 2002 directive to begin deploying a defense in 2004. But they then warned that the "next challenge is to verify the system's operational performance and reliability."

By the end of 2004, MDA had stationed six ground-based missile interceptors at Fort Greeley, Alaska, ACT said.

The Pentagon, which has yet to declare the Alaska deployment as up and running, is continuing to put these interceptors and supporting elements through a "shakedown" to assess the system's capabilities and develop procedures for its operation. MDA plans to field 10 more interceptors at Fort Greeley before 2006, ACT said.

"There is a need to validate the design and reliability of the system as currently deployed," the experts concluded. They warned, "Hardware and software may not accomplish [the] mission with predictable performance and reliability."

During congressional testimony this year, Obering has maintained his public confidence that the system can work as intended, citing several past successful intercepts in rudimentary tests and extensive simulations and modeling experiments. But the experts reported, "Models and simulations have not yet been sufficiently validated and require additional flight data to improve confidence."

The experts urged the MDA to prepare more rigorously for tests, establish more standards and specifications for the system, boost ground testing, increase accountability and put quality assurance ahead of meeting planned schedules.

The problems that the ABM interceptor program face came as no surprise to engineers in the U.S. aerospace industry. In two of the last three major tests the interceptor missiles never even took off.

However, the president's Republican Party controls both houses of Congress and therefore is able to dictate the investigative agenda, or lack of it, of the relevant congressional committees. Therefore the failure to achieve any real progress in the ABM interceptor program has never been adequately probed on Capitol Hill or been subjected to sustained scrutiny in the U.S. media

Herley Industries has announced that its Farmingdale, N.Y., division has received a $1.2 million contract to supply complex integrated microwave assemblies for the United States ballistic missile defense system.

Farmingdale specializes in phase shifting technologies for large-phased array radars essential for tracking and directing ABM interceptors to incoming ballistic missiles. Herley Industries is a leading contractor involved in the design, development and manufacture of microwave technology solutions for the defense, aerospace and medical industries. Based in Lancaster, it has nine manufacturing locations.

The new India-U.S. defense agreement signed by the Congress-led UPA government and the Bush administration on June 28 has provoked both enthusiastic and hostile responses in India. But even some erstwhile critics of close defense ties with the United States have welcomed the increased cooperation on ballistic missile defense that it promises, Asian News International reported this week.

While some have termed it as a positive step toward strategic cooperation between the two largest English-speaking democracies others have been skeptical.

Commodore Uday Bhaskar, a prominent Indian defense analyst, reflected the majority view in welcoming the 10-year agreement, entitled "New Framework for the U.S.-India Defense Relationship" that was signed between Defense Minister Pranab Mukherjee and his U.S. counterpart Donald Rumsfeld.

He said that for India, the agreement would be its first politico-military engagement with the world's leading military power and industrial nation, and for the United States it would be Washington's first major deal with a democratic nation outside NATO.

However, Bharat Karnad in an op-ed article in The Indian Express argued that entering into such strategic pacts with the United States was against India's long-term interests. He claimed the treaty would make India overburdened with military hardware and economically vulnerable to U.S. high-tech competition that would eat into India's domestic economy.

But even Karnad acknowledged that the one area, where co-operation with the United States would benefit India was in ABM development, a top priority for India against its traditional enemy, Pakistan, and possibly in the future against China.

Previously, Washington had been reluctant to share technology and cooperation on the development of ballistic missile defense systems, but now this had been promised through the Next Steps in the Strategic Partnership framework, Karnad said.

Karnad also noted that Washington had set up a "procurement and production group" to facilitate defense technology development offers from India that it considered "safe," giving the option to the U.S. Congress to cut the sale/transfer deals midway. This would have the effect of opening the way for the sharing of advanced American BMD technologies with India.

----

Russia To Adopt New BAL Coastal Defense Missile Systems In 2006

Anapa, Russia (SPX) Jul 07, 2005

http://www.spacewar.com/news/missiles-05zzi.html

The Russian Armed Forces will adopt new BAL coastal defense missile systems in 2006, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said Wednesday, according to RIA Novosti.

He said the Rubezh missile systems would be replaced with the BAL systems. Ivanov added that the first batch of the new systems would be delivered in 2006 to Kamchatka - a peninsula in the Russian Far East washed by the Okhotsk and Bering seas.

According to available information, the BAL mobile coastal system is designed to defend coastal facilities and make their combat capabilities more stable. It detects and tracks surface targets, and then destroys them with X-35 anti-ship cruise missiles.

The system can both fire single shots and salvos. A simultaneous launch of 32 X-35E missiles, which have a range of up to 110 kilometers, is capable of disrupting a large-scale landing operation or destroying a ship attack group.

After reloading, the BAL launch installations will be able to fire another 32 missiles at ships or new targets.

BAL systems will be modernized in the future. They will have unmanned aerial vehicles attached to missiles to detect the enemy and false target-installing means to protect them from enemy strikes.



-------- pacific

Wounds heal 20 years after French "act of war" against New Zealand

AUCKLAND (AFP) Jul 07, 2005

http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050707043308.ooiywf8y.html

The 1985 bombing of the Rainbow Warrior by French agents in the middle of Auckland was an act of war, "the most serious violation of New Zealand sovereignty that ever occurred", recalls then deputy Prime Minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer.

"It seared its way into the souls of New Zealanders in a way nothing else could," Palmer says of the attack on a Greenpeace ship that was due to take part in protests against French nuclear testing in the Pacific.

But 20 years later relations between the two countries are back on an even keel. The ending of French nuclear testing in 1996 has removed the main cause of friction between the two countries, says Palmer, who led negotiations with France after the bombing and served as Prime Minister between 1988 and 1990.

It is difficult to over-estimate New Zealanders' sense of shock when they awoke on July 11, 1985 to hear news of the death of a Greenpeace photographer when two explosions ripped the hull of the Rainbow Warrior at its dock in central Auckland. Fernando Pereira drowned after going to his cabin between the two explosions to retrieve a camera.

The shock only grew as it gradually became clear the bombing was the work of French secret agents. Two of them -- Dominique Prieur and Alain Mafart -- were caught by police two days later as they returned their campervan to the rental company.

The divers who placed the explosives on the hull and others in the 13-strong secret service team were later identified but never arrested by New Zealand authorities.

Prime Minister David Lange went on to describe the bombing as "a sordid act of international state-backed terrorism".

The Rainbow Warrior was in Auckland to head a flotilla of protest boats to Mururoa Atoll in French Polynesia in an attempt to disrupt French nuclear testing. The tests -- 193 atmospheric and underground explosions were conducted between 1966 and 1996 -- had long been a source of discord between France on one hand and New Zealand, Australia and other Pacific nations on the other.

In 1973 New Zealand Prime Minister Norman Kirk decided to send the navy frigate Otago to Mururoa as "a silent accusing witness". The government also worked with Australia to challenge France in the International Court of Justice, which resulted in France agreeing to move from atmospheric to underground tests in 1975.

When Lange's centre-left Labour Party won power in 1984 on a firmly anti-nuclear platform, the government immediately came into conflict with the United States by banning visits by nuclear-armed or propelled warships. The impasse resulted in New Zealand being excluded from the tripartite ANZUS defence agreement with the US and Australia.

The anti-nuclear policy had widespread public support and against this background the Rainbow Warrior sailed into Auckland Harbour on July 7, 1985.


-- Bombing furthered anti-nuclear feeling in NZ --


On board was New Zealand journalist David Robie, who had spent two months on the ship, witnessing its evacuation of 320 people from Rongelap Atoll in the Marshall Islands, which was still suffering contamination from the massive US Bravo nuclear test in 1954.

Robie later wrote "Eyes of Fire: The Last Voyage of the Rainbow Warrior" and is releasing an updated edition for the 20th anniversary.

He had returned to his Auckland home when the Rainbow Warrior docked and heard of the bombing early the morning after.

"The reaction was of absolute shock. I came to the conclusion quite quickly, it could only have come from France," he says of the bombing.

By September that year France had been forced to admit its responsibility, defence minister Charles Hernu had resigned and the head of the DGSE (General Directorate for External Security) secret service Admiral Pierre Lacoste had been sacked.

In November, Mafart and Prieur pleaded guilty to manslaughter charges and were sentenced to 10 years in jail.

French pressure to have the pair returned saw trade pressure applied to New Zealand, which relied heavily on agricultural exports to the European Union. Export shipments to France and its South Pacific territory New Caledonia were held up or rejected.

After UN mediation, a July 1986 agreement saw the agents released from jail in New Zealand for what was supposed to be three years exile on Hao atoll in French Polynesia. By the middle of 1988 both had been returned to France, a move which intensified New Zealand bitterness towards the French government.

"The whole thing left a very sour taste with New Zealanders, the agents carried out an act of state terrorism, they got a slap on the wrist with a wet bus ticket," Robie says. They went home "celebrated as heroes".

Palmer and Robie both agree the bombing was a disaster for France, serving to strengthen New Zealand's anti-nuclear stance -- which is still supported by the great majority of New Zealanders. The strength of feeling means the major political parties are unwilling to challenge the policy.

The bombing also created a massive wave of sympathy and surge of support for Greenpeace, which received eight million US dollars compensation from France.

The capture of the two agents, the failed cover-up and the global publicity over the incident caused huge damage to France's reputation. The country was "ritually shamed and humiliated", Palmer says.

"It was just a mad scheme that went out of control, there was absolutely nothing to be gained," Robie says.

But he adds France has since worked hard to rehabilitate its image in the Pacific region, through economic aid and cultural ties.

Palmer agrees, saying relations between the two countries are now "pretty good".

He gives much credit to Michel Rocard, French Prime Minister from 1988-91, who was the first French Prime Minister to visit New Zealand in 1991, when he repeated a 1989 apology for the bombing. He also established the French-New Zealand Friendship Fund to finance cultural and scientific cooperation between the two countries.


-------- russia

Russian Shipyard Unloads Nuclear Fuel From Two Submarines

Text of report by Russian news agency Interfax-AVN website, 7 July 2005

http://www.rednova.com/news/display/?id=167270&source=r_science

Murmansk: The crew of the Imandra service floating base has successfully completed an operation to unload spent nuclear fuel from the reactors of two nuclear submarines.

Work to unload the fuel was carried out in the harbour of the Nerpa shipyard (Snezhnogorsk, Murmansk Region) where two nuclear submarines of Victor-3 class had been delivered, Mustafa Kashka, deputy director of the Atomflot enterprise, told Interfax.

He recalled that the recycling of two nuclear submarines under the project 671RTM (code-name Shchuka, Victor-3 under NATO classification) was being financed by Great Britain and Norway.

"The reloading container with the reactor's fuel channels was successfully delivered to the storage facility of the Imandra floating base and after that the crew's specialists transferred the fuel channels to special cases and put them in a special storage facility that has a high degree of biological protection," Kashka said. "All technological demands connected with the removal of nuclear fuel were strictly observed and there were no deviations from the procedure," he said.

More than 1,500 spent heat-generating fuel assemblies are currently stored at Imandra, including 84 cases with spent heat- generating fuel assemblies recovered from the Kursk nuclear submarine. At the time Kursk became the eighth nuclear submarine of the Northern Fleet from which spent nuclear fuel was removed using the Imandra floating base.

The Imandra was built by the Baltiyskiy shipyard in 1981 and is used for complex servicing of vessels that have nuclear power plants and for work with spent nuclear fuel. The base is equipped with a special storage facility for cases containing spent heat-generating assemblies. It consists of six autonomous tanks filled with distillates that are cooled by their own built-in refrigerators.

The Imandra can also receive and store solid and liquid radioactive waste. It has special equipment for deactivation.

Source: BBC Monitoring Former Soviet Union

----

Russia concerned over unsuccessful efforts to establish MidEast nuclear-free zone
	
21:06, July 7, 2005 (RIA Novosti, Yekaterina Andrianova)

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20050707/40866266.html

GENEVA - Russia supports efforts to establish new nuclear-free zones, and is concerned that the process in the Middle East has stalled, Russia's ambassador to the United Nations said in Geneva Thursday.

Leonid Skotnikov told a disarmament conference, "We are concerned that efforts to create a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East have stalled, particularly given the complicated military and political situation in the area."

According to Skotnikov, the issue is equally important for South Asia (namely, India and Pakistan, two nuclear countries), as it could be instrumental for promoting regional security and stability.

Skotnikov said Russia welcomed a draft agreement on a nuclear-free zone that had been coordinated with Central Asian nations.

Moreover, Russia is ready to settle the remaining issues regarding the Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapons Free Zone Treaty as part of the dialogue between nuclear countries and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, which comprises 10 nations.

Skotnikov said Russia also advocated an idea to establish a committee on security guarantees for non-nuclear nations within the disarmament conference.

"Russia is ready to develop a global agreement on negative security guarantees, if it is to take into consideration our military doctrine and national security concept," he said.

According to Skotnikov, security guarantees are particularly important in the context of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.

"Russia invariably supports NPT non-nuclear states' commitment to securing such guarantees," he said.

----

Rosatom and European bank agree on funding for nuclear environment projects in Russia

July 7 (RIA Novosti) 20:10

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20050707/40865781.html

MOSCOW, - The Russian Federal Atomic Energy Agency (Rosatom) and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) signed an agreement Thursday on financing nuclear environment projects in Russia under the Multilateral Nuclear Environment Program (MNEPR).

"The agreement stipulates that the EBRD will finance on a gratis basis technical support to buy, install and put into operation equipment and infrastructure necessary for the preparation and implementation of nuclear environment projects in Russia under the MNEPR," Rosatom said.

Deputy Head of Rosatom Sergei Antipov and Director of the EBRD's Nuclear Safety Department Vince Novak signed the agreement.

----

Russia To Complete Experiment On Bulava Missile In 2006

Moscow (SPX) Jul 07, 2005

http://www.spacewar.com/news/missiles-05zzh.html

Russia plans to complete its experiment on the new Bulava sea-launched intercontinental ballistic missile system by the end of 2006, the Russian navy's Commander-in-Chief Vladimir Kuroyedov said Wednesday.

The research and manufacture of the new missile have been going on as scheduled, and only after the process is 70 percent completed can related departments decide when to hand the missile over to the navy and other troops, the Itar-Tass news agency quoted Kuroyedov as saying.

The solid-fuel Bulava missile, which is under a three-year testing program, is capable of carrying up to 10 individually guided nuclear warheads, with a range of up to 8,000 km.

The Bulava (SS-NX-30) is the submarine-launched version of Russia’s most advanced missile, the Topol-M (SS-27) solid fuel ICBM.

The SS-NX-30 is a derivative of the SS-27, except for a slight decrease in range due to conversion of the design for submarine launch. The SS-27 has is 21.9 meters long, far too large to fit in a typical submarine.

The largest previously deployed Russian SLBM was the R-39 / SS-N-20 STURGEON, which was 16 meters long. The Bulava will have a range not less than 8,000 km, and is reportedly features a 550 kT yield nuclear warhead.


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

Under new management

America's atomic-bomb laboratories are about to be overhauled. It promises to be a tricky business

Jul 7th 2005
From The Economist print edition

http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=4149455

JUST over 60 years ago, Robert Oppenheimer demonstrated the power of a partnership between the American government and academia. His team of university scientists developed and built the first nuclear bombs in a jumble of buildings at Los Alamos in the New Mexican desert. The team achieved its astonishing success in just over two years.

The University of California has run Los Alamos National Laboratory since that inception in 1943. But an embarrassing series of security and safety lapses at the laboratory, which recently resulted in the temporary suspension of all classified work for several months, has led the government to insist that the university find an industrial partner when it rebids for the contract to manage the place on July 19th. The contract is open to competition, and a rival bid is expected from another university with a commercial partner.

The University of California has run the Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore laboratories for over 50 years. Lockheed Martin currently manages Sandia National Laboratory for the Department of Energy. The University of Texas has information about its bid with Lockheed Martin. See also Bechtel, the National Ignition Facility, the Stanford Linear Accelerator Centre, GlobalSecurity.org and the Defence Department.

Los Alamos is one of three national laboratories working on nuclear weapons. For more than half a century, the University of California has run two of them—Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories, which specialise in nuclear science—on behalf of the American government. The third—Sandia National Laboratories, which is responsible for the non-nuclear components and systems engineering for America's nuclear weapons—is managed by Lockheed Martin, an engineering firm. The contracts for managing all three will now be put out to tender.

Work at the labs has shifted considerably since the testing of nuclear weapons was suspended in 1992. Instead of weapons development, America's nuclear-weapons scientists have been engaged in “stockpile stewardship”, a programme designed to ensure that the country's warheads will continue to function predictably as they age. This work involves computer simulations of how a weapon would explode, and “subcritical” tests that do not involve full nuclear detonations.

The labs have two large physics experiments under way. The first, at Los Alamos, is an oversized X-ray machine that uses non-fissile material to examine what happens when a pit—the fissile core of a nuclear weapon—implodes. In a weapon, this implosion triggers the nuclear explosion; in the lab, the explosion is thankfully absent. The second experiment is the National Ignition Facility (NIF), which is intended to generate temperatures and pressures approaching those created by the pits, in order to detonate small pellets of nuclear explosive.

Politics is currently threatening the NIF, which is being built at Lawrence Livermore, in California. It was supposed to be completed, at a cost of $1.4 billion, in 2003. To date, $2.8 billion has been spent on it—a figure somewhat complicated by the mingling of construction and running costs—and the facility is still an estimated four years from completion.

On July 1st, the Senate voted to stop construction completely, action that was part of a $31 billion energy and water appropriations bill. Pete Domenici, a Republican Senator from New Mexico who heads the relevant subcommittee, made the proposal. His state includes both Los Alamos and Sandia (though Sandia also has a site in California).

Although the decision appears to threaten the facility, it could be just a piece of political manoeuvring. John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a Washington-based defence consultancy, wonders whether Mr Domenici might be positioning himself for a meeting later this summer, when he must get together with members of the appropriations committee of the House of Representatives, whose chairman is from California and therefore unlikely to agree to the cuts. Nevertheless, Mr Pike says, there are still questions to be asked about the role of the ignition facility.

Most researchers agree that the NIF is scientifically important for the study of nuclear fusion; more controversial is whether it is necessary for stockpile stewardship. Sidney Drell, a physicist and arms-control specialist at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Centre, in California, says the project is “integral” to stockpile stewardship. Mr Pike, however, describes it as a “self licking ice-cream cone—a thing that exists for its own sake and serves no purpose”. Some physicists agree, though not on the record.

Three recent internal reviews of the facility by the Department of Defence and the Department of Energy go so far as to suggest that without it America would move closer to resuming nuclear testing. The longer the country relies solely on computer simulations to check for faults, rather than on the micro-explosions the NIF would make possible, the less certain the Department of Defence is that the warheads will perform as expected.

But stockpile stewardship has other functions. It retains a coherent body of nuclear expertise in America and (which is slightly different) it prevents nuclear scientists from being lured overseas. Unfortunately, the uncertainty about the future has lowered staff morale, potentially damaging this secondary function of keeping weapons scientists in America. At Los Alamos, the appointment of an irascible former admiral as the lab's director did not help, although he has since been replaced. An unofficial blog that allows disgruntled staff to publish anonymously lists gripe after gripe. Older staff—some 39% are aged 50 and above—have been retiring at unprecedented rates, afraid that their generous pension packages will be cut if the University of California fails to win the contract. At Lawrence Livermore, some 300 researchers were made redundant last year after Congress slashed the NIF's construction budget.

Yet there is hope for a brighter future. A fundamental rethink of the way in which America maintains its nuclear weapons is on the cards. Congress recently authorised a two-year study to determine whether a new approach to maintaining warheads would be possible. The so-called reliable replacement warhead programme aims to work out whether it is possible to make cheaper weapons without nuclear testing, by modifying existing components. The programme could present opportunities for demoralised nuclear scientists.

Historically, the University of California has managed the labs on a not-for-profit basis. To encourage competition for the management contract, officials at the Department of Energy plan to increase the management fee, to allow an element of profit. Indeed, a University of California internal memo reads, “Extrapolating from a recently negotiated DOE contract with Lockheed Martin to manage Sandia, we imagine we could double the $15m fee.” Higher fees should secure better management and improved working conditions for staff.

After much soul searching as to whether the university should be conducting nuclear work at all, its senior management has decided to go ahead with a bid in partnership with Bechtel, an engineering and construction firm based in San Francisco. The University of Texas has announced it will also bid for the contract, in partnership with Lockheed Martin.

Whichever succeeds—the result will be announced by December 1st—it is probably a smart idea to keep the nuclear-science labs managed at least in part by academics. Historically, university management has proved better for long-term research projects than corporate governance. The research culture at universities is open and flexible. This attracts talented scientists and stops them wandering to places where their talents might be put to uses of which the American government might disapprove.


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


-------- arizona

Palo Verde reactor shut down again

Ken Alltucker
The Arizona Republic
Jul. 7, 2005 12:00 AM

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0707paloverde07.html

One week after returning from a five-week shutdown, one of three reactors at Palo Verde nuclear power plant again closed due to a leaking oil seal.

Plant operator APS said it's the same problem that prompted the May 22 closing of Unit 3 at Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, located about 50 miles west of Phoenix.

The utility discovered that one of two new reactor coolant pump oil seals was not working properly, so plant managers shut down the reactor shortly after midnight Wednesday to fix the problem and attempt to figure out why it recurred, said APS spokesman Jim McDonald.

The utility expects it will take one week to repair the leaking coolant pump, which is used to pump water from the reactor to the steam generator to help produce electricity.

Despite closing the nearly 1,300-megawatt reactor during relentless summer heat, APS and Salt River Project officials said there should be plenty of power available for Valley homes and businesses over the next week.

One big reason for the power cushion is that the Westwing substation's damaged transformers have been replaced. The substation, which caught fire last summer and plunged the Valley into power crisis,was revving up as of Wednesday afternoon. That allows area utilities to import a sufficient amount of power to the Valley to keep lights on and air conditioners running.

"We're in good shape," said Gary Harper, SRP's manager of systems operations.

APS and Salt River Project own about half of Palo Verde and get about half of its power.

McDonald said all of APS' local power sources can generate 6,630 megawatts if three reactors at Palo Verde running at full throttle. With one reactor out, the company generates 6,460 megawatts. The utility forecasted peak power demand at 6,470 megawatts on Wednesday. APS has secured energy contracts to purchase another 1,200 megawatts if needed.

Area utilities prefer to use Palo Verde power because it's less expensive than electricity generated by other types of sources such as coal-fired plants.

While prospects for the region's power delivery systems have improved, Palo Verde is grappling with one of its most difficult periods. The nation's largest nuclear power plant operated with little trouble for most of the past decade, but all three reactors have closed this year for refueling or maintenance.

While initially replacing the oil seals in Unit 3, APS detected troubles with the reactor's heaters that help regulate cooling system pressure. A majority of those 36 heaters were reinstalled or replaced.

Palo Verde was the only nuclear power plant in the nation to be hit with a "yellow" finding, the second most serious level by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission over the past year. Regulators levied APS with a $50,000 fine after inspectors discovered air inside emergency cooling pipes. The problem has been corrected.

McDonald said the utility's main goal with the current shutdown is to identify the root cause of the recurring leak. In addition to inspections by plant workers, the utility will consult with the oil seal manufacturers. 


-------- nevada

Shoshone Nation files motion in Yucca case

LAS VEGAS SUN
July 07, 2005

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/text/2005/jul/07/519015155.html

The Western Shoshone Nation on Wednesday filed an opposition to a government motion to dismiss their case that seeks to stop work at the planned Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.

Last May a federal judge denied the Western Shoshone Nation's preliminary injunction request seeking to stop work at the site. In the ruling, the judge requested that the government file a motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds, according to Wednesday's motion.

The government filed a motion to dismiss.

In its opposition to that motion, the Western Shoshone argued that the U.S. has never lawfully divested the tribe of its land or its rights under previously held treaties.

It also argued that it has standing to assert the collective rights of the Western Shoshone Nation and its people, "including the right to prohibit the use of Western Shoshone Territory for the storage of high level nuclear waste," according to the motion.

----

New pro-Yucca group to lobby rural residents

July 07, 2005
By Benjamin Grove <grove@lasvegassun.com>
SUN WASHINGTON BUREAU

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/text/2005/jul/07/519015526.html

WASHINGTON -- A fledgling pro-Yucca Mountain group plans to visit Nye County later this month to try to bolster support for the repository project among rural Nevada residents.

The Yucca Mountain Task Force, formed in April to re-energize support for the Energy Department program and lobby Congress on Yucca budget issues, also aims to secure allies in Nye County.

Task force members plan an informal meeting on July 27 in Pahrump with several county officials, with a scheduled trip to Yucca Mountain the following day.

A number of Nye residents already support the plan to construct a national high-level nuclear waste repository in their county. County officials have said that if Yucca is inevitable they plan to negotiate for federal benefits.

The task force, a coalition of state utility officials and nuclear power industry groups led by the Nuclear Energy Institute, wants to further open a dialogue with local residents, said task force co-chairman Charles Pray, Maine's state nuclear safety adviser and a former Maine state senator and Energy Department official.

"My dealings in government have proven that it is always best to be open and candid and to have a fair discussion about it," Pray said.

The task force wants to work with county leaders in their efforts to win compensation for Yucca and to assure that the repository meets all technical requirements and is safe, Pray said.

The group does not intend to "force" Yucca Mountain on local residents who do not support it, he said. He said he suspects there are a number of Nye County residents who "quietly" support Yucca, and others who oppose it but believe the county should reap federal benefits if the project can't be stopped.

Most Nevada elected officials, including its five-member congressional delegation and Gov. Kenny Guinn, are united in opposition to Yucca.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has said the repository will never become a reality. The project for years has been plagued by delays, budget shortfalls and controversy over scientific studies at the site.

But Nye County officials would be "remiss in their duties" if they did not negotiate with the federal government for financial benefits and safety assurances, said David Swanson, interim manager of Nye County's nuclear waste repository office. He said industry officials from the task force group have unique insight into nuclear waste issues, such as storage and shipping.

"What I'm hoping to do is glean as much information as we can can from these folks," Swanson said.

Swanson said his personal skepticism about Yucca has faded in the last two and a half years.

"I feel really comfortable with bringing the repository here," he said. "I feel it's more or less inevitable."

Task force members plan continued meetings with locals in Nye County. Another task force organizer, David Blee, in his capacity as director of the U.S. Transport Council, made a presentation to the Central Nevada Community Protection Working Group on June 9. The council is another pro-Yucca group, aimed at educating the public about nuclear waste transportation. 


-------- new york

Second crack found at nuclear plant

7/7/2005, 10:59 p.m. ET
Last revised Friday, July 08, 2005 The Associated Press

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2005/05-039i.html

http://www.silive.com/newsflash/metro/index.ssf?/base/news-13/1120788130115230.xml&storylist=simetro

SCRIBA, N.Y. (AP) — A second crack has been found at the 30-year-old James A. FitzPatrick nuclear power plant, which was closed last week after a small leak was found in its cooling system.

Monday's second discovery won't delay the reopening of the central New York plant, Entergy spokeswoman Bonnie Bostian said Thursday. Bostian predicted the plant would be back online by the end of next week.

Entergy inspectors on Monday found a 6.5-inch crack on a reactor shutdown cooling line. The original crack, found June 30, was found in a water tank used as a backup cooling system. The plant was then shut down.

The cooling system helps disperse heat from the plant's nuclear core during routine or emergency shutdowns.

"The danger with a crack like this is that it could complicate a shutdown of the reactor," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesman Neil Sheehan said Thursday.

Two regional NRC inspectors arrived Thursday to join a FitzPatrick resident inspector in a special inspection. The team will oversee repairs and look at Entergy's general safety procedures, Sheehan said.

The plant has been in commercial operation since 1975. Its operating license expires in 2014.

Members of the Central New York Citizens Awareness Network said they worry that the cracks point to increasing deterioration of the reactor.

The final NRC inspection report will be available online at www.nrc.gov.

Information from: The Post-Standard, http://www.syracuse.com

----

NRC BEGINS SPECIAL INSPECTION AT JAMES A. FITZPATRICK NUCLEAR PLANT

NRC NEWS
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs, Region I
475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pa. 19406
http://www.nrc.gov

No. I-05-039 July 7, 2005
CONTACT: 	Diane Screnci (610) 337-5330
Neil A. Sheehan (610) 337-5331 	E-mail: opa1@nrc.gov

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2005/05-039i.html

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has initiated a special inspection at the James A. FitzPatrick nuclear power plant in response to the discovery of cracking in the facility’s torus, or pressure suppression chamber, and a shutdown cooling line. Members of the three-person team arrived this afternoon at the Scriba, N.Y., plant, which is operated by Entergy.

Among the objectives of the special inspection in the short term will be to review the adequacy of Entergy’s initial evaluations of the cause, the company’s assessment of whether any additional cracking exists and its repair work prior to the plant returning to service. Subsequently, the inspectors will more closely examine Entergy’s corrective actions, including its investigation into the defects, its root-cause evaluation and any potential generic safety concerns.

“We expect Entergy to undertake a vigorous and thorough review of these issues,” NRC Region I Administrator Samuel J. Collins said. “The purpose of this special inspection is to help ensure these problems are fully understood and addressed so that the plant’s safety margins are preserved.”

The plant’s torus is a large, doughnut-shaped structure that is partially filled with water (identified in graphic below as the pressure suppression chamber). It is located at the base of the reactor building. During a severe event at the facility, steam generated by the reactor would be deposited into the chamber to help reduce heat and pressure levels and cool down the plant.

On June 27, a crack measuring about 4.6 inches in length was found on the torus. Because it represented a potential loss of the plant’s containment mechanisms during an emergency, the reactor was subsequently shut down. It remains out of service while reviews and repairs are undertaken.

Entergy also identified a crack on a shutdown cooling line on July 4. This crack, measuring about 6.5 inches in length, is of concern because a failure of the line could complicate the cooling of the plant.

Once the inspection is completed, the special inspection team will document its findings and conclusions in a report that will be issued within 45 days of an exit meeting with plant managers.

The above graphic shows a cross-section of a pressure suppression chamber, also known as a torus. The cross-section measures 29.6 feet wide. The chamber typically holds 790,000 gallons of water.


-------- MILITARY 


-------- britain

Message from London
A rapid response to this morning’s events

By Mike Marqusee
From: "John Coursey" <johncoursey@...>
Date: Thu Jul 7, 2005  10:44 am

This morning, the suffering, grief and terror that
have visited so many innocents in recent years came to
London. We have not paid the kind of price that people
have paid in Fallujah, Najaf or Jenin, but it is a
steep price nonetheless. And its root causes are the
same.

The bomb blasts were grimly predictable. Indeed, they
had been widely and repeatedly predicted – not least
by rank-and-file Londoners, who knew that by taking
Britain into Iraq side-by-side with the USA, Tony
Blair had placed their city in the firing line.

As I write, the wreckage is being cleared and the
casualties counted. But Blair has already appeared on
television to address the nation, pledging to defend
“our values” and “our way of life” against those who
would “impose extremism on the world”. He spoke of the
unity of “civilised nations” in resisting “terrorism”.
While the delivery may be slicker, his “us” vs “them”
world-view was indistinguishable from Bush’s. Even by
Blair’s standards, it was a performance of nauseating
hypocrisy, as he sought to seize the moral high ground
in relation to violence and destruction that he
himself helped unleash.

The Labour government, egged on by the Conservative
opposition and the right-wing press, will now seek to
play on fear and drum up vindictive feelings. At this
stage, however, it is unclear how the British
population will respond. Will the mood more resemble
post 9/11 USA or Spain in the wake of the Madrid
carnage?

Coming the day after London’s Olympic triumph, the
attacks are a grim reminder that media-hyped feel-good
boosterism will do nothing to mitigate the UK’s
plummeting global standing. Blair’s closeness to Bush,
his championship of the US neo-liberal model in the
European Union, his aggressive pursuit of the “war
against terror” have all diminished Britain in the
eyes of Europe and the world.

This is a reality of which many people in Britain are
acutely aware. Opposition to the invasion of Iraq
spread across every sector of British society, and was
overwhelming in London. Subsequent revelations
concerning the bogus claims about Iraq’s weapons of
mass destruction have further embittered public
opinion – and made the Prime Minister, according to
every poll, one of the least trusted and most
disrespected individuals in the country.

Of course, Blair was able to overcome this decided
disadvantage and get himself re-elected in May thanks
to the absence of meaningful opposition within the
established political system. That absence will be
felt acutely in the days to come as Britain wrestles
with the consequences of the bomb blasts.

The Blair government will doubtless seek to use this
morning’s atrocity to escalate its alarming attacks on
civil liberties. The country’s 1.5 million strong
Muslim population, already subject to police
harassment, will come under increased pressure.
(Commentators have been quick to claim that the bombs
may be the work of people hiding anonymously within
the “law-abiding Muslim community”.)
Anti-globalisation protesters – currently gathered
outside the G8 summit at the Gleneagles Hotel in
Scotland – will be branded as “terrorists” and dealt
with accordingly.

Fomenting and exploiting fear has been a speciality of
the Blair regime. Asylum seekers, teenagers wearing
hoods, militant Muslims, anarchists, paedophiles … the
list of targets is lengthy and frighteningly flexible.
Whenever there is a need to distract people from the
impact of the government’s neo-liberal economic
policies, from its failure to rebuild the public
sector, from its misbegotten foreign adventures, a new
scapegoat is conjured up. The bomb blasts may aid this
process, but there is also reason to hope that this
time there will be substantial public resistance.

On 15th February 2003, some two million people
gathered in London to demonstrate against the
imminent attack on Iraq. I remember speaking to a
neighbour who told me proudly that he was going on the
march – his first ever protest march – because he was
damned if he was going to let Tony Blair endanger his
children’s lives by making London a prime target for
attack.

Everything that has happened since then – the exposure
of lie after lie, the deaths of British soldiers, the
refusal of ground realities in Iraq to conform to
Blair’s scenario - has further entrenched popular
resentment of the war, widely seen as a result of
Blair’s determination to court favour with George
Bush. The prime minister calculates that the bomb
blasts will unite British people behind their
government and that a touch of well-rehearsed
statesman-like gravitas will refresh his image. Much
of the media will pump out the message that we are all
under threat from faceless barbarians irrationally
opposed to “our way of life”. It will be up to the
anti-war movement to articulate a different analysis,
to remind people that this attack is a consequence of
our role in dishing out brutality in Afghanistan, Iraq
and Palestine, and to insist that no amount of
moralistic posturing by our leaders can substitute for
a desperately needed change in policy.

Mike Marqusee
London
http://www.mikemarqusee.com


-------- business

Halliburton bags another Iraq contract
Amidst criticism, Halliburton being signed in on new deals

Thursday 07 July 2005, 5:02 Makka Time, 2:02 GMT  Reuters

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/49DE55BF-FF64-4588-A2CB-33B401107787.htm

The US military has signed on Halliburton to do nearly $5 billion in new work in Iraq under a giant logistics contract that has so far earned the Texas-based firm $9.1 billion.

Linda Theis, a spokeswoman for US Army Field Support Command in Rock Island, Illinois, said on Wednesday that the military signed the work order with Halliburton unit Kellogg Brown and Root in May.

The new deal, worth $4.97 billion over the next year, was not made public when it was signed because the Army did not consider such an announcement necessary, she said.

"We did not announce this task order as this is really not something we ever really thought about doing," said Theis.

Halliburton, which was run by Vice President Dick Cheney from 1995-2000, has been under scrutiny for its contracts in Iraq and several US government agencies are looking into whether it overcharged for some work.

Increasing earnings

A Halliburton spokeswoman said the new spending package was approved by the army after the company submitted estimated costs for the year based on services requested.

The $4.97 billion figure represented the maximum under the contract, and the actual amount could be lower since the army doled out the work on an incremental basis, she said.

The new contract is about $1 billion more than the company earned under last year's services contract.

In March, a former KBR employee and a Kuwaiti citizen were indicted for defrauding the US government of more than $3.5 million by inflating the cost of fuel tankers.

The new work order, called Task Order 89, is valid until 30 April 2006 and went ahead despite critical military audits released last week by Democratic opponents of KBR's Iraq work.

Company criticism

A top US Army procurement official said last week Halliburton's deals in Iraq were the worst example of contract abuse she had ever seen, a claim KBR strongly rejected as "political rhetoric".

KBR was awarded the logistical contract with the military in December 2001, covering tasks from feeding US troops to delivering mail, doing laundry and building barracks.

US Senate critics of Halliburton were quick to denounce the new deal.

"At this point, why don't we just hand Halliburton the keys to the US Treasury and tell them to turn off the lights when they are done," Democratic Senator Frank Lautenberg said in a statement.

Called LOGCAP, KBR had by 31 May been paid $9.1 billion under the deal, which has nine option years that have been renewed three times. They are up for renewal each December.

Of this amount, $8.3 billion was for work in Iraq and the remainder for Afghanistan and elsewhere. Money obligated for future work amounted to $11.4 billion, said Theis, pointing out not all of this money would necessarily be spent.

Share price increase 

The Pentagon has been looking into whether to contract out some services done by KBR, but Theis said she had not heard of any decisions to make changes.

Halliburton has received bonuses for some of its work. Theis said a decision on possible further bonuses will likely be announced this month.

Much of Halliburton's work for the US military is on a cost-plus basis, which means the company can earn up to two percent extra depending on its performance.

Halliburton shares slipped 1.5%, or 75 cents, to $48.87 per share on the New York Stock Exchange, tracking the decline in the energy services sector on Wednesday.

However, Halliburton shares have rallied 13% since the beginning of June, bolstered by high crude oil prices.

Despite the drop in the stock price, analysts said the latest news was positive for the company and indicated "the government has no issue with Halliburton's performance," said Kurt Hallead, analyst with RBC Capital Markets.

----

Halliburton Gets Another $5 Billion

Thursday, July 7th, 2005
Democracy Now! Headlines

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/07/1340259

The US Army has ordered nearly $5 billion in work from the Halliburton Corporation in Iraq over the next year--that's $1 billion above what the Army paid for similar services the previous year. The new order comes despite serious questions about the company's past billing practices. Last week, the Pentagon confirmed a report by congressional Democrats saying that the Defense Contract Audit Agency has questioned more than $1 billion of Halliburton's bills for work in Iraq. Among the costs that Pentagon auditors questioned were more than $150,000 for movie rentals, $1.5 million for tailoring and two multimillion-dollar transportation bills that appeared to overlap.


-------- russia / chechnya

Russia Opposes NATO Naval Exercises in Black Sea

Created: 07.07.2005 MosNews

http://mosnews.com/news/2005/07/07/natoblacksea.shtml

Russia has opposed the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) conducting naval exercises in the Black Sea, saying such operations are only open to countries from the region, local media reported.

Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said Wednesday that only Black Sea countries — Russia, Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine and Georgia — have the right to take part in naval exercises in the region.

However, Ukraine has been seeking NATO membership, and under a bilateral accord Russia, whose naval bases were left on the Ukrainian Black Sea coast after the collapse of the Soviet Union, has to withdraw its fleet from Ukraine’s Crimea by 2017.

Ivanov said Russia allocated $32.14 million for the building of naval bases at its largest Black Sea port of Novorossiysk will add another $35.71 million next year for the project.


-------- us

Half of U.S. Military Personnel Refuse Anthrax Shot

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire
Thursday, July 7, 2005

http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2005_7_7.html#9B34DCC5

WASHINGTON — Half of U.S. military and civilian personnel offered anthrax vaccinations under a voluntary program that began in May have refused the inoculation, according to figures released yesterday to Global Security Newswire by a Defense Department agency (see GSN, May 6).

Since May 19, the vaccine has been offered to about 14,000 personnel, and roughly 7,000 of them have refused to take it, according to Col. John Grabenstein, director of the Military Vaccine Agency.

No explanation was given for the high number of refusals. “We can’t speculate on individual decisions,” he said.

The current pace of vaccinations is expected to increase, he said, as additional clinic workers are certified to give the vaccine and additional military units offer treatments to personnel.

The high refusal rate comes amid persisting complaints by some servicepeople and nongovernmental experts that the U.S. military has been reluctant to acknowledge a connection between the vaccine and uncommon but potentially debilitating side effects, which they say has hindered access to medical benefits and compensation (see GSN, Nov. 16, 2004).

It comes also despite a determination in December by then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, citing classified intelligence, that there is “a significant potential for a military emergency involving a heightened risk” of an anthrax attack on U.S. forces.

Wolfowitz’s finding preceded the Food and Drug Administration’s granting of an emergency legal authority in January to give the vaccine voluntarily to servicepeople. The vaccinations are focused on personnel stationed for prolonged periods in South Korea and the area of the U.S. Central Command, which includes the Middle East, along with those deployed for special biodefense-related missions.

“We are concerned that those who decline vaccination could die or be harmed if attacked with anthrax spores,” Grabenstein said.

The military has maintained that the vaccine is as safe as other commonly used vaccines, and Grabenstein said the recent treatments have produced only minor side effects.

“Adverse events are similar to previous experience, primarily temporary injection-site pain, swelling, or redness,” he said.

Steve Robinson, executive director of the National Gulf War Resource Center, however, said officials have been reluctant to acknowledge severe side effects that sometimes occur, making it difficult to obtain proper medical support.

The refusal rate, he said, suggests “that soldiers are not willing to take the risk if [the Defense Department] is not willing to provide medical care and compensation should they become injured.”

Approximately 1,200 military personnel were treated in 2003 and 2004 by four special clinics called Vaccine Healthcare Centers, for complex reactions to the anthrax or other military vaccines, the Army told Global Security Newswire this year (see GSN, May 6).

Mandatory Vaccinations Could Resume

The vaccinations began May 19. Under the voluntary program, personnel cannot be punished for refusing the vaccine.

A mandatory anthrax vaccination program that began months before the March 2003 invasion of Iraq and inoculated more than 1 million personnel was halted last October. The decision came after a federal judge ruled the vaccine could not be mandatory because the Food and Drug Administration had not licensed it as effective against inhalation anthrax, the type soldiers most be most likely to face in the field. Personnel who refused then were subject to possible removal from deployment status and disciplinary action.

A licensing decision is pending from the Food and Drug Administration for using the vaccine against inhalation anthrax, which could lead to renewed mandatory vaccinations. A final period for public comment ended in March.

The refusal rate appears to resemble that experienced by the voluntary anthrax vaccination program administered by the British government prior to and during the Iraq war. Statistics made public by the British Defense Ministry in February 2003 showed that as many as 49 percent of 20,000 military personnel offered anthrax vaccinations prior to the Iraq did not accept.

“The [Defense Ministry] is clearly losing the battle to convince the armed forces that anthrax infection is a clear and present danger in the Gulf,” MP Paul Keetch, Liberal Democrat shadow defense secretary, said then. “When weighing the risks of infection with fear of health complications from the vaccine, the majority of RAF [Royal Air Force] and naval personnel are rejecting vaccination.”

A former officer from the Royal British Legion, a charity supporting British servicepeople and veterans, said in September 2004 that statistics indicated then that one-third of an estimated 45,000 British personnel involved in the invasion had refused anthrax vaccinations, according to a report by the Guardian.

A Canadian judge in May 2000 ruled Canadian military personnel could refuse the vaccinations without penalty, questioning that vaccine’s safety.

More than 40 Australian soldiers reportedly were recalled from Iraq around the time of the invasion for refusing anthrax vaccinations, though they reportedly were not disciplined.

The Bush administration justified the invasion of Iraq as necessary primarily for removing an alleged threat posed by a suspected Iraqi nuclear weapons program, and alleged chemical and biological weapons, including anthrax. A CIA-sponsored team concluded last year Iraq no longer had such weapons, having abandoned its banned programs after the 1991 Gulf War.

The terrorist network al-Qaeda is believed to have sought to use anthrax, but failed to obtain the agent or full capability for producing a weapon before it was routed from Afghanistan in late 2001. 

A Defense Department report in 2001 alleged that North Korea had pursued biological weapons capabilities since the 1960s and possessed a rudimentary technical infrastructure capable of producing anthrax and other biological warfare agents. That same report alleged Iran had an active biological warfare program.

Anthrax mailings to several U.S. Senate offices and news media organizations in fall 2001 killed five people and sickened 22. No one has been caught.

GSN staff writer David Francis contributed to this article


-------- ACTIVISTS

U.S. Government Fining Activists for Taking Medicine to Iraq

A Federal District Court heard additional oral arguments yestreday in the case of activists with the campaign Voices in the Wilderness who openly violated the U.S. economic embargo against Iraq.

Thursday, July 07, 2005 Infozine

Washington, D.C. - Institute for Public Accuracy - infoZine - The U.S. Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control alleges that a 1998 Voices delegation violated economic sanctions law when it delivered medical supplies to Iraqis. Voices organized over 70 such delegations as part of a campaign of civil disobedience from 1996 to 2003.

Bill Quigley, the attorney representing Voices in the Wilderness, said yesterday afternoon shortly after leaving the courtroom: "The judge was particularly focused on why the government waited for years to issue these fines. The fines were issued shortly after members of Voices in the Wilderness were prominently involved in anti-war protests on October 26, 2002. He said that he will decide in the coming weeks if he will compel the government to turn over their papers on the case."

Kathy Kelly, co-founder of Voices in the Wilderness, said yesterday: "UN economic sanctions punished Iraq's most vulnerable people who couldn't possibly have controlled the dictatorship under which they lived. A 1999 UNICEF report found that UN economic sanctions directly contributed to the deaths of over 500,000 Iraqi children under age five. But because we challenged sanctions by delivering medicines to Iraq from 1996 to 2003, and because we oppose occupation, Voices has been fined $20,000 and hauled into federal court. It's clear that the U.S. policy towards Iraq for the past 15 years has been economic domination followed by direct occupation." Kelly's recently-released book is titled "Other Lands Have Dreams: From Baghdad to Pekin Prison"

Bert Sacks, the first person to be fined by the government for breaking the sanctions on Iraq, said yesterday: "Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control paid almost no attention to U.S. oil companies that violated economic sanctions so they could make millions of dollars and yet was swift to threaten and penalize people who traveled to Iraq for humanitarian reasons." A profile of Sacks, he was most recently in Iraq in September 2002 with Congressman Jim McDermott.

----

Iraqi police open fire on 1,000 demonstrators

07/07/2005 - 11:28:57 Breaking News Ireland

http://www.breakingnews.ie/2005/07/07/story210507.html

Police opened fire on 1,000 demonstrators today at the seat of the provincial government in Saddam Hussein’s hometown who were protesting the killing of the local council’s head official, authorities said. At least four were wounded.

The protesters demanded the resignation of the deputy governor and police chief because they believe their clan was responsible for yesterday’s killing of Ali Ghalib Ibrahim, who belongs to a rival clan, Mayor Wael Ibrahim Ali said.

Ibrahim, who headed Salahuddin’s provincial council, was killed while driving in Tikrit, the province’s capital, 80 miles north of Baghdad.

“He was fighting the corruption in the city council and that’s why they assassinated him,” Ali said during the demonstration.

Police guarding the provincial government building first fired warning shots into the air followed by volleys into the crowd, police Lt Khudhir Ali said. The four wounded including a policemen, but it was not clear how he was shot, he said.

----

Have You Signed This Yet? Please Join 44 Nobels, in appeal on Nuke Weapons Operating Status
Edit Membership

From: FoE Sydney - Nuclear Campaign <foesyd4@ihug.com.au>
Date: Thu Jul 7, 2005 0:52am

To Parliamentarians and NGOs: Please Join this Appeal to take Nuclear
Weapons off Hairtrigger Alert if you have not already done so.

This appeal is seeking further endorsements prior to being sent to
the heads of state before the M+5 summit in september.

To sign please email: foesyd4@ihug.com.au
If you have already endorsed it please delete (you may wish to check
that you are correctly shown)

Appeal by 44 Nobel Prizewinners including Dalai Lama, desmond Tutu,
Joseph Rotblat and Jose Ramos-Horta, 237 Parliamentarians and NGOs,
endorsed by the European Parliament and the Australian Senate on
March 10 2005, to lower the operating status of nuclear weapons
systems.

Contains:
--Statement of Endorsement
--Model for a draft resolution for UN General Assembly First Committee
--List of supporting organisations, and individuals including 44
nobels , and 237 NGOs and Parliamentarians.

STATEMENT OF ENDORSEMENT

The Distinguished individuals and organisations below, make the
following appeal concerning nuclear weapons, and the danger posed by
the maintenance of thousands of nuclear warheads and delivery systems
on launch-on-warning status.

We call on the governments of the United States, Russia, China,
France, and the UK, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea, to
support and implement steps to lower the operational status of
nuclear weapon systems in order to reduce the risk of nuclear
catastrophe and as part of their obligations, affirmed by the
International Court of Justice, to achieve the elimination of nuclear
weapons under strict and effective international control.

We note that:

1) To this day, thousands of nuclear weapons in the US and Russia
are on Launch-on-warning status, and that the megatonnage involved
remains more than enough to destroy civilisation and perhaps the
human race.

2) That the Indian subcontinent is increasingly on a 'hairtrigger' status.

3) That there have been numerous incidents in which a nuclear
exchange involving thousands of warheads could have taken place, and
in which the fate of the earth has depended on the correct judgement
of a single individual.

4) That the US, Russia, China, France, and the UK have failed so far
to make further progress to achieve the total and unequivocal
elimination of their nuclear arsenals, as called for under
international law.

5) That, in addition to the failure of the 'official' nuclear
weapons powers to fulfil their treaty obligations, India, Pakistan,
Israel, and North Korea also posses nuclear weapons, and that the
risk of their use is very real.

6) That a number of calls have been made by the UN General Assembly
and by the European Parliament to lower the operational status of
nuclear weapons.

Accordingly we call on the governments of the United States, Russia,
China, France and the UK, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea,
to:

a) Take immediate steps to lower the operational status of nuclear
weapons, and to revise nuclear doctrines, policies and postures to
reflect such lowered operational status.

b) To implement in good faith their obligations under international
law , to accomplish the total and unequivocal elimination of their
nuclear arsenals.

c) To implement the steps toward nuclear disarmament outlined in the
'13 steps' of the final declaration of the Year 2000 NPT Review
Conference.

d) We call on non- nuclear nations to press for nuclear disarmament
in every available international forum especially including the
United Nations General Assembly First Committee and the Conference on
Disarmament in Geneva.

e) We call on legislators worldwide to pass resolutions in national
and other parliaments pressing for the lowering of the operational
status of nuclear weapons and for nuclear disarmament as mandated by
international law.

We draw the attention of legislators and diplomats to the two texts below:

i) A model for a resolution in the UN General Assembly calling for
the lowering of the operational status of nuclear weapons (Note that
in the process of getting it through the GA First Committee it may
experience some alterations in text)


ii) Motion passed by the Australian Senate congratulating Colonel 
Stanislav Petrov on preventing nuclear war during the Serpukhov 15
incident of Sept 26 1983, and calling for the lowering of the
operational status of nuclear weapons.

You are invited to endorse the statement above calling for the
lowering of the operational status of nuclear weapons systems, and to
give your support to measures such as the texts below.

i) Model for a resolution in the UN General Assembly Calling for the
lowering of the operational status of nuclear weapons

Operational status of nuclear weapons

The General Assembly

Convinced that the possible use of nuclear weapons poses the most
serious threat to humanity and to the survival of civilisation,

Convinced also that the maintenance of nuclear weapons systems at a
high level of readiness-to-use increases the risks of unintentional
or accidental use of such weapons which would have catastrophic
consequences,

Noting that a high level of nuclear weapons readiness-to-use has
contributed to a number of circumstances when nuclear weapons have
become very close to being used,

Welcoming steps taken by States possessing nuclear weapons to reduce
nuclear risks and prevent nuclear war,

Welcoming particularly the agreement by Russia and the United States
of America on the Establishment of the Joint Centre for the Exchange
of Data from Early Warning Systems and Notification of Missile
Launches, but noting that the agreement has not yet been implemented,

Considering that, until nuclear weapons are eliminated, it is
imperative that further steps be taken to prevent the accidental,
unauthorised or unintentional use of nuclear weapons,

Expressing its deep concern that thousands of strategic warheads
remain on Launch-On-Warning status,

Expressing its concern also about emerging approaches to the broader
role of nuclear weapons as part of security strategies, including
rationalisations for the use, and the possible development, of new
types of nuclear weapons,

Recalling the program of action agreed at the 2000 Non-Proliferation
Treaty Review Conference which called for concrete agreed measures to
further reduce the operational status of nuclear weapons systems

Recalling resolutions [specify resolution numbers] on the floor of
this assembly have called for reductions in the operational status of
nuclear weapons,

Mindful that concrete steps to reduce the operational status of
nuclear weapons systems will help reduce tensions, build confidence
and support negotiations leading to the elimination of nuclear
weapons,

1. Calls for a review of nuclear doctrines emphasising concrete
steps to reduce the operational status of nuclear weapons,

2. Encourages States to immediately implement unilateral steps
including, inter alia, the rescinding of launch-on-warning policies,
and to urgently conclude negotiated steps, pending agreements for the
complete elimination of nuclear weapons,

3. Calls on all States possessing nuclear weapons to undertake not to
increase the number or types of weapons deployed and not to develop
new types of weapons or rationalisations for their use,

4. Calls for further confidence-building and transparency measures to
reduce the threats posed by nuclear weapons,

5. Requests States possessing nuclear weapons to report to the 60th
session on steps they have taken to implement this resolution

6. Decides to include in the provisional agenda of its 60th session
the item entitled "Operational status of nuclear weapons."

Sponsoring Organisations:

From:
John Hallam
Nuclear Weapons Campaigner Friends of the Earth Australia,
Foesyd4@...
61-2-9567-7533, fax 61-2-9567-7166
1 Henry Street Turella NSW Aust 2205
-------------------------------------------

Doug Mattern,
Association of World Citizens,
55 New Montgomery Street, Suite 224, San Francisco, CA 94105.
1- 415 541 9610.

Supported by the Organisations and distinguished individuals below:

44 Nobel Prizewinners who have signed the appeal to lower the
operating status of nuclear weapons:

Nobel Laureates
HH The Dalai Lama, (Peace)
Bishop Carlos Filipe Ximenes Belo, (Bishop of Loriu, Peace 1996)
Mairead Corrigan Maguire,(Peace 1976)
Jose Ramos Horta, (Peace 1996)
Dr Joseph Rotblat, (Peace 1995)
Oscar Arias Sanchez,(Peace 1987)
Archbishop Desmond Tutu, (Peace 1984)
Betty Williams, (Peace 1976)
Dr Alexei Abrikosov,(Physics 2003)
Dr Kenneth Arrow, (Economics 1972)
Dr Baruj Benacerraf ,(Medicine 1980)
Dr Guenter Blobel, (Medicine 1999)
Dr Johan Diesenhofer,(Chemistry 1988)
Dr Peter C. Doherty, (Medicine 1996)
Dr R.R. Ernst, (Chemistry 1991)
Dr John B. Fenn, (Chemistry 2002)
Dr Edmond H. Fischer , (Medicine 1992)
Dr Jerome I. Friedman, (Physics 1990)
Dr Val L. Fitch,(Physics 1980)
Dr Robert Guillemin,(Medicine)
Dr Herbert A. Hauptman, (Chemistry 1985)
Dr Dudley Herschbach,(Chemistry 1986)
Dr Roald Hoffman , (Chemistry 1981)
Dr Gerardus 't Hooft,(Physics 1999)
Dr David H. Hubel ,(Medicine 1981)
Dr Brian Josephson, (Physics)
Dr Arthur Kornberg ,(Medicine 1959)
Sir Harry Kroto, (Chemistry 1996)
Dr Paul C. Lauterburg,(Medicine 2003)
Dr Leon M. Lederman , (Physics 1988)
Dr Jean-Marie Lehn, (Chemistry 1987)
Dr Marshall Nirenberg, (Medicine 1968)
Dr Mario Molina, (Chemistry 1995)
Dr Kary Mullis, (Chemistry 1993)
Dr Ferid Murad, (Medicine 1998)
Dr John C. Polanyi, (Chemistry 1986)
Dr Richard Roberts, (Medicine)
Dr Frederick Sanger, (Chemistry 1958, 1980)
Dr Jack Steinberger, (Physics 1998)
Sir John Sulton, (Medicine 2002)
Dr E. Donnall Thomas, (Medicine 1990)
Dr Martinus Veltman, (Physics 1999)
Frank Wilczek, (Physics 2004)
Dr Kurt Wuthrich (Chemistry 2002)

Other distinguished Persons:

Maestro Mstislav Rostropovich
Dr. Robert Muller (Fmr UN assistant Secy General)

Edgar Mitchell (Astronaut)
Benjamin Ferencz, (Prosecutor at the Nuremburg War Crimes Trials)
Prof Saul Mendlovitz, Dag Hammarskjold Professor, Rutgers Law School,

International Organisations:

Tadatoshi Akiba, mayor of Hiroshima, president of Mayors for Peace,
750 mayors in 110 countries

Ronald Mc Coy President, John Loretz, Program Director, International
Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) (Nobel Prize)

Emma Mc Gregor-Mento, Abolition-2000

Cora Weiss, Hague Appeal for Peace (HAP),

Colin Archer, Secy - General, International Peace Bureau, Geneva (Nobel Prize)

Selma Brackman, President, War and Peace Foundation, NY,

Alyn Ware, International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms,

Nicky Davies, Greenpeace International, Amsterdam,

Susi Snyder, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom
(WILPF), Director, United Nations Office- NY

Bruce Gagnon, Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in
Space, Brunswick, ME, USA,

Vijay Mehta, Chair, World Disarmament Campaign, Lond,

Charles Mercieca, International Association of Educators for World
Peace (IAEWP) Huntsville Ala, USA,

Pol D'Huyvetter, For Mother Earth International, Ghent, Belgium,

James K. Galbraith, Kate Cell, Director, Lucy Webster, UN Observer,
Economists for Peace and Security (formerly Economists Allied for
Arms Reduction/ (ECAAR))

Lucy Law Webster, Institute for Global Policy,

Rev. Vernon C. Nickols, UN Observer/NGO Rep, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation,

Yumi Kikuchi, founder, Global Peace Campaign,

Peer de Rijk, World Information Service on Energy (WISE) Amsterdam,

David Mumford, International Fellowship of Reconciliation (IFOR),
Alkmaar, Neth,

Penny McManigal, The Millionth Circle, USA,

Mary T. Legge SSJ, DPI/NGO at UN for Congregations of St Joseph,

Bruce K. Gagnon Coordinator, Global Network Against Weapons &
Nuclear Power in Space, Brunswick, ME,

David Schweitzer, Schweitzer Institute,


US Organisations:

Helen Caldicott,(founder PSR, WAND) President, Nuclear Policy
Research Institute, Wash DC,

Alice Slater, Global Resource and Action Centre for the Environment, NY,

Martin Butcher, PSR, Washington DC,

Bruce Blair, President, Centre for Defence Information, Washington,
(identification only)

Jonathan Granoff, President, Global Security Institute, (pers capy)

David Krieger, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, Santa Barbara, Calif,

Rev. Vernon C. Nichols, UN-NGO Rep, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation,

Pamela S. Meidell, Atomic Mirror, Port Hueneme, Calif, USA.,

David Robinson, Pax Christi USA, Erie, PA,

Peggy L. Shriver, Fmr Asst. General Secy, National Council of Churches, NY.,

Donald W. Shriver, Union Theological Seminary, NY.,

Rev. William J. Morton, SSC, Columban Mission Office, US/Mexico
Border, El Paso Texas, USA,

Bernice Fisher, Penninsula WILPF, Palo Alto Calif,

Bill Smirnow, Nuclear- Free New York,

Donald Keesing, Voices Opposed to Environmental Racism, Wash DC,

Lorraine Krofchok, Grandmothers for Peace International, Elk Grove, Calif,

Vina Colley, PRESS, Ohio,

Bruce A. Drew, Prairie Island Coalition, Mn, USA,

George Crocker, N. American Water office, Lake Elmo, Mn, USA,

Daniel Ellsberg, Truth-Telling Project, (Fmr RAND consultant to White
House on Nuclear C3I)

Kathy Kelly, Coordinator, Voices in the Wilderness, Chicago Ill,

Patricia J. Ameno, Chair, Citizens Action for a Safe Environment, Penn,

Francis Chiappa, President, Cleveland Peace Action,

John Laforge, Nukewatch, WI, USA,

Andrew Hund, Alaska/Arctic Environmental Defense Fund,

Coleen Marshall Secy, Sheldon Nidle, Founder, Planetary Activation
Organisation, Hawaii,

Marsha Joyner, President, Hawiian National Communications
Corporation, Honululu, Hawaii,

Paul Ehrlich, President, Centre of Conservation Biology, Stanford
University, Stanford, Calif,

Irving Stolberg, President, Caucus of Connecticut Democrats,

Irving Stolberg, President, Connecticut Division, United Nations Association,

Barbara Murphy-Warrington, CARE-USA, Atlanta, Georgia,

Alanna Hartzog, Co-Director, Earth Rights Institute, PA,

Beth A. Pirolli, Director, Families United for a Safe Environment (FUSE),

Carolyn Vigneri, Nebraskans for Peace, Omaha, Nebraska, USA,

Glen Carroll, Georgians Against Nuclear Energy, Atlanta, GA, USA,

Robert Gould MD, Physicians for Sociel Responsibility (PSR) San
Francisco Bay Area, Berkley, Calif,

Samuel S. Epstien MD, Chair, Cancer Prevention Coalition, Chcago, Ill,

Dr Kathleen Sullivan, Nuclear Weapons Education and Action Prject, NY.,

Terri Swearingen (1997 Golman Prize) Tri-State Environmental Council, WV.,

Bill Towe, North Carolina Peace Action, NC, USA,

Medea Benjamin, Co-Founder, Global Exchange,

Jennifer O. Viereck, Director HOME: Healing Ourselves & Mother Earth,
Tecopa, CA,

Bob Kinsey, Colorado Coalition for the Prevention of Nuclear War,

Kevin Martin Executive Director Peace Action and Peace Action
Education Fund, MD,

Bob Alpern, Coordinator, Action for Nuclear Disarmament, Sonoma County, CA

Preston J. Truman, Downwinders, Malad, Idaho,

Congressman Dennnis Kucinich, Ohio,


Canadian Organisations

Debbie Grisdale President/Steven Starr, Physicians for Global
Responsibility, (PGS),

Rosalie Bertell, President Emeritus, International Institute for
Concern for Public Health, Toronto, Ont,

Roy and Anne Morris, Salmon Arm Kairos Group, BC, Canada,

Gordon Edwards PhD, President, Canadian Coalition for Nuclear
Responsibility (CCNR),

Desmond Berghofer, Co-Founder, Institute for Ethical Leadership,
Vancouver Canada,

Metta Spencer, Editor, Peace Magazine, Toronto, Ont,

Libby Davies MP, Vancouver East, Canada,

Bill Blaikie MP, Elmwood-Transcona (NDP), Canada,

Douglas Roche, Senator Emeritus, Fmr Disarmament Ambassador, Canada


UK Organisations

Dr Kate Hudson, Chair, Sam Akaki, Parliamentary Officer, the
Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), UK

Jenny Maxwell, West Midlands Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, Birmingham, UK,

Reuben Ralph Say, Woking Action for Peace/CND, Woking, Surrey, UK,

Caroline Gilbert, Patricia Pulham, Michael Pulham, Christian Campaign
for Nuclear Disarmament (CCND),

Jill Stallard National Secy, CND Cymru, Nantagredig, Cynghordy,
Llanymddyfri, Wales, UK,

George Farebrother, World Court Project, Lond, UK,

Dr David Lowry, Fmr Director, European Proliferation Information
Centre (EPIC), Lond,

Di Mc Donald, Nuclear Information Service, (NIS) Southampton, UK,

Ken Coates, Chair, Bertrand Russel Peace Foundation,

Angie Zelter, Trident Ploughshares UK,

Richard Bramhall, Low-Level Radiation Campaign, Llandridod, Powys, UK,

Lindis Percy/Anni Rainbow, CAAB, Yorks, UK,

David Bowe, MEP,

Dr Caroline Lucas MEP, Green Member of the European Parliament for S.E. England

Alan Simpson MP,

David Chaytor MP, Member for Bury North,

Frank Cook MP, Westminster,

Llew Smith MP, Blaenau, Gwent, Wales,

John Mc Donnel MP, Labour, Hayes and Harlington, Middlesex,

Harry Cohen MP, House of Commons, UK,

John Austin MP, Labour, Erith and Thamesmead, UK,

Malcolm Savidge MP,

Baroness Susan Miller, House of Lords, Lond,


Russian Organisations

Vladimir Sliviak, Co-Chair, Ecodefense, Moscow,

Professor Alexey Yablokov, President, Centre for Russian
Environmental Policy, Moscow,

Andrei Laletin, Chairman, Friends of the Siberian Forests, Krasnoyarsk, Russia,

Jennie Sutton, Baikal Environmental Wave,

Victor Khazan, Friends of the Earth Ukraine, Dneipropetrovsk, Ukr,

Sergei Kolesnikov, Duma Member, Deputy Chair, Cttee on Education and
Science, Moscow,

Sergei Kolesnikov, IPPNW-Russia,


Indian Organisations

Achin Vanaik, Admiral L. Ramdas, Lalita Ramdas, Coalition for
Nuclear Disarmament and Peace (CNDP), India New Delhi,

Admiral L. Ramdas, India-Pakistan Soldiers Initiative for Peace,
Raigad Dist, Maharashtra,

Hari Sharma, President, International South Asia Forum,

Sukla Sen, EKTA, Mumbai, India,

Mahipal Singh, Peoples Union for Civil Liberties, New Delhi,

Imrana Quadeer, Centre for Community Health and Social Medicine, JNU,
New Delhi,

Harsh Kapoor, (India/France) South Asians Against Nukes,

Jayanti Patel, Indian Radical Humanist Association, Ahmedabad, Gujarat,

Kirity Roy, Secy, MASUM, Howrah, W. Bengal,

Swami Manavatavadi, International School of Humanitarian Thoughts and
Practice, Rajghat, Kurukshetra, Haryana,

Aruna Roy, Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS), Rajasthan,

The National Campaign for the Peoples Right to Information (NCPRI)
Rajasthan, India,

Mahi Pal Singh, Treasurer, People's Union for Civil Liberties-Delhi

Ammu Abraham, Womens Centre, Mumbai,

Meenakshi Gopinath, Women in Security, Conflict Management and Peace
(An initiative of the Foundation for Universal Responsibility of HH
The Dalai Lama), New Delhi,


Pakistani Organisations

Pirzada Imtiaz Syed, Secy, All-Pakistan Federation of United Trade
Unions (APFUTU), Gujrat, Pakistan,

AH Nayyar, President, Pakistan Peace Coalition,

Dr Mubashir Hasan, (Fmr finance minister) Campaigner for Human Rights
and India-Pakistan Friendship, Pakistan-India Forum for Peace and
Democracy.

Prof. M. Ismail, Director, RISE, Peshawar, Pakistan,


NZ Organisations

Commander Robert Green, Disarmament and Security Centre, Christchurch, NZ,

Alyn Ware, Peace Foundation, Wellington, NZ,

Marion Hancock, Wendy John, Aotearoa/NZ Peace Foundation, Auckland NZ,

Christine Lesley, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, Wellington, NZ,

R.E. White, Director, Centre for Peace Studies, University of Auckland, NZ,

Peter Low, Quaker Peace and Service, NZ,

Jonathan Hunt MP, Speaker, NZ Parliament,

Keith Locke MP, Greens, NZ,

Rod Donald MP, Co-Leader, Greens, NZ,

Gordon Copeland MP, United Future Party,

Tim Barnett MP, Labor, Christchurch Central Electorate, Christchurch NZ,


Australian Organisations

Sue Wareham, President, Medical Association for the Prevention of War (MAPW),

Margaret Reynolds, President, United Nations Association of Australia (UNAA),

Jo Vallentine, People for Nuclear Disarmament W.A.,

David Sweeney, Nuclear Campaigner, Australian Conservation
Foundation, Carlton, Vic,

Peter Robertson Environment Centre of the Northern Territory (ECNT) Darwin, NT,

Gar Smith, Environmentalists Against War,

Dr Stella Cornelius, Director, Conflict Resolution Network, Chatswood NSW,

Ned Iceton, Co-Convenor, Social Development Network, Armidale NSW,

Peter Burton, Peace Partners, Toowoomba, Qld,

Dr Mark Zirnsak, Director, Justice and International Mission, Synod
of Victoria and Tasmania, Uniting Church in Australia,

Rev Sue Gorman, Moderator, Synod of Victoria and Tasmania, Uniting
Church in Australia,

Keith Russel, Religious Society of Friends, ACT,

Senator Kerry Nettle, Greens, NSW,

Senator Lyn Alison, Australian Democrats Vic,

Senator Andrew Bartlett, Australian Democrats Qld,

Senator Aden Ridgeway, Australian Democrats NSW,

Senator Natasha Stott-Despoja, Australian Democrats SA,

Senator Brian Grieg, Australian Democrats WA,

Terry Roberts MP, SA,

Carmen Lawrence MHR, President, Labor Party,

Jill Hall MHR,

Warren Snowden MHR, ALP Member for Lingiari NT,

Alan Griffin MHR, ALP Member for Bruce, Melb,

Jann Mc Farlane MHR, ALP Member for Stirling, W.A.,

Tanya Plibersek MHR, ALP Member for Sydney, NSW,

Dee Margetts MLC (Greens), W.A.,

Giz Watson, Greens, W.A.,

Ian Cohen MLC (Greens) NSW,

Kerrie Tucker MLA, Greens ACT,


Swedish Organisations

Agneta Norberg/Bo Wirmark, Chair, Swedish Peace Council,

Stefan Bjornsson, President, Swedish Scientists and Engineers Against
Nuclear Arms (SEANA), Stockholm,

Gunnar Westberg, President, SLMK (IPPNW Sweden), Goteborg, Sweden,

Anders Ygeman MP, Stockholm,


Danish Organisations

Poul Eck Sorensen, Peace Movement of Esbjerg,

Poul Eck Sorensen, Peace Council of Denmark,

Holger Terp/John Avery, Danish Peace Academy,

John Avery, Pugwash Conference Denmark,



Finnish Organisations

Teemu Matinpuro, Director, Finnish Peace Committee, Helsinki, Finland,

Lea Launokari, Women for Peace Finland,

Ulla Kotzer, Women Against Nuclear Power Finland,

Heidi Hautala MP Greens,

Kimmo Kiljunen MP, Social Democrats, Finland,


German Organisations

Eva Quistorp, Women for Peace, Germany,

Henning Droege, Arzt fur Allgemeinmedizin, Homoopathie,
Naturheilverfahren, Allgau, Germany,

Wolfgang Schlupp-Hauck, Friedens-und Begegnungsstaette Mutlangen eV, Germany,

Bernd Frieboese, Barsebackoffensiv (Pers capy)

Rienhard Voss, Pax Christi Germany, Franfurt Am Main,

Dr Anne Brie MEP PDS,

Uta Zapf, MP, Chair, Bundestag Committee on Arms Control,
Disarmament and Nonproliferation,



Belgian Organisations

Hans Lammerant, Forum Voor Vredesaktie, Belgium,

Zoe Genot MP, Greens, Belgium,

Eloi Glorieux MP, Greens, Flemish Regional Parliament, Belgium,

Muriel Gerkens MP, Greens, Brussels,

Senator Patrick Vankrunkelsven, Brussels, Belg,

Marie Isler-Beguin, MEP,

Edith Klein, European Commission, Brussels, Belg,



Netherlands Organisations

Harry Van Bommel MP, Neth,

Joost Lagendijk, Member of European Parliament, GroenLinks, Netherlands,

Fiona Dove, Director, Transnational Institute, Neth,

Carolien Van de Stadt, WILPF-Netherlands,



French Organisations

Dominique Lalanne, Co-Chair, Stop Essais, France,

Bruno Barrilot, Director, Observatoire des Armes Nucleaires
Francaises, Lyons, France,

Jean-Marie Matagne, Action des Citoyens pour le Desarmement Nucleaire
(ACDN) Saintes, France,


Luisa Morgantini MEP, Italy/Brussells

Folena Pietro, MP Italy, Foreign Affairs Commission, Democrats of the
Left (DS) - Olive Tree Coalition


Hallgeir H. Langeland MP, Norway,

Bent Natvig, Chair, Norwegian Pugwash Committee, Oslo, Norway,


Czech Peace Society, Prague, Czech Rep,


Romanian Organisations

Constantin Cretu, Romanian Social Forum, Bucharest, Romania,

Constantin Cretu, 'Carpathians Genius' Bucharest, Romania,

Aurel Duta, For Mother Earth, Bucharest, Romania,


Manana Kochladze, 'Green Alternative', Tblisi, Georgia,


Japanese Organisations

Atsushi Fujioka, Kyoto Museum for World Peace, Kyoto, Japan,

Hideyuki-Ban, Secy-General, Citizens Nuclear Information Centre
(CNIC) Tokyo, Japan,

Yayoi Tsuchida, International Secretary, Gensuikyo, (Japan Council
Against A and H Bombs)

Shigetoshi Iwamatsu, Chair, Gensuikin, (Japan Congress Against A and H Bombs).



Wen Bo, Pacific Environment, Beijing, China,


Kim Choony, Korean Federation for Environmental Movement, (KFEM)

Prof Samsung Lee, Political Science, Hallym University,



Mexican Organisations

Efraim Cruz Marin, President, Academicos de Ciencias y Humanidades, Mexico,

Noni Fernandez, Mexican Initiative Against War, Chiapas, Colonia Roma,

Luis Guttierez Esparza, President, Latin-American Circle for
International Studies (LACIS), Mexico City,


Grace de Haro, APDH, Rio Negro, Argentina,

Dina Lida Kinoshita, Unesca Catedra for Education for Peace, Human
Rights, Democracy and Tolerance, Sao Paulo, Brasil,

Senator Roberto Saturnino, Brasilian Federal Senate, (for Rio de Janiero)



Roy Cabonegro, YSDA-Pilipinas, Quezon City, Phillipines,

Clemente G. Bautista, Kalikasan, (Peoples Network for the
Environment) Phillipines,

Soodhakur Ramlallah Secy Mauritius Union of Journalists Port Louis Mauritius


Bishan Singh, SUSDEN, Malaysia,

Dato Haji Mustapha Ma, Secy, IFNGO, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia,


Lonngena Ginting, WALHI/Friends of the Earth Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia,

Saranjan Kodithuwakku, Green Movement of Sri Lanka, Nugegoa, Sri Lanka,

Maria D. Watondoha MP, Tanzanian National Assembly, Dodoma, Tanzania,

Hon. Dr Diodorus Buberwa Kamala MP, Mzumbe, Tanzania,

Edward Appiah-Brafoh, Green Earth Organisation, Accra, Ghana,

Dr. Araf Marei, Vice President, Egyptian Association for Community
Participation, Cairo, Egypt,

Dr Akram Alhamdani, President, Green Party of Iraq, Baghdad

Ayman Jallad, Humanitarian Group for Social Development, Beirut, Lebanon,

Mabrouk Boudaga, Arab Young Lawyers Association, Tunis, Tunisia,