NucNews - August 24, 2005 -------- NUCLEAR -------- accidents and safety Entergy cuts deal with utilities over VY fire By K. CECCAROSSI Brattleboro Reformer Staff Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 2:15:50 AM EST http://www.reformer.com/Stories/0,1413,102~8862~3023807,00.html MONTPELIER -- Was the fire at Vermont Yankee one year ago related to a power boost at the plant? The public might never know for sure. Utility officials, nuclear watchdogs and state advocates for ratepayers have all said the fire was the result of plant owners pursuing a 20 percent increase in the reactor's output. This fall, they were all set to go before the state's Public Service Board to try to prove it, and hold plant owners Entergy Nuclear responsible for the nearly $1 million the fire cost the state's utilities. But this month Entergy announced it cut a deal with utilities Central Vermont Public Service and Green Mountain Power. If the agreement checks out, the Public Service Board will call off hearings on the issue. While that could be good news for ratepayers -- as it's a guaranteed payoff to utility companies -- it doesn't answer questions about whether the so-called "uprate" work is safe at the plant. Entergy already has permission from the state to pursue the power increase. The OK came in March 2004 with conditions; one being that if the plant was forced to shut down because of uprate-related modifications, Entergy would have to reimburse utilities for power purchased while it is off line. That is to say, any financial risks associated with the uprate would not be incurred by ratepayers. The state Department of Public Service, which advocates for Vermonters in energy issues, supports Entergy's offer this month to utilities. Sarah Hoffman, attorney for the department, says a settlement is the best scenario, in terms of its impact on electricity bills. The fire caused a 17-day outage at the plant. During that time, utilities had to buy power on the open market. Central Vermont Public Service spent $860,000, Green Mountain Power spent $525,000. The main goal for the Department of Public Service is to see that none of those extra costs are passed on to ratepayers. "There are always litigation risks," Hoffman said Tuesday. "We do believe the fire was uprate related ... but this way assures us of what ratepayers are going to get." Spokesmen for Vermont Yankee and the utilities were mum Tuesday, declining to comment until the agreement is sealed. There is one group that isn't happy about the agreement. New England Coalition, a nuclear watchdog, says this is not an issue where the state should allow Entergy to make a deal, and limit public discussion. "People have a right to know whether Entergy is doing the best possible job," said Ray Shadis, technical adviser for the coalition. "People have reason to be concerned about this." The fire started on June 18, 2004, when a piece of metal broke off into cooling ducts. Plant officials say the piece broke because air flow in the ducts was increased for the uprate, but they argue the piece would have eventually broken either way. It's on that last point the utilities and the New England Coalition don't agree with Entergy. Shadis, of the coalition, says plant officials were negligent with regular maintenance because they were focused on uprate improvements. "The only way to find out if we're correct or not, is through an evidentiary process," Shadis said. Hoffman, of the Department of Public Service, said the coalition's question of plant safety is an important one, but not one that falls within the department's main objectives. Those concerns belong to the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission, she said. In Aug. 2004, Entergy submitted a report to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, saying the fire was caused by "inadequate preventative maintenance," and that it was separate from any uprate work. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission agreed. However, it has not, as of yet, granted Entergy permission to boost power at the plant. While Entergy can do work on the plant to prepare it for an uprate, it can't actually increase output until the Regulatory Commission signs off. That approval has been held up in review for months. Although the state's Public Service Board has issued a stay in hearings over the cause of the fire, the delay is pending review of Entergy's agreement with utilities. Other parties to the case, namely the New England Coalition, may also review the agreement and then ask the Public Service Board to hold hearings anyway. Rob Williams, of Vermont Yankee, said the agreement should be submitted to the board within a few days. ---- Brief Scare at Hanford after Barrel Breaks 8/24/05 Northwest Public Radio http://www.nwpr.org/HomepageArticles/Article.aspx?n=1205 RICHLAND, WA - The "all clear" has sounded at the Hanford nuclear clean up site. Earlier today, a nuclear waste drum broke, setting off an emergency alert and evacuation. Correspondent Tom Banse has the wrap-up. Emergency operations centers activated after a barrel containing a small amount of nuclear waste cracked. As it turned out, the incident was minor. A Hanford emergency spokeswoman Katie Larson says 11 close by workers had to evacuate. Others in the general vicinity took shelter indoors until the alert was lifted. Larson: "This container can best be described as a 55-gallon drum that is a 'drum-within-a-drum.' So the radioactive material we're speaking of is in the inner container. The outer container contains the absorbent material. It was the absorbent material that was released in the breach." Larson says no radioactive waste escaped and nasal smears of workers showed no signs of contamination. Crews in the area of the incident are unearthing and repackaging barrels of nuclear waste that were buried in outdoor trenches decades ago. ---- Feds Evacuate Hanford Nuclear Workers Wed Aug 24, 3:29 PM ET Associated Press http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050824/ap_on_re_us/hanford_leak_1 RICHLAND, Wash. - The U.S. Energy Department evacuated some workers at the Hanford nuclear reservation Wednesday because of a suspected container leak. The incident occurred in an area where workers have been unearthing containers of waste that had been buried for years. The site is also near a landfill where some waste is being permanently buried. No known contamination or injuries were detected in initial radiological surveys of the scene, said Calvin Dudney, a member of the joint information center at Hanford. No other information was immediately available. Dudney did not know how many workers were in the area at the time. -------- australia Labor backs more uranium exports Dennis Shanahan, Political editor August 24, 2005 The Australian http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16365077%255E2702,00.html LABOR frontbencher Martin Ferguson has declared that Australia must expand its uranium exports in the interests of national and international security and the environment. Labor's resources spokesman said it would be hard to "begrudge" China uranium for peaceful nuclear purposes as part of Australia's new regional role in fighting greenhouse emissions. And in a move that sets him at odds with Labor environment spokesman Anthony Albanese, Mr Ferguson said the recently signed six-nation Asia-Pacific pact on clean air represented "a regional partnership of great significance and even greater opportunity" because of China's involvement. Last month, Mr Albanese said the pact would deliver nothing new. "China has nine out of the 10 most-polluted cities in the world. Windfarms, solar energy and renewables alone cannot solve China's problems," Mr Ferguson told a Sydney meeting yesterday in Labor's strongest support yet for the pact. Australia has started negotiations to sell uranium to China for the first time and the Howard Government has embraced the six-nation pact as a way of combating greenhouse emissions through technology. Mr Ferguson praised the Asia-Pacific Partnership on clean development and climate because it included China, India, Japan, South Korea and the US and meant Australia could be part of "the solution to the environmental impact of economic growth in our region". "The membership of the Asia-Pacific Partnership is certainly impressive," he said. "It's got the world's two largest economies, the US and Japan, and the world's two fast-growing economies, China and India. "This is a regional grouping of countries that, working in partnership, has within its gift the capacity to make a serious global impact on patterns of energy use and greenhouse emissions -- and Australia is part of it." The US and Australia refused to ratify the Kyoto greenhouse protocol and India and China were not bound by it, although Mr Ferguson said Australia should sign because the new pact was complementary to Kyoto. Mr Ferguson said Australia had an enormous competitive advantage as a trading nation in energy resources and said the key markets were "those countries within the Asia-Pacific Partnership". He said Australia's uranium mining and the global nuclear cycle meant the renewed debate on nuclear energy and pollution was of "great importance in the context of Australian trade, our future economic growth and our industry competitiveness in an increasingly carbon-constrained world". "Australia cannot withdraw from the international community in terms of the debate about uranium mining, nuclear power and its corollaries -- nuclear non-proliferation and the safe and peaceful handling of nuclear waste," he said. "It's not hard to see why expanding capacity for nuclear power is back on the agenda. "The Asia-Pacific Partnership and Australia's role as a responsible supplier of uranium for peaceful purposes becomes very clear in this context. Australia will therefore take advantage of the growth in uranium demand, as is the desire of the South Australian Labor Government, and do it in a responsible way." ---- Uranium redefines ethics Aug 24, 2005, Angela Macdonald-Smith | Bloomberg http://afr.com/articles/2005/08/23/1124562854995.html The Anglican Church's investment fund in Australia has decided that nuclear power is a good thing, or at least the lesser of two evils. Glebe Asset Management, the second-biggest ethical investment fund in Australia, had removed its ban on buying uranium mining shares after a three-month review, director David Andrews said. The company decided to scrap the restriction after BHP Billiton in June bought WMC Resources, owner of the world's largest deposit of the nuclear fuel. Australians last year had more than $21.5 billion in managed investments that avoided industries such as tobacco and gaming. Glebe and BT Funds Management are among those accepting uranium, partly due to concerns that increasing use of oil and coal is contributing to pollution and global warming. "We added it all together and thought that we really should not have uranium mining as a strict prohibition," said Mr Andrews, who would otherwise have had to sell BHP shares that account for about $10 million of the fund's $500million. Australia, the world's second-biggest uranium exporter after Canada, has 41per cent of global reserves of the metal, although it meets only 21 per cent of demand due to mining bans by some state governments. Wholesale uranium prices have more than doubled since January 2004 on expectations that reactors built in China, India and Russia will drain inventories. Some global uranium-related stocks such as Canada's Cameco, the world's biggest supplier, have almost doubled in price in the past 12months. Shares of Rio Tinto unit Energy Resources of Australia, the country's biggest uranium exporter, have more than doubled this year. Paladin Resources, a uranium explorer that plans to develop a mine in Namibia, is the best performer this year in the S&P/ASX 200 Index. The stock has trebled in value, outpacing an 11 per cent gain in the benchmark. Uranium has traded at $US29.50 a pound since mid-July, more than double the price in January 2004. Uranium producers would benefit as prices of the metal were expected to keep rising, said Gavin Wendt, a resources analyst at Intersuisse in Sydney. Uranium prices might average $US32.50 a pound in 2006, up from an earlier forecast of $US29.60, JPMorgan Chase said in early June. "It looks very positive for uranium miners given the outlook for prices and the gulf between supply and actual demand," Mr Wendt said. "Countries like China are looking at building a lot more nuclear power plants." Of the few new uranium mining projects being approved, some didn't have very rich ore bodies, he said. BT Funds Management began a review of its restrictions on uranium stocks in October after Russia said it would ratify the Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty aimed at reducing emissions of greenhouse gases blamed for global warming, said Sydney-based Erik Mather, the head of BT's governance advisory service. Its six funds have about $220million under management, including BHP Billiton shares. Of the total $21.5 billion invested in socially responsible investment assets in Australia as of June 2004, about $7.2billion came from religious organisations, according to a survey by the Ethical Investment Association. "It was all to do with the contribution that uranium can play in a world that is globally warming," Mr Mather said. Uranium miners still had to meet standards in waste disposal and mine rehabilitation to be considered for investment, he said. Not all ethical funds have changed their policy on uranium investments. Hunter Hall Investment Management, Australia's largest specialised ethical investment fund with more than $1.3 billion under management, was not considering revising its ban on investments related to the metal, marketing manager Christina Frahm said. The Uniting Church in Australia's UCA Funds Management, which manages about $550 million, kept its ban on uranium stocks and sold its BHP shares after the WMC takeover, marketing consultant Peter Thompson said. Australian Ethical Investment, which manages about $360million, and Perpetual Investments, with about $90million, also did not invest in uranium stocks, officials said. Glebe found in its review of its uranium investment strategy that many clients, particularly in church organisations, didn't have a strong view on uranium compared with other industries such as gambling, tobacco or pornography, Mr. Andrews said in a recent interview. The increasing energy needs of emerging economies that were trying to curb pollution from fossil fuels and raise standards of living had contributed to Glebe's change. China, the world's largest energy consumer after the US, plans to build 27 plants to boost nuclear energy output fourfold by 2020, according to the World Nuclear Association. India aimed to build up to 24reactors, the association said on its website. In the US, where no new nuclear plant has been proposed since the 1970s, an energy bill signed by President George Bush this month offers incentives for utilities to build nuclear plants. ---- Miner keen for W Australia uranium search Wednesday, August 24, 2005. 12:00pm (AEST) Australia Broadcasting http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200508/s1444944.htm A mid-west Western Australian mining company says it would look for uranium in the mid-west if the State Government allowed it. A WA Labor MP has called for renewed debate on uranium mining in the state, but Premier Geoff Gallop has dismissed the idea. WA company Batavia Mining has recently acquired uranium tenements in the Northern Territory as well as a database of uranium exploration information for three states, including WA. Managing director Greg Durack says the company would be open to exploring for and mining uranium in WA if it could. "Uranium power generation is not new, it's been around for 50 years now and there's over 440 reactors operating in the world, so I mean we're not reinventing the wheel here, it's quite a well-established power industry," he said. -------- britain Power to the people Britain urgently needs to develop its nuclear capacity, argues Sir Bernard Ingham. August 24, 2005 UK Parliamentary Monitor http://www.epolitix.com/EN/Publications/Monitor/129_1/550aeed1-7fbb-44c6-8b25-9e43b8124257.htm There are three reasons why we need to develop nuclear power urgently: to secure our electricity supplies; to preserve our competitiveness; and to combat global warming since nuclear emits next to no greenhouse gases. Without electricity, our economy would grind to a halt. Current government policy runs that risk by allowing coal and nuclear power stations, generating 52 per cent of our electricity, to close and replacing them with renewable sources of energy and by reducing demand. Renewables currently supply only three to four per cent of our electricity. After 15 years' controversial development, wind contributes a mere 0.5 per cent to this. The rest – waves, tides, solar, geothermal, biofuels etc – are also limited (when proven) and costly. Energy conservation is not reducing demand. It grows relentlessly at one to 1.5 per cent a year. We can only meet rising demand by burning vast amounts of gas imported from unstable parts of the world – Russia and the Middle East – at unknown but rising prices. This is madness when for 50 years nuclear has provided up to a third of British electricity reliably and safely. Several comparative studies have also shown it is now the cheapest option. What are we waiting for? Answer: politicians. Sir Bernard Ingham is the secretary of the Supporters of Nuclear Energy (SONE) -------- china Nuclear power to play major role in energy strategy August 24, 2005 By People's Daily Online http://english.people.com.cn/200508/24/eng20050824_204379.html China will speed up the development of diversified energy supply by focusing on raising the proportion of nuclear power and natural gas, said Zhou Dadi, director of Energy Research Institute, National Development and Reform Commission, at the 2005 annual meeting of China Association of Science and Technology, on August 22. Short energy supply, soaring prices and frequent coalmine accidents are all signals of China's entry into a stage of extremely fast energy construction. Under the double pressure of huge energy demand and environmental deterioration, China must shift from its excessive dependence on coal to a diversified energy supply by raising the proportion of oil, gas, nuclear power and new energies, said Zhou. The state will particularly encourage the exploitation and application of natural gas and speed up nuclear energy construction so as to achieve a strategic balance of natural energies. Besides, the use of international oil, gas and mineral resources will also be strengthened. China consumed about 2 billion tons of coal in 2004, taking up 67 percent of the nation's total energy consumption; oil import reached 120 million tons, or 35 percent of the total. Meanwhile, China lags far behind developed countries in using natural gas resources. Last year the United States consumed about 600 billion cubic meters of natural gas, which almost equals the total amount of European countries. Russia used 400 billion cubic meters, while China only used 41.5 billion cubic meters. According to Xu Damao from the Chinese Academy of Engineering, who has long been engaged in energy studies, in the coming three decades new energies such as wind power and optical energy will not become pillar sources and we must rely on nuclear energy to gradually replace coal. Now China is capable of independent design, construction and operation of nuclear plants, and has the conditions possessed by developed countries in the 1970s for fast development of nuclear energy. By 2035, we should have a nuclear installation capacity taking 20 percent in our energy structure. Statistics showed that in 2004 China's nuclear power generation was 50.1 billion kwh, only 0.02 percent of the national total. -------- europe Norway lacks preparedness against nuclear emergency (NRK) Rolleiv Solholm, August 24, 2005 Norway Post http://www.norwaypost.no/content.asp?folder_id=1&cluster_id=28233 Norway's preparedness against a possible nuclear accident is not good enough. This is the conclusion of the National Emergency Council for Nuclear Accidents. The council says the equipment in use is outdated, and that the new forms of nuclear threat demand improved preparedness. The council pointed out the problems already in 2002, but the authorities have still granted only half of the funds needed to replace the equipment and improve the preparedness to the level the council believes to be necessary. It estimates that NOK 32 million are needed for investments, in addition to NOK 2 million in annual operating costs. The money would be needed for a new warning system, for mobile monitoring stations and ain improved preparedness against nuclear terror in general. The present system for preparedness against nuclear disasters was set up following the meltdown of the Tsjernobyl reactor in the former Soviet Union in 1986. -------- iran Diplomats in disarray over Iran By Jonathan Marcus BBC diplomatic correspondent Wednesday, 24 August 2005 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4180160.stm Iran says its nuclear programme is for purely peaceful purposes It looks increasingly clear that traces of enriched uranium found by IAEA inspectors on centrifuge parts in Iran were contamination from their supplier. The parts were purchased second-hand from Pakistan. This news destroys what might have been a powerful line of evidence suggesting Iran was pressing ahead with a secret uranium enrichment programme. So where do these latest revelations leave US and European efforts to halt Iran's enrichment activities? Western governments hoped the traces of highly enriched uranium found in Iran would be positive proof that the Iranians had already embarked upon a secret enrichment programme. Diplomatic scramble While the full details of the scientific investigation have not been made public, all the indications are that this material was already on the centrifuge parts when they were imported from Pakistan. Iran has seized on the news as justification of its denials that it was up to no good. Western diplomats have been thrown into some disarray - the news greatly complicating their efforts to persuade Iran to give up its enrichment activities altogether. The next round of planned talks between the Europeans and Iran that were to have taken place at the end of this month have been abandoned. A Foreign Office spokesman in London noted that "there is no basis for negotiations until Iran responds to the IAEA board's last resolution". The resolution urged the country to halt its recently resumed uranium conversion activities - a process that provides the seed material for enrichment. No smoking gun Iran shows no sign of complying with the IAEA's demand. IAEA head, Mohammed ElBaradei, will receive the full scientific report on Iran's activities early next month. A further board meeting will be held once the findings have been digested. But the absence of any "smoking gun" may make it much harder to convince the board's members to refer the matter to the UN Security Council. That said, the board may well urge Iran to do more to explain some of its past nuclear activities and some may want to give it more time to do so, thereby delaying a full-scale crisis. NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE Mined uranium ore is purified and reconstituted into solid form known as yellowcake Yellowcake is converted into a gas by heating it to about 64C (147F) Gas is fed through centrifuges, where its isotopes separate and process is repeated until uranium is enriched Low-level enriched uranium is used for nuclear fuel Highly enriched uranium can be used in nuclear weapons ---- Iran president promises 'innovations' to solve nuclear row Wed Aug 24, 2:21 PM ET (AFP) http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050824/ts_afp/irannuclear_050824182151 TEHRAN - Iran wants negotiations over its nuclear program to continue and is finalizing "innovations" to resolve the dispute, the Islamic republic's new hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced. However he told reporters that Iran would also defend its "lawful rights" in the nuclear domain -- a reference to the country's demand to hold on to sensitive atomic energy fuel cycle technology that the West fears could be diverted to weapons use. "Our policy is transparent and clear: we are after the nation's lawful rights within the framework of international law and we will defend these rights seriously," he said on the sidelines of a parliamentary confidence vote on his proposed cabinet. But he added that "we want the negotiations to continue", even though talks with Britain, France and Germany have broken off due to Iran's decision to partially end its suspension of uranium enrichment-related work. "I have some innovations concerning the fuel cycle which are being finalized by the experts and the details will be known," he said, but did not elaborate. At the end of July, the EU-3 formally asked Iran to abandon uranium enrichment-related work in exchange for a package of trade incentives, access to nuclear fuel produced overseas and help with Tehran's regional security concerns. Iran reacted by resuming uranium conversion work at a facility at Isfahan on August 8, but has so far held off on enrichment. The UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), called on Iran earlier this month to return to a full suspension of nuclear fuel activities. The IAEA is due to report on the crisis September 3, and a refusal by the Islamic republic to comply could lead to Iran's referral to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions. The United States is "working hard behind the scenes" for Iran to be referred to the Security Council, said a Western diplomat in Vienna where the IAEA is based. But several IAEA board members were reluctant since Iran had not been found in non-compliance with nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) safeguards requirements. Tehran has also been emboldened by reports that both UN and US experts have found no evidence that Iran was secretly enriching uranium. The IAEA has determined that traces of bomb-grade uranium found at several sites over the past two years in Iran came from contaminated Pakistani equipment and were not evidence of nuclear weapons work, diplomats said. "It was not Iran that violated the Paris Agreement," foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told the state news agency IRNA, referring to the November 2004 deal under which Iran agreed to freeze its nuclear fuel cycle activities. "The Europeans are to blame for unilaterally interpreting and violating the Paris Agreement," Asefi said, repeating Iran's contention that it has the right under the NPT to produce its own nuclear fuel. "The Europeans ignored Iran's rights," Asefi said, the day after the EU-3 cancelled talks scheduled for next week. Meanwhile a new Iranian militia group calling itself the "Martyrdom Lovers" is preparing to stage its first manoeuvres aimed at defending nuclear sites from a US attack, a hardline paper said. The commander of the suicide group, Mohammad Reza Jaffari, told the Parto Sokhan (Light of Speech) weekly that the forthcoming exercise was codenamed "Yes to Khamenei", in dedication to Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. "This will be the first manoeuvres of the martyrdom-seeking brigades," he said, adding the volunteers will "work on new tactics of how to defend the sensitive and strategic areas and how to destroy the hypothetical enemy by implementing a human shield." The United States "should know that each martyrdom-seeker is an atomic bomb," he told the paper, which had earlier this month carried an advertisement seeking people to join the group. -------- iraq / inspections Iraq Draft Constitution Addresses WMD Proliferation Global Security Newswire Wednesday, August 24, 2005 http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2005_8_24.html#D2A27E82 Iraq’s draft constitution contains provisions on terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, Reuters reported yesterday (see GSN, Aug. 22). “The Iraqi government respects and implements Iraq’s international commitments preventing the spread, development, production and use of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons,” the draft says. “The state will combat terrorism in all its forms and act to protect its borders from being used for terrorist activity,” it says (Reuters, Aug. 23). -------- korea US softens on Pyongyang's civilian nuclear capabilities: report 2005-08-24 23:42:45 (Xinhuanet) http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-08/24/content_3399108.htm WASHINGTON, Aug. 24 -- The chief US negotiator in the six-party talks with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) said Tuesday that Pyongyang's demand for civilian nuclear power is not a "show-stopper" and some kind of compromise on the issue is possible, said a Washington Times report on Wednesday. Although the chief US negotiator, Christopher Hill, insisted that the DPRK does not need nuclear energy, he indicated that the United States is trying to address the issue with more flexibilitythan before, the report said. "I think we can come up with something. But I cannot be more specific than that because we are in the middle of a negotiation,"the report quoted Hill as saying. Speaking earlier Tuesday, Hill played down Pyongyang's demand for a civilian reactor, calling it a "theoretical, downstream" matter that is "not a major stumbling block." Hill conceded that, for some in the six-party talks -- notably South Korea and Russia, the issue is whether the DPRK "could then reclaim a right to nuclear energy," the report said. South Korea said on Aug. 11 that the DPRK has the right to a peaceful nuclear program, a view in apparent conflict with the United States. However, both the United States and South Korea have since tried to brush aside any conflict between the two allies. Negotiators from China, DPRK, the United States, Russia, South Korea and Japan held a 13-day negotiation in Beijing from July 26 to Aug. 7, seeking a settlement to the nuclear issue on the Koreanpeninsula. According to an agreement reached by all parties, the fourth round of six-party talks will resume next week in Beijing. -------- pacific About Diplomatic and Military Exercise—and its spurious relationship to Trade By Paul G. Buchanan Wednesday, 24 August 2005, 9:40 am http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0508/S00187.htm http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0508/S00187.htm Election year politics has thrown new light on US-New Zealand relations. Outgoing US ambassador Charles Swindell reiterated his concerns that recent years have seen a decline in the relationship, officially noted in the US shift from viewing New Zealand as an ally to (rather) that of “close friend,” and felt practically in the termination of the ANZUS military alliance. Precipitated by the Lange government’s declaration of nuclear-free status and its refusal to accept port calls by US vessels while these adhered to a “neither confirm or deny” policy regarding the presence of radioactive material on-board, differences over nuclear issues eventually translated into the US canceling military agreements with New Zealand (specifically the arrangements held under the International Military Exchange and Training, or IMET, programme). Refusal to permit the American destroyer USS Buchanan berthing facilities in 1985 proved to be the test of Lange’s resolve on the matter, and with the public offering demonstrable support, the non-nuclear policy stood firm. That led to the current impasse and foreign policy shuttlecocking between the major New Zealand political parties (“shuttlecocking” defined as rhetorical batting back and forth of sensitive political issues between political parties until one side makes a public mistake with electoral implications). David Lange’s death in August added backdrop to Labour-National sniping about US influence on and in New Zealand. His policy forged the tool that Labour uses to pare down National’s pro-American stance, because it is the foundation not only of a diplomatic row, but a source of political identity as well. That is because the non-nuclear position is to New Zealand what the right to bear arms is to Americans: most want it, even if just as a matter of principle and even though keeping it may have an obvious downside. Raising the issue of the US “neither confirm or deny policy” involves nuclear weapons but brings on its coattails the issue of nuclear energy, first on warships then on New Zealand soil. That is a political minefield where shuttlecocking seeks its advantage. The only political party that wants the non-nuclear policy reversed is ACT, which might help explain why it is rapidly fading into political oblivion. The other party with adamant views on nuclear issues, the Greens, have a universal preference for hemp rather than U232 or its derivatives. Interestingly, “neither confirm or deny” is the also the official New Zealand government response to queries about sensitive security matters, including all issues of intelligence and special operations. Although sensible in principle, this leads to abuse of the disclaimer by decision-makers on both sides of this particular diplomatic row, including the major parties alternating power in each state. Post 9/11 US foreign policy (which began with demands for complete New Zealand adherence to the global anti-terrorist campaign) sharpened Labour’s anti-bullying instrument by contrasting it to the results-oriented, economic-driven approach of the Clinton (and Clark) administration. New Zealand’s disproportionate presence on the world diplomatic stage (due to its heavy presence in non-proliferation, peace-keeping and relief agencies), added to its independent foreign policy, make it difficult for politicians to retreat from the country’s principled non-nuclear stance. To do so, and to be seen as succumbing to US pressure, would reduce New Zealand’s international diplomatic stature. By raising the issue in the context of global economic integration, the US implies that there is a tight coupling of economic and security concerns, to the detriment of New Zealand. It does so strictly as a matter of leverage on its smaller partner. Some in New Zealand believe that the country can never aspire to a free trade agreement with the US so long as the non-nuclear stance is not modified (the US has to do nothing). For others, the intrusion of security concerns on an otherwise excellent economic relationship between the two states is just plain stupid. Worse yet, even raising the point as a political initiative provides an easy soft target for those practiced in election year infighting, particularly when these oversee a diplomatic corps that contains adherents to a non-nuclear and independent foreign policy. The more pointed question is a practical one: does the absence of formal military agreement mean that there is no US-New Zealand security engagement? The reason the question matters is that whereas diplomatic rows are often symbolic exercises in pursuit of a substantive issue, the military-security realm is a very pragmatic business cloaked in moral-ethical disguise. In this enterprise hard knocks substitute for etiquette, and appearances do not matter except as a deception. New Zealand has a history of providing professional military service to colonial and post-colonial allies. It has a strong record in multi-national peacekeeping roles. It has a special operations branch that is comparable, although smaller and less equipped, to those of larger nations. It offers territory for foreign intelligence gathering and it shares, albeit as a consumer rather than as a provider, Western intelligence streams. It is a reliable security partner when engaged, and it is, for all of its recent Asian orientation in trade, “of the West” in geopolitical terms. With exception of China, most of New Zealand’s regional trading partners are military allies of the US. Joint military exercises with these trading partners not only is seen to serve as a reaffirmation of the bilateral relationship, but also as a backdoor through which to engage third country security forces in light of New Zealand’s broader strategic objectives. For its part the US is a unipolar superpower with global strategic interests. But there are limits to its ability to project force. Although militarily equal to none, its reach is not comprehensive to the point of self-guaranteeing absolute security for its citizens at home and abroad, especially in a world where adversaries share security-related technology. Instead, it relies on a broad network of military-security alliances and joint practical exercises to serve as force multipliers as well as diplomatic networking opportunities. Good will and economic benefits are the by-products of this interaction. Smaller partners receive training, cultural influence and modern military equipment while the US pushes its defensive perimeter far off shore by integrating its forces with those of regional allies. The need to engage in regular military exercises and maintain joint deployments is made all the more important in a threat environment populated by armed irregular non-state actors as well as conventional nation-state militaries, given their ability to access modern security-related technologies and the “grey area” networking between them. In such a context local knowledge is as important as pure technological acumen, so use of allied foreign security forces by the US in order to better read the local geopolitical terrain is considered a major requirement for success in the global war on terrorism. This has led to US out-sourcing local security to a number of regional deputies (Australia wearing the nearest badge), which requires regular exercising to ensure ideological and technical compliance with the military requirements of the hybrid (mixing conventional and unconventional tactics) approach to the current strategic context. In turn, the US’s regional deputies round up a local posse for inclusion in joint exercises for their own geo-strategic reasons, and because it deepens the commitment and physical ability of smaller partners to carry out the common goal. These exercises may or may not be governed by formal treaty. Thus, be it during the Cold War, after the Cold War or post 9/11, the US and New Zealand have found ways to get around the non-nuclear diplomatic row. The intelligence side of things is cloaked in the secrecy befitting the covert world, but in truth New Zealand has an extremely limited overseas collection capability and is therefore extremely reliant on information provided by intelligence patrons—such as the US, even if via Australia. The quid pro quo involves New Zealand passing along local or regional intelligence to these patrons, if nothing else as corroboration of independently obtained data. The long-term presence of US-operated electronic eavesdropping posts in New Zealand underscores the continuity of the intelligence-sharing relationship in spite of the disagreement over nuclear issues. Because of their overt nature, New Zealand-US military relations are subject to the symbolic vanities of public diplomacy and the vagaries of electoral cycles (at least in New Zealand). Thus, although no IMET agreements are in force and US warship port visits in New Zealand cannot occur without dropping the “neither confirm or deny” policy, there are numerous practical areas of mutual interest where US and Kiwi armed forces serve together. These include training exercises and operational deployments worldwide, and extend to the US retaining use of a naval deep-water port and airfield on the South Island that ostensibly is used for staging Antarctic research and re-supply. New Zealand SAS troops serve alongside US special operators in Afghanistan and elsewhere (often under the cover of Australian or British command). New Zealand military personnel fulfill attaché, liaison and observer roles in US territory, countries of mutual interest or as part of UN or regional multinational mandates. When the occasion arises (particularly in small unit maneuvers), US and New Zealand armed forces exercise together, either bilaterally or in conjunction with other nations’ armed forces. The bottom line is that symbolic exercises such as the ‘showing the flag” that goes on during port calls are banned by the non-nuclear policy standoff, but exercises with practical benefit given extant threat conditions are routinely waived from the restriction. In fact, as a courtesy between friends waivers are granted virtually anytime New Zealand and US forces engage in joint exercises of any nature offshore, so long as they do not otherwise fall under an IMET protocols or involve an upgraded US military presence in New Zealand. All of this is done without public fanfare given tacit understanding between the US and New Zealand not to allow diplomatic license and domestic politics interfere with the pragmatic military realities at hand. Thus recent maritime interdiction exercises involving US and New Zealand forces under Singaporean command were granted a waiver because they are designed to counter the threat of international piracy being used as a sea conduit for weapons of mass destruction. The ability to do so has benefits that transcend the issue of WMD, particularly for a country like New Zealand that is so heavily dependent on sea lines of communication for vital resources and overall prosperity. In the end, the debate about New Zealand’s non-nuclear stance is more a symbolic exercise than a practical dispute. It is a diplomatic row that impinges on but does not hinder the business of maintaining good military relations. Although low-key and played down, the relationship remains ongoing. Even so, political posturing continues to occur on the connection between the New Zealand-US security relationship and other matters. The US government and its New Zealand champions would like people to believe that trade and security are closely interrelated, and that only improvements in the latter can advance the former. This may be mistaken for two reasons. New Zealand’s international reputation is in large part derived from its principled non-nuclear stance and independent foreign policy, which allows it to diplomatically punch above its weigh on a variety of foreign policy issues. More pointedly, New Zealand, although likable as a tourist and filmmaking destination, is simply too small and far away to matter much in the US policy spectrum. The issue is simple: Given that the New Zealand GNP is equivalent to that of the smallest US states, and that unlike the citizens of those states New Zealand cannot vote or put money into the election campaigns of US politicians in amounts equivalent to local political action committees and lobbying groups, coupled with the fact that its exports often directly compete with (subsidized) commodity production in states that are critical for the outcome of US national elections, the chances that it is going to be moved to the head of the cue of free trade supplicants appears improbable regardless of whether it modifies its non-nuclear stance to accommodate the US. After all, even if it did, and even if it had been a member of the “Coalition of the Willing,” is it realistic to expect that New Zealand would jump ahead of Italy, Spain, Portugal or Poland in achieving a free trade deal? What impact on the US volume of trade would that have compared to countries with multiple times the productive output? Moreover, Chile and Mexico, which do have free trade agreements with the US, were members of the UN Security Council that refused to accept US claims that Saddam Hussein’s regime had weapons of mass destruction ready for use. In spite of much American bluster about losing free trade status should they vote against intervention in Iraq, Chilean and Mexican opposition to the war—which remains as strong as that of New Zealand—did not interfere with the business of doing business with the US under the aegis of a free trade deal. There may come a day when the non-nuclear row is consigned to the history books by formal agreement. In the meantime practical matters of mutual security import are divorced from the diplomatic postures of each country so as to accommodate the need for force standardization, complementarities and integration. Trade issues simply do not factor into the rationales for engaging in ongoing security interaction because in the end, on matters of international security the US needs friends like New Zealand as much as New Zealand needs patrons like the US. For its part, New Zealand cannot afford to be seen as buckling to US pressure on the non-nuclear stance because to do so would diminish its standing in the international diplomatic community. In the larger scheme of things, maintaining its international reputation is more important for New Zealand than securing an elusive free trade deal with the US, particularly given the plethora of other potential trading partners around the world. Politicians may find election ammunition in trumpeting the non-nuclear stance, but the fact is that the exercise has more diplomatic than military implications. So long as substance matters more than symbolism, the quiet friendship between the two countries on security issues will continue unimpeded by the posturing about trade and nukes. Paul G. Buchanan is the Director of the Working Group on Alternative Security Perspectives at the University of Auckland. -------- russia Latest Nunn-Lugar Scorecard Shows Continued Progress Wednesday, August 24, 2005 Global Security Newswire http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2005_8_24.html#59268D31 Nearly 7,000 nuclear warheads and almost 600 ICBMs have been destroyed under the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program since its inception in 1991, according to a release issued yesterday by Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) (see GSN, July 22). The project has supplied U.S. funding and expertise for disposal and security of WMD materials, primarily in former Soviet states. Destroyed or deactivated under the program are: 6,760 nuclear warheads, 587 ICBMs, 483 ICBM silos, 32 ICBM mobile launchers, 150 bombers, 789 surface-to-air missiles, 436 submarine missile launchers, 549 submarine-launched missiles, 28 nuclear submarines and 194 nuclear test tunnels. The Nunn-Lugar program is also working to destroy chemical weapons. The International Science and Technology Centers, sponsored largely by the United States, has helped 58,000 former Soviet weapons scientists find work. The International Proliferation Prevention Program has provided funding for 750 projects that involve 14,000 former Soviet scientists and created 580 new jobs, according to the release. The nonproliferation program has also helped Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan to free themselves of nuclear weapons, the release said. Lugar and Senate Foreign Relations Committee member Barack Obama (D-Ill.) are expected to travel to Russia Saturday to meet with Russian military officials and visit a nuclear warhead storage facility and a missile destruction plant. They will also tour the Central Epidemiological Station in Ukraine, a Nunn-Lugar site. Finally, they will observe a mock interception of a ship carrying a weapon of mass destruction, the release said (Senator Richard Lugar release, Aug. 23). [EDITOR’S NOTE: Sam Nunn is chief executive officer of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, and Richard Lugar serves on the NTI board. NTI is the sole sponsor of Global Security Newswire, which is published independently by the National Journal Group.] -------- security New York Awards Contract to Boost Transit Security Global Security Newswire Wednesday, August 24, 2005 http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2005_8_24.html#2540633D New York City yesterday awarded a group of contractors led by Lockheed Martin a three-year, $212 million contract to improve security in city subways, the New York Times reported (see GSN, Aug. 5). Lockheed and its subcontractors are expected to install 1,000 video cameras and 3,000 motion sensors in the transit system. Cell phone coverage is also expected to be available at 277 stations but not on trains, according to the Times. “We will try everything, and deploy all technologies possible, to prevent an attack from happening,” said Katherine Lapp, executive director of New York’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority. The system is expected to be placed in the subway, two commuter railroads, nine bridges and tunnels and in Grand Central Terminal, Pennsylvania Station and Times Square, the Times reported. Cameras that can focus on vulnerable areas while transmitting and recording would be the center of the security effort. Each camera costs $1,200 and can capture images up to 300 feet away. Trains and buses would not have cameras, according to the Times. “Obviously, this system, we hope, will detect a terrorist before an incident happens — not just be able, for forensic purposes after an incident happens, to identify who the terrorist is,” Lapp said. Details are expected by the end of the year on a second contract for equipment that can detect WMD agents (Sewell Chan, New York Times, Aug. 24). -------- u.s. nuc facilities -------- nevada Reid, Ensign want answers on nuke train By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS August 24, 2005 http://www.pahrumpvalleytimes.com/2005/08/24/news/yucca.html LAS VEGAS - Nevada's senators are demanding the Energy Department more fully explain its plan to use dedicated freight trains to haul spent nuclear fuel to a national radioactive waste dump at Yucca Mountain in Nye County. In a letter last week to Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., complain of "gaps and inconsistencies" in a recently announced plan to have trains haul just one kind of cargo: highly radioactive waste. "Like all things Yucca, the conclusions in this policy statement are seemingly pulled from thin air," the senators said in a joint statement released Thursday. Reid and Ensign oppose the Yucca Mountain project. The Energy Department had not received the letter, and spokesman Craig Stevens declined to answer questions it raised. "We remain committed to opening Yucca Mountain using the best science and technology available to ensure the safety and health of all citizens," he said. The Energy Department has said it would rely more on trains than trucks to haul 77,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel from sites in 39 states to a proposed underground nuclear dump at Yucca Mountain, 20 miles north and east of Amargosa Valley and Beatty, respectively, and 50 miles northeast of Pahrump. The Energy Department announced July 18 it would use dedicated trains instead of linking cars carrying nuclear waste with cars containing other freight. Nevada officials have long advocated dedicated trains. But Reid and Ensign said the plan was incomplete. Among other questions, they asked how the Department plans to move waste from 24 reactor sites that have no train tracks; how long waste would sit in rail yards and whether rail employees would be exposed to radiation; how the public risk of radiation was evaluated; and when the Department would release a comprehensive shipping plan and cost assessment. They sought answers by Sept. 1. In another development, the nuclear power industry's chief lobbyist said in Washington, D.C., that reprocessing technology could make retrieval of spent fuel from the Yucca Mountain project more likely. "A lot of people have the image that the idea is to put this stuff in, close the door, walk away, and that's the end of it," said Frank L. "Skip" Bowman, president of the Nuclear Energy Institute. "Not true. That would be irresponsible, and it never has been the plan." The Energy Department requires the DOE to be able to retrieve highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel from Yucca Mountain for at least 100 years and possibly for as long as 300 years, Bowman said. Bowman acknowledged that the United States has not reprocessed spent nuclear fuel since 1977. Bob Loux, chief of Nevada's Nuclear Projects Agency, called it unlikely that radioactive material could safely be retrieved from tunnels where internal temperatures will be above the boiling point of water. The Energy Department plans to submit a license application for the Yucca repository to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission next year. Recent setbacks have pushed back the target date for receiving waste from 2010 to 2012 or later. -------- oklahoma Sequoyah Fuels, County Litigation Over Ad Valorem Taxes Continues By Sally Maxwell, Managing Editor Wednesday, August 24, 2005 3:49 PM CDT Sallisaw, Oklahoma, Sequoyah County Times http://www.sequoyahcountytimes.com/articles/2005/08/25/news/front5.txt The argument between Sequoyah Fuels at Gore and Sequoyah County officials about how much ad valorem tax the former nuclear fuels processing plant owes the county is in its 10th year, and shows no sign of being settled soon. At the center of the continuing litigation is how much the property and remaining equipment at Sequoyah Fuels are worth. Sequoyah County Treasurer Martha Taylor said Sequoyah Fuels first protested the tax in 1995. Sequoyah Fuels continues to pay the ad valorem tax, but pays the tax "under protest" and the money is kept in a "protest" account, Taylor said. The account now contains $1,524,211.50, Taylor said. Most of that tax would go to the Gore School District if the lawsuit was settled in favor of the county. But Sequoyah Fuels' attorney, Rebecca Fowler of the law firm of Doerner, Saunders, Daniel and Anderson LLP of Tulsa, argues, "The primary issue is the effect the contamination has on the property." Sequoyah Fuels processed uranium into yellow cake for future use in fuel rods for nuclear power reactors, but closed its doors after several incidents in the 1980s, including one accident in which a Vian man was killed and when it was found that groundwater in excavations at the plant contained contaminated water. Sequoyah Fuels and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission are still working on a plan to decommission the plant. What to do with the contaminated materials has slowed the decommissioning. Sequoyah Fuels officials say the contaminated materials can be safely stored on site. Area residents say that the contaminated materials, if stored on site, will always be source of continuing contamination and may leach into groundwater. In the meantime, the litigation over ad valorem taxes continues. Greg Wilson, first assistant to County Tax Assessor Martha Graham, said Judge John Garrett ruled last year in the county's favor. However, Sequoyah Fuels has appealed that ruling to the State Supreme Court, which must still make a decision. Also slowing the process is that the assistant district attorney who represented the county in the litigation, Jerry Moore of Tahlequah, has left the district attorney's office and is in private practice. At a recent arbitration hearing, Sequoyah Fuels offered the county between 3 and 7 percent of the total owed, which the county turned down. Fowler said Sequoyah Fuels will continue to argue against the ad valorem tax. She said the plant was assessed at a value of $23 million in 1995, but she is in the process of preparing a chart showing the declining value of the property due to the contamination. The chart will be presented to the State Supreme Court. -------- south carolina Two S.C. utilities consider new nuclear power plant By JAMES D. McWILLIAMS and BEN WERNER Staff Writers, Wed, Aug. 24, 2005 The State http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/12463686.htm Two of the state’s largest electrical utilities, SCE&G and Santee Cooper, said Wednesday they will consider building a new nuclear power station together to meet South Carolina’s long-term need for electricity. Any new plant likely would not begin operating until 2015 because it can take a decade to obtain permits and complete construction, the utilities said. The companies already generate nuclear power together at the 1,000-megawatt V.C. Summer Nuclear Station near Jenkinsville. SCE&G, the principal subsidiary of SCANA Corp., owns two-thirds of that facility. Santee Cooper, which is state-owned, owns the rest of the facility, which was built in 1984. “To ensure we’re in position to meet our area’s future power needs, it’s important that we begin the planning process now,” SCE&G President Neville Lorick said in a news release. Added Santee Cooper President Lonnie Carter, “South Carolina must be committed to investing in its future energy needs in order to maintain our quality of life and meet our growing energy demands.” SCE&G, the Midlands’ main power supplier, has its headquarters in Columbia and serves 571,000 electric customers statewide. Santee Cooper has its headquarters in Moncks Corner and supplies electricity to 146,000 people, 40 percent of the state's residents, either directly or through electric cooperatives. -------- washington Workers evacuated at U.S. nuclear site after leak Wed Aug 24, 2005 8:15 PM ET (Reuters) http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticleSearch.aspx?storyID=13307+25-Aug-2005+RTRS&srch=nuclear SEATTLE, Aug 24 - Some workers at the largest nuclear waste dump in the United States were evacuated on Wednesday after a container filled with radioactive material was breached as it was being removed from storage, the U.S. Department of Energy said. No radioactive or toxic contamination was found after technicians determined that the inner drum of the container had not been breached. The two workers who were evacuated were also found to be safe from contamination. The 586-square-mile (1,500-sq.-km) nuclear waste facility is located in south-central Washington state, about 150 miles (240 km) southwest of Spokane, the state's second-largest city. Donna Somers, operations manager at Hanford's Joint Information Center, said that the contaminants were contained and that normal operations had resumed. "As it turned out there wasn't anything serious about it," Somers said, "We have standard (safety) procedures that we take that are conservative." Hanford was started in 1943 to produce plutonium for the Manhattan Project and the U.S. nuclear arsenal. The clean-up of its radioactive wastes and toxic chemicals has become a contentious issue between environmental groups and the government. ---- Washington City Sets Nuclear-Free Policy Wed Aug 24, 1:42 PM ET Associated Press http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050824/ap_on_re_us/brf_nuke_free_olympia_1 OLYMPIA, Wash. - Washington state's capital city has banned anything related to nuclear weapons, a measure critics said could open the city to lawsuits. The ordinance adopted by a 5-2 City Council vote Tuesday exempts the federal government and two major highways, Interstate 5 and U.S. 101, where such weapons or their components might be transported. Violators will be fined $25 a day for the first offense, and $100 a day for a third. The ordinance, which takes effect in 30 days, specifies that companies doing business with the city will be asked to affirm in writing that they are not involved in nuclear weapons production. The city will try to avoid doing business with companies that don't provide an affidavit. Mayor Mark Foutch, one of the two dissenters, and other opponents said the measure will be hard to enforce and could result in costly lawsuits. Supporters said it reflects community values in the liberal city. -------- MILITARY -------- arms Taiwan's mega arms package may finally win approval after budget trimmed TAIPEI (AFP) Aug 24, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050824124716.sv7y6eee.html Taiwan's plan for a huge US arms purchase may finally win parliamentary approval after the military agreed to trim its cost by more than four billion dollars, officials said Wednesday. The cabinet withdrew from parliament a bill calling for the purchase of 480 billion Taiwan dollars (15 billion US) worth of weaponry from the United States over a 15-year period, in what was seen as a concession to the opposition. The defense ministry said it would submit a new version of the bill to cabinet next week before it goes to parliament. Eight conventional submarines and a fleet of submarine-hunting P-3C aircraft would remain intact under the new bill, estimated at around 340 Taiwan dollars (10.63 billion US). The six PAC-3 Patriot anti-missile systems included in the original bill would be financed by the government's yearly budgets. In a positive response parliament speaker Wang Jin-pyng from the leading opposition Kuomintang party said that "now the arms bill should be discussed by the Legislative Yuan." Defense ministry spokesman Liou Chih-jein was optimistic about the outlook for the new bill. "A new light has shed on the arms package," he told AFP. President Chen Shui-bian from the Democratic Progressive Party renewed his appeal to the opposition Tuesday, insisting the island badly needs more weaponry to defend itself. He accused the opposition of acting "irresponsibly" in blocking the arms package in the face of a growing military threat from China. China has deployed up to 730 ballistic missiles opposite the island which it regards as part of its territory, the Pentagon said in a report last month. In December the legislature's procedure committee killed the original bill, which was priced at 610.8 billion Taiwan dollars (19.33 billion US) when it was first introduced in June last year. The committee again blocked the amended bill of 480 billion earlier this year. Some opposition lawmakers said Taiwan could not afford the arms deals while others said the equipment would be delivered too slowly to enable Taiwan to catch up with China's military build-up. Relations between China and Taiwan, which split in 1949 at the end of a civil war, have worsened since independence-leaning Chen was elected president in 2000. He was re-elected last year. China has vowed to attack Taiwan should the island declare formal independence. ---- Hellfire Thermobaric Warhead Approved For Production "This missile is capable of reaching around corners to strike enemy forces hiding in cases, bunkers and hardened multi-room complexes. Coupled with HELLFIRE's highly accurate semi-active laser seeker, the MAC warhead gives our forces the ability to take out threat targets in urban environments with high lethality and minimal collateral damage." Orlando FL (SPX) Aug 24, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/news/missiles-05zzzn.html Lockheed Martin has announced that the U.S. government has approved the thermobaric HELLFIRE (AGM-114N) missile for an accelerated full-rate production run. A government-industry team conducted a successful Production Readiness Review (PRR) of the metal augmented charge (MAC), also known as a thermobaric warhead, clearing the way for production of the AGM-114N version of the precision-strike semi-active laser-guided HELLFIRE II missile. The MAC warhead will be manufactured at the Alliant Techsystems facility in Rocket Center, WV, and shipped to Lockheed Martin for integration with the missile. Under a $90 million Buy 11 contract with Lockheed Martin, the U.S. Army has called for the production of 900 AGM-114N MAC missiles; 180 AGM-114K missiles, the high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT) version; and conversion of 100 HEAT missiles to the MAC warhead configuration. This order extends HELLFIRE production well into 2007 at Lockheed Martin's manufacturing plants in Ocala, FL (seeker electronics), and Troy, AL (missile final assembly). "Early versions of the MAC-configured HELLFIRE have already been combat-proven in Operation Iraqi Freedom and have been cited by the Administration as meeting an urgent requirement to suppress terrorists in urban areas," said Jim Gribschaw, program director for Air-to-Ground Missiles Systems at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control. "This missile is capable of reaching around corners to strike enemy forces hiding in cases, bunkers and hardened multi-room complexes. Coupled with HELLFIRE's highly accurate semi-active laser seeker, the MAC warhead gives our forces the ability to take out threat targets in urban environments with high lethality and minimal collateral damage." The MAC warhead was originally designed by the Naval Air Warfare Center. Under a pre-production contract awarded in December 2004, the technical data package, manufacturing processes, facilitization, production tooling, materials and baseline hardware fabrication were accomplished on schedule, leading to the successful PRR and the green light for production. ----- Military laser brings 'Star Wars' reality closer Wednesday, August 24, 2005; Posted: 1:12 p.m. EDT (17:12 GMT) (Reuters) http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/08/24/military.laser.reut/ LONDON, England -- A U.S. Pentagon invention could make air combat resemble a battle scene from the movie 'Star Wars' with a laser so small it can fit on a fighter jet, yet powerful enough to knock down an enemy missile in flight. The High Energy Laser Area Defense System (HELLADS), being designed by the Pentagon's central research and development agency, will weigh just 750 kg (1,650 lb) and measures the size of a large fridge. To date, such lasers have been so bulky because of the need for huge cooling systems to stop them overheating, that they had to be fitted to large aircraft such as jumbo jets, New Scientist magazine reported on Wednesday. But the Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency reckons it has solved the problem by merging liquid and solid state lasers to cut the size and weight by "an order of magnitude", according to its Web site. Liquid lasers can fire a continuous beam but need large cooling systems, while solid state laser beams are more intense but have to be fired in pulses to stop them overheating. "We've combined the high energy density of the solid state laser with the thermal management of the liquid laser," New Scientist quoted project manager Don Woodbury as saying. Dubbed the "HEL weapon" by its developers, a prototype capable of firing a mild one kilowatt (kW) beam has already been produced and there are plans to build a stronger 15-kW version by the end of the year. If everything goes according to plan, an even more powerful weapon producing a 150-kW beam and capable of knocking down a missile will be ready by 2007 for fitting onto aircraft. -------- biological weapons U.S. Plum Island Facility Upgrade Again Considered By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire Wednesday, August 24, 2005 http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2005_8_24.html WASHINGTON — The United States is again considering upgrading the capabilities of the Plum Island Animal Disease Center for work on some of the deadliest diseases to humans, after retreating several times in recent years in the face of local and congressional opposition (see GSN, July 19, 2004). The Homeland Security Department announced in a press release Monday that it plans to replace the center, which for 50 years has focused on diseases dangerous to livestock, with a new facility with increased capabilities at the same location near Long Island, N.Y. The department told Congress in February that it would like to build a new, massive center for biological and agricultural defense called the “National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility,” which could include the highest laboratory security level, Biosafety Level 4. It has requested $23 million for fiscal 2006 to begin design studies. If approved by Congress, the total project is projected by the department to cost $451 million through fiscal 2010. The department’s annual budget justification document delivered to Congress earlier this year did not say it was looking to replace the Plum Island center with the new facility. Rather, it also requested funding for operation of facilities and security improvements at Plum Island. The department announced Monday that the new facility would “replace” the “important but aging” more than 50-year-old center. As a Biosafety Level 3 facility, Plum Island researches highly contagious foreign animal diseases, including foot-and-mouth disease. The release says Plum Island needs to be replaced because it “is becoming increasingly more costly to maintain,” lacks sufficient laboratory and test space to “support the increased levels of research and development needed to meet the growing concerns about accidental or intentional introduction of foreign animal diseases,” and is “completely inadequate to address zoonotic diseases.” Zoonotic diseases are those that can be transmitted between animals and humans, such as anthrax, West Nile virus and spongiform encephalopathy, also known as “mad cow disease.” “There is no BSL-4 livestock-capable laboratory in the U.S. to work on high consequence zoonotic diseases in host livestock species,” the congressional justification document says. A presidential directive issued last year, HSPD-9, called for a plan to develop “safe, secure and state-of-the-art agriculture biocontainment laboratories that research and develop diagnostic capabilities for foreign animal and zoonotic diseases,” the Homeland Security press release notes. Proposed Alternatives Located about 1.5 miles off the northeastern tip of Long Island, Plum Island diagnoses and studies foreign animal diseases, and it is the only government facility in the United States that studies foot-and-mouth disease. The executive branch has proposed increasing the biosafety level at Plum Island over the past decade, but has faced local protests and opposition from New York lawmakers. Opponents have argued that operating a Biosafety Level 4 facility at Plum Island could endanger the local population, which includes the occupants of multimillion-dollar homes in the nearby Hamptons, and that the facility could be subject to a terrorist attack (see GSN, June 24, 2002). Plum Island has had well-publicized security lapses in the past, and it has recently been upgrading its security capabilities. The release Monday says the conceptual design study beginning next year would evaluate giving Plum Island additional Biosafety Level 3 agricultural facilities and “possibly Biosafety Level 4 for foreign animal and zoonotic diseases as called for in HSPD-9.” The study, scheduled for completion by the end of 2006, would alternatively consider maintaining the current scope of work at Plum Island and building additional, higher-security facilities elsewhere, it says. “The options for a location, or locations, for the biocontainment facilities have not been identified at this time, but will be considered during the conceptual design study,” the release says. The money requested for the design study in fiscal 2006 was included in respective fiscal 2006 Homeland Security Appropriations bills approved by the Senate and House this year, which have not yet gone to conference. Threat Assessment As part of the plan, the department is considering including a threat assessment capability at the proposed facility, which could be cause for concern “from an arms control perspective,” says Alan Pearson, director of the Biological and Chemical Weapons Control Program at the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation in Washington, D.C. The congressional justification document this year says, “There is currently inadequate national capability to perform required biothreat characterization research in a highly secure environment.” “Modern, safe, secure biocontainment laboratories of sufficient capacity to work on high-consequence foreign animal diseases in livestock are a gap in our national strategy,” it says. “Recent natural incursions of SARS, West Nile, and Monkey Pox demonstrate the increasing threat posed by zoonotic agents,” the document adds. Pearson said that doing threat assessment work at a test and evaluation facility could reduce public transparency of test and evaluation activities and noted that a center at Fort Detrick in Frederick, Md., already is being built for threat assessment work. “There might be some small amount of threat assessment that can’t be done [at Fort Detrick] because it involves large animal studies, but that’s not a lot,” he said. ---- Camp Pendleton Personnel Take Anthrax Vaccine at Higher Rate than Rest of U.S. Military Global Security Newswire Wednesday, August 24, 2005 http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2005_8_24.html U.S. Marines and Navy personnel at Camp Pendleton in California are receiving the anthrax vaccine at a higher rate than the rest of the military, the San Diego Union-Tribune reported yesterday (see GSN, Aug. 2). Navy Capt. Eric McDonald said 85 percent of troops at the base are volunteering to receive the inoculation. Just more than 50 percent of all service members are receiving the vaccinations under the voluntary program initiated in May, said Army Col. John Grabenstein, director of the Military Vaccine Agency. Roughly 1.3 million people in the United States have been vaccinated with more than 5.3 million shots since 1998. Severe adverse reactions are reported in one out of 100,000 shots, according to the Union-Tribune. More than 20,000 service people have been offered the vaccine since this spring. Vaccinations at Camp Pendleton began in July, with approximately 2,000 Marines and sailors taking the inoculations. People who began receiving the treatment under the mandatory program are more likely to continue receiving the shots, Grabenstein said. He offered no explanation for the higher vaccination rate at Camp Pendleton. McDonald, however, attributed the higher percentage to the perception of the anthrax risk posed to Marines. Tens of thousands of Marines from the base are scheduled to deploy in Iraq early next year, the Union-Tribune reported. “I think we have a higher percentage because of our understanding of the threat,” McDonald said. “(Infantrymen) perceive the threat from anthrax to be higher. Also, the culture of the Marines is to be willing to accept the shots.” Personnel at Camp Pendleton are told that refusing the shot could cause “a military operational problem,” but McDonald said that each person’s decision is respected. “We would like 100 percent (of Camp Pendleton troops) to get the shots,” he said. “But when you are doing immunizations, if you can hit 90 percent, you are doing really, really well. So we are at 85 percent and we think we are doing pretty well” (Rick Rogers, San Diego Union-Tribune, Aug. 23). ---- Scientist Resigns Over Anthrax Claims Global Security Newswire Wednesday, August 24, 2005 http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2005_8_24.html University of Texas Medical Branch microbiologist John Heggers, who admitted to overstating research on an anti-anthrax product, resigned Monday, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, July 13). Heggers is facing a university investigation for scientific misconduct for touting Bio-Germ Protection lotion as effective against anthrax, the plague and smallpox. The Dallas Morning News first reported on the matter last month, according to AP. A scientific integrity panel at the university found “egregious” misconduct and “excessive and false claims” by Heggers, who had been at the university for 17 years, AP reported. Heggers countered that the panel was misled by anthrax experts who were intimidated by questions from reporters. “There isn't anything shaky about my science,” Heggers wrote in a response to the panel. “I have devoted my whole career to saving lives not taking them” (Associated Press/Houston Chronicle, Aug. 23). -------- POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS / JUSTICE -------- homeland security / national intelligence Homeland Security's Casualties Russ Baker August 24, 2005 Tompaine.com http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050824/homeland_securitys_casualties.php Investigative reporter and essayist Russ Baker is a longtime contributor to TomPaine.com. He is the founder of the Real News Project, a new organization dedicated to revitalizing investigative journalism. He can be reached at russ@russbaker.com. Research assistance for this piece was provided by Stefanie von Brochowski. Good news! Efforts to safeguard Americans are working perfectly—if you read last week’s new report from the Justice Department’s inspector general. The report says the Justice Department received no complaints in the first six months of this year related to misconduct by department employees carrying out the USA Patriot Act—a key component of the campaign to prevent domestic acts of terror. If you take that statement about the lack of complaints out of context—and many Americans probably will, thanks to the Bush administration's prowess at spinning and news-managing—you might conclude that the homeland security operation has been a resounding success. But you get a very different impression if you piece together scattered reports from a variety of sources about the impact of the Bush administration’s domestic “War on Terror.” In early August alone, a number of disturbing articles suggested that measures designed to protect Americans are seriously undermining the most basic civil rights of both citizens and guests in this country—in an ostensibly still-free society. Here’s a sampling of the bad news: * On August 7, The New York Times reported the case of a longtime naturalized American citizen—a New York area-translator, an apparently peaceable fellow, working on his doctorate, with no personal involvement in or sympathies with terror activity. He has now been convicted of providing material aid to terrorism and conspiring to deceive the government. His crime: Translating material into and out of Arabic for defense attorney Lynne Stewart and her client, the jailed Sheikh Abdul Rahman. A jury found Stewart guilty of passing along violent messages from the cleric, but the translator claims that in his own actions he was simply following her instructions. It’s far from clear that he understood that anything he did could be seen as aiding terrorism or that this was his intention—yet he now faces a possible 20 years in prison. * The grim spectre of American troops in American streets is not just a nightmare scenario any longer. On August 8, The Washington Post reported on Pentagon plans to have normal military troops intervene domestically in various crisis scenarios, despite the fact that the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 severely restricts the use of troops in domestic law enforcement. The long-range concern here is that introducing active-duty troops onto American streets could lead to military involvement in politics and eventually, under the cloak of some future crisis, to military government. In the meantime, worries arise about the transferability of skills that troops need in war zones where civil liberties and other niceties play little or no role, to political demonstrations on the streets of, say, Washington, D.C., or Cleveland. The article contains various reassurances that there’s no cause for alarm. But the Post got this story from “officers who drafted the plans.” Assuming the officers spoke to the reporter with the permission of their superiors, that means the military is floating the idea to see whether it actually bothers anyone. Do the words “Kent State” mean nothing to today’s Pentagon planners? * People may be incarcerated right here in the United States in conditions as harsh as those that exist or existed in places like Abu Ghraib, Bagram and Guantanamo. On August 9, we learned about an Illinois student from Qatar being held as an enemy combatant—in a Navy brig in Charleston, S.C. His lawyer claims that he is held in isolation, nearly round the clock, in a dark 6-by-9-foot cell; deliberately exposed to extreme cold; denied basic necessities like a toothbrush, toilet paper, adequate bedding and medical and psychological care; and denied any contact with his family. He further claims to be denied access to any books, newspapers, radio, television or religious material except for the Koran (which he says was placed on the floor, with other items heaped atop it), and says that threats have been made against his family. * The U.S. government is seizing foreigners who are simply changing planes at U.S. airports, detaining them without charges, depriving them of access to a lawyer or the courts and even denying basic necessities like food. On August 10, I read how one naturalized Canadian citizen is suing the U.S. government over the practice known as ''extraordinary rendition.'' He alleges that he was grabbed at JFK Airport, held in solitary confinement in a Brooklyn detention center and then shipped off to his native Syria to be interrogated under torture because officials suspected that he was a member of Al Qaeda. Since then, Syrian and Canadian officials have said that the man had no terrorist connections. U.S. officials maintain otherwise. According to The New York Times , they are seeking dismissal of his lawsuit, in part through the rare assertion of a "state secrets" privilege. One wonders, of course, if these are just isolated examples, an unavoidable byproduct of a system that, overall, is protecting our lives. But is it? The government steadfastly refuses to reveal how many people have been arrested in this country on suspicion of terror-related activity, though legal and human right experts say the numbers may be as high as 5,000. Now, it’s understandable that in the climate following 9/11, errors would be made. Still, one might reasonably expect a certain percentage of those incarcerations to be justified in the end. Yet, according to a statistical analysis released early this year by the NYU Center on Law and Security, based on the 120 terrorism-related cases it could identify, only two cases resulted in convictions for actual or planned terrorist acts. One involved shoe bomber Richard Reid, who was only apprehended (by fellow passengers) when he unsuccessfully tried to blow up a plane. The other involved Iyman Faris, a Kashmir-born Ohio truck driver sentenced to 20 years in prison for planning to sabotage Brooklyn Bridge trains—who has a history of mental illness, attempted suicide and spent some time in a mental hospital in the late '90s. Not your typical Al Qaeda operative. In addition, the authorities have required more than 80,000 foreign men, from predominantly Arab or Muslim countries, to register, be fingerprinted and photographed; called in around 8,000 for FBI interviews; and prioritized more than 6,000 for deportation, says David Cole, professor at Georgetown University Law Center and expert on civil liberties and national security. As of now, he says, not a single one of those has been charged with anything terror-related. The reason the number actually arrested is a mere guess is that there are no records—indeed, no public scrutiny at all. Even the families and the detainees themselves are sometimes denied access to court documents. “The simple fact is: nobody knows—and I’m not sure we’ll ever know the number of people that have gone through U.S. custody,” says Jumana Musa, Advocacy Director of Domestic Human Rights and International Justice, at Amnesty International USA. But why don’t we know? “The government was announcing the number of people that they had taken into custody until they got to around 1,200,” says Musa. “And people started asking the question ‘well, how many of those people were charged with September 11?’, and the answer was zero. So they stopped giving numbers in custody.” If this still sounds too remote to trouble you, consider this: You don’t have to be Muslim or even appear to fit any profile to come close to personal peril. I have twice been pulled into an interrogation room after coming off foreign flights. The first time, the officers involved released me soon after, but declined to explain why I had been flagged. The second time, one confessed that my name was ‘similar’ to that of someone on a watch list (“Sheikh Ras al-Bakr”?)—this despite a unique passport number and a history of decidedly nonjihadist overseas travel, albeit as a journalist who has found many occasions to criticize the current administration. Can I—can any of us—learn more about what is going on? No, we can’t. Because no administration in history has come close to the Bush White House in its zeal to block the routine release of information, and to stamp “classified” on pieces of paper—millions upon millions. It’s worth noting that this policy went into effect long before 9/11—indeed, within days of Bush taking office in early 2001. Since then, of course, the claimed justification for opaqueness has grown. And so have the dangers to democracy. -------- POLITICS -------- propaganda wars U.S. denounces assassination idea By Mark Memmott and William Risser, USA TODAY 8/24/2005 7:46 AM http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-08-23-US-robertson_x.htm WASHINGTON — The Bush administration and religious leaders on Tuesday condemned Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson's call for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. (Video: Robertson's call for assassination) Robertson said Monday that Chavez is making Venezuela a "launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism." He said the U.S. government "ought to go ahead" and assassinate the Venezuelan leader because "it's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war." "We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one ... strong-arm dictator," Robertson said. "It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job." Robertson made his comments on his syndicated TV program The 700 Club. Chavez is a sharp critic of the United States. He has called President Bush a "jerk" and has accused the United States of plotting to overthrow his government. Chavez has also moved his country sharply left and has built strong ties to Fidel Castro's Cuba, one of the last communist regimes left in the world. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack called Robertson's words "inappropriate." He said the U.S. government "does not share his view" and is not plotting to kill Chavez. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said assassinating a foreign leader "is against the law. Our department doesn't do that type of thing." Robertson's comments were "appalling to the point of disbelief," National Council of Churches USA General Secretary Bob Edgar said in a statement. The head of a leading organization of evangelical Christians distanced himself from Robertson, a Republican presidential candidate in 1988 and 1992 who has been more of a political commentator in recent years than a religious leader. "Certainly I don't condone his comments," said Ted Haggard, president of the 30-million-member National Association of Evangelicals. "But I've know Pat for years, and he's a good man. ... I don't think he wants people killed. I think he made ill-advised remarks in his role as a pundit. He does not speak for all Christians or evangelicals." (Related story: Venezuelan VP slams Robertson) At the Venezuelan Embassy in Washington, Ambassador Bernado Alvarez Herrera said he expected the White House to issue a stronger condemnation of Robertson's words and said his country fears for Chavez's safety the next time he visits the USA. "Pat Robertson is an influential person calling for the assassination of a democratically elected president," Herrera said. (Related story: Robertson calls for assassination) Chavez, who was visiting Cuba, told CNN as he prepared to depart that he didn't know who Robertson is and "couldn't care less." Robertson, 75, would not comment on the reaction to his remarks or their appropriateness, said Angell Watts, a spokeswoman for his Christian Broadcasting Network. The 700 Club is shown three times each weekday on the ABC Family network. CBN says the program averages 1 million viewers each day. A spokeswoman for ABC Family, Nicole Nichols, said in a statement Tuesday that the network "is contractually obligated to air The 700 Club and has no editorial control over views expressed by the hosts or guests. ABC Family strongly rejects the views expressed by Pat Robertson." Robertson's comments came during a political discussion, not the portion of his program devoted to spiritual issues. Robertson has ignited controversies before with his statements. The topics have included feminists, the 9/11 terrorist attacks and his hope that God would create vacancies on the Supreme Court. With some exceptions, it is illegal under U.S. law for U.S. agents to kill a foreign head of state. Though Robertson advocated what would appear to be an illegal act, the Federal Communications Commission probably has no grounds for legal action against him because the FCC is barred by law from trying to prevent the broadcast of any point of view. Pat Robertson's quips: Monday: "We have the ability" to assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. "The time has come ( to) exercise that ability." June 2003: "The Supreme Court is bringing upon this nation the wrath of God" by ruling in favor of abortion rights and gay rights. Robertson asks his supporters to pray for "our Lord to change the court." After the 9/11 attacks: "We have insulted God" with legal abortion and restrictions on religion in public places. "Then we say 'why does this happen?' Well, why it's happening is that God Almighty is lifting his protection from us." August 1992: Feminism "encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." ---- The Cannon of Christianity: Pat Robertson Calls for the Assassination of Hugo Chavez Wednesday, August 24th, 2005 Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/24/1343225 Christian televangelist Pat Robertson set off an international firestorm this week when he called for the assassination of Venezuela's democratically-elected president Hugo Chavez. We speak with journalist and author Chris Hedges and attorney Michal Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights. [includes rush transcript] Christian televangelist Pat Robertson set off an international firestorm this week when he called for the assassination of Venezuela's democratically-elected president Hugo Chavez. Robertson made the comment on his TV program "The 700 Club." * Pat Robertson, Christian Broadcasting Network, speaking on "The 700 Club." Robertson, who is 75, ran for president as a Republican in 1988. He has often used his show and the political advocacy group he founded, the Christian Coalition, to support President Bush. According to his web site, the TV show, "The 700 Club" has an audience of about one million people. At a news conference Tuesday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was questioned about Roberton's comments. * Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, news conference, August 23, 2005. Robertson's comments were also denounced by the State Department which called them "inappropriate," but the White House has remained silent despite repeated calls for repudiation. Meanwhile, the Rev. Jesse Jackson called for the Federal Communications Commission to investigate Robertson's comments and the watchdog group, Media Matters for America, sent a letter urging the ABC Family network to stop carrying his show. While some of Robertson's allies distanced themselves from his comments, other conservative Christian organizations were not so forthcoming. The president of the National Association of Evangelicals, the Reverend Ted Haggard, was questioned on CNN yesterday afternoon by host Kyra Phillips. * Rev. Ted Haggard, president of the National Association of Evangelicals, interviewed on CNN, August 23, 2005. Meanwhile, Robertson's comments have set off an international firestorm. In Havana, Cuban President Fidel Castro criticized Robertson's comments saying, "I think only God can punish crimes of such magnitude." Meanwhile, Venezuela's ambassador to Washington, Bernardo Alvarez, said Bush needs to guarantee Chavez's safety at next month's United Nations meeting in New York. * Bernardo Alvarez, Venezuelan ambassador to U.S., news conference, August 23, 2005. In Caracas, Vice President Jose Vicente Rangel said Venezuela was studying its legal options in response to the comments. He said, "It's huge hypocrisy to maintain this discourse against terrorism and at the same time, in the heart of that country, there are entirely terrorist statements like those." Chavez has often accused the United States of plotting his overthrow or assassination. He survived a short-lived coup in 2002. US involvement? Over the years, tens of millions of dollars in U.S. government money has been given to Venezuelan opposition groups through the National Endowment for Democracy. Last August, Chavez survived a referendum to remove him from power through a recall election. Venezuela is the world's fifth largest oil exporting country and a major supplier to the United States. * Chris Hedges, journalist and author. He was a foreign correspondent for The New York Times and is currently a senior fellow at the Nation Institute. He is author of "War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning" and "Losing Moses on the Freeway." He has a Masters degree in theology from Harvard University. He is currently writing a book on the Christian Right. * Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights. RUSH TRANSCRIPT AMY GOODMAN: Christian televangelist, Pat Robertson, set off an international firestorm this week when he called for the assassination of Venezuela's democratically-elected president, Hugo Chavez. Robertson made the comment on his TV program, The 700 Club. PAT ROBERTSON: He has destroyed the Venezuelan economy, and he’s going to make that a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism all over the continent. You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war, and I don't think any oil shipments will stop, but this man is a terrific danger, and the United States -- this is in our sphere of influence. We can't let this happen. We have the Monroe Doctrine. We have other doctrines that we have announced, and without question, this is a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil, that could hurt us very badly. We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with. AMY GOODMAN: Pat Robertson, speaking on his TV show, The 700 Club. Robertson is 75 years old. He ran for president as a Republican in 1988. He is often used his show in the political advocacy group he founded, the Christian Coalition, to support President Bush. According to his website, the TV show, The 700 Club, has an audience of about a million people. At a news conference Tuesday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was questioned about Robertson's comments. REPORTER: Reverend Pat Robertson has suggested that the United States should assassinate Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan president. What were your reactions to those remarks, and has that ever been considered? DONALD RUMSFELD: Not to my knowledge. And I would think I would have knowledge. Certainly, it's against the law. Our department doesn't do that type of thing. He's a private citizen. Private citizens say all kinds of things all the time. AMY GOODMAN: Robertson's comments were also denounced by the State Department, which called them, quote, “inappropriate,” but the White House has remained silent, despite repeated calls for repudiation. Meanwhile, the Reverend Jesse Jackson called for the Federal Communications Commission to investigate Robertson's comments. And the watchdog group, Media Matters for America, sent a letter urging the ABC Family Network to stop carrying his show. While some of Robertson's allies distanced themselves from his comments, other conservative Christian organizations were not so forthcoming. The president of the National Association of Evangelicals, the Reverend Ted Haggard, was questioned on CNN yesterday afternoon by Kyra Phillips. KYRA PHILLIPS: I'm curious, is this religion leader -- did he go a little too far here with his comments, from a Christian perspective? REV. TED HAGGARD: Well, from a Christian perspective, yes, but you’ve got to remember this is a political commentary portion of his show. It is his television show, and essentially what he's saying is that he's scared about some of the developments going on in that section of the world, and he wants them minimized. He wants them taken care of in the most efficient way that he can. So he’s not speaking for evangelicalism. He's not speaking for Christians. He's just saying from a political point of view and from a social point of view, somebody needs to contemplate how to minimize this, so we don't end up in a full-scale war. AMY GOODMAN: That was Reverend Ted Haggard of National Association of Evangelicals, the president. Meanwhile, Robertson's comments have set off an international firestorm. In Havana, Cuban President Fidel Castro criticized Robertson’s comments, saying, quote, “I think only God can punish crimes of such magnitude.” Meanwhile, Venezuela’s ambassador to Washington, Bernardo Alvarez, said Bush needs to guarantee Chavez's safety at the next month's U.N. meeting in New York. BERNARDO ALVAREZ: We're very disappointed with Pat Robertson's statement over the Christian Broadcast Network. Mr. Robertson is, of course, no ordinary private citizen. He was a candidate for the [G.O.P.’s] presidential nomination in 1992. The organization that Mr. Robertson leads, the Christian Coalition, claims nearly 2 million members and has a multi-million dollar a year budget. In 2000, it was credited with helping George W. Bush win the important South Carolina primary and catapulting him to the nomination of his party for President. Mr. Robertson has been one of this president's staunchest allies. His statement demands the strongest condemnation by the White House. Mr. Robertson calls that U.S. government covert operative murder President Hugo Chavez is a call to terrorism. He called that President Chavez violently impose the outdated Monroe Doctrines on Venezuela. It’s a call for the American intervention in the sovereign affairs of our democratic country. The United States might not permit its citizen to use its territory and airwaves to incite terrorists abroad and the murder of a democratically-elected president. Venezuela demands that the U.S. abide by the international and domestic law and respect our country and its president. Pat Robertson's statement must be condemned in the strongest term by the Bush administration, and we are concerned about the safety of our president. It is essential that the U.S. government guarantees his safety, when he visits this country in the future, including his scheduled visit to the United Nations in New York. From the messages we have received, it is clear that Pat Robertson does not speak for Christians in the U.S., not even for the Christian Coalition, when he calls for the assassination of our president. AMY GOODMAN: Venezuela's ambassador to the U.S., Bernardo Alvarez, speaking at a news conference on Tuesday. In Caracas, Vice President Jose Vicente Rangel said Venezuela was studying its legal options in response to the comments. He said, quote, “It's huge hypocrisy to maintain this discourse against terrorism and at the same time, in the heart of that country, there are entirely terrorist statements like those.” Chavez has often accused the United States of plotting his overthrow or assassination. He survived an aborted coup attempt in 2002. U.S. involvement? Well, over the years, tens of millions of dollars in U.S. government money has been given to Venezuelan opposition groups through the National Endowment for Democracy. Last August, President Chavez survived a referendum to remove him from power through a recall election. Venezuela is the world's fifth largest oil exporting country and a major supplier to the United States. We are joined today by Chris Hedges, a journalist and author, foreign correspondent for The New York Times for 15 years, currently a senior fellow at the Nation Institute. He's author of a number of books, his latest is Losing Moses on the Freeway. He has a Masters degree in theology from Harvard University and is currently writing a book on the Christian right. Welcome to Democracy Now! CHRIS HEDGES: Thank you. AMY GOODMAN: It's good to have you with us. Well, can you talk about who Pat Robertson is, and is this statement unusual for him? CHRIS HEDGES: Well, this fits a pattern of essentially seditious statements that have been made by Pat Robertson since the early 1980s, when he embraced this new doctrine within the Christian right known as Christian reconstructionism or dominionism -- that's not a term that he would use to describe it, but that's how shorthand for those of us who look at it from the outside -- where he calls for the creation of a Christian America, a Christian state. And there has been an assault against the democratic system, largely unseen, I think, by the majority of the American people, ever since the early 1980s. The empire that Robertson and the other radical Christian right evangelicals have amassed, the media empire, is now huge. What began as a relatively small operation, basically a radio operation, now sees just Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network alone employing over a thousand people, to have facilities in three U.S. cities, as well as the Ukraine, Philippines, India and Israel, and this is part of a large empire where radical Christians now control six national television networks, each reaching tens of millions of homes and virtually all of the nation's 2,000 religious radio stations. Christian radio now outnumbers every other format, except country music and news talk. And the latest venture is putting up direct broadcast satellite networks, such as Sky Angels, that carries -- Sky Angel carries 36 channels of Christian radio and TV and nothing else. So when Pat Robertson makes this kind of a statement, it’s being pumped into the homes on an alternative information network to tens of millions of Americans who rely on these radical religious right figures for their news, for their entertainment, for their commentary, and for what is purportedly their version of the Bible, which for those of us who come out of the Church and come out of seminary, in my case, is deeply distorted and perverted. You know, I have not memorized Pat Robertson quotes, but I went and collected a few. But let me just read one that goes back to 1981, where he said the Constitution of the United States, for instance, is a marvelous document for self-government by the Christian people, but the minute you turn the document into the hands of non-Christian people and atheistic people, they can use it to destroy the very foundation of our society. This sets the tone for essentially a politically charged movement that seeks to dismantle our open society. AMY GOODMAN: Chris Hedges, former New York Times correspondent, author of the book, Losing Moses on the Freeway: The Ten Commandments in America. And we’ll come back with him. We’ll also be joined by Michael Ratner, President of the Center for Constitutional Rights, and look at the implications of this call for the assassination of a foreign leader. [break] AMY GOODMAN: We continue our discussion of the comments of Pat Robertson, calling for the assassination of Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez, who has just gone to Cuba and has met with the Cuban president, Fidel Castro. Our guests are Chris Hedges, he’s a graduate of Harvard Divinity School, former foreign correspondent for The New York Times, author of a number of books, among them, What Every Person Should Know About War and Losing Moses on the Freeway: The Ten Commandments in America. We're also joined by Michael Ratner, President of the Center for Constitutional Rights. Before we go to Michael, Chris, some other quotes of Pat Robertson’s. CHRIS HEDGES: Well, I think it's important to understand the ideology that comes into play with these kinds of statements. Robertson, along with most of the radical Christian right, endorses violence as a kind of curative for the satanic movement, secular humanism, liberalism, Islam, whatever it is that they see outside the gate. So the final aesthetic of their movement, in many ways, is violence. This is what the whole “End Time” series is about. So if you go back and look at his statements, he repeatedly sees incredibly destructive and violent acts as the hand of God. His most famous statement coming, along with Jerry Falwell, right after 9/11, when he said that the attacks of 9/11 were caused by pagans, abortionists, feminists, gays, lesbians, the ACLU and People for the American Way. He often makes predictions. He, of course, claims that God speaks to him for the new year, and he has in the past claimed to have, through God's power, harnessed the destructive might of hurricanes, such as Hurricane Gloria in 1985, where he claimed that through his relationship with God, he steered the hurricane away from his company's Virginia Beach headquarters. This hurricane, of course, caused millions of dollars of destruction in states along the East Coast. He made a similar claim about Hurricane Felix in 1995. But what we're seeing is not a kook. What we are seeing is somebody who has this messianic belief that violence and destruction is being carried out against non-believers, against those who do not endorse his radical ideology and that he is a kind of player, along with God, in that destructive force. AMY GOODMAN: Hasn't he also called for the destruction of the State Department? CHRIS HEDGES: Yes, he indicated that, you know, that an explosion of a nuclear weapon at the State Department could be good for the country. The direct quote is, I think the best country -- that's not the nuclear -- this is when he was asked a question about it, and he said that a small nuclear device would be good for the country, if we exploded it in the State Department. AMY GOODMAN: Michael Ratner, this latest comment of Pat Robertson, talking about the assassination of Hugo Chavez, calling for it, what are the legal implications of this? MICHAEL RATNER: Well, first of all, I think we have to understand that this comment came out of a context, a context in which in 2002, many people believed the U.S. -- and there's evidence of it -- was very involved in the coup to overthrow Chavez, and a recent trip of Rumsfeld to the region, in which he basically said the real dangers here are Chavez and Fidel Castro and their implementing work in Bolivia against the government, etc. So all of a sudden, then you get Robertson saying this, and you question, well, is this all working together? Is Robertson really sewing the seeds in this country, making fertile ground among the millions that Chris has referred to, to make them ready and able to accept an overthrow or an assassination of Chavez. Now, legally, legally there's two ways to look at it. It is prohibited for the United States or U.S. officials to assassinate the head of state or really any official overseas. That's been in place since the 1970s, since the U.S. tried to assassinate as many people, as listeners know, everybody from -- did assassinate Diem in Vietnam, tried to assassinate Fidel Castro in Cuba, attempted assassinations in Chile in the early 1970s, etc. So, that prohibition was put in place. It doesn't mean that the U.S. has ever adhered to that, and we have had recent examples where President Bush called for Osama bin Laden -- bin Laden dead or alive, or when they actually purposely targeted Saddam Hussein's various places where they thought he was living in an attempt to essentially assassinate him. So, from a U.S. perspective, it's supposed to be outlawed, but let me tell you, you can't believe a word that Rumsfeld is saying when you see him on TV there, saying this is against the law in the United States. Yes, it's against the law, but you can't believe that these guys don't have that in their brain as to what they're thinking. Now, in the U.S., of course, we have very broad protections for First Amendment, right to advocate, all kinds of things. You get in trouble when you advocate something that is likely to happen imminently or soon. So I can’t go in front of a mob and say, “There's that guy over there, let's go lynch him,” and everybody is carrying these sticks, and everybody goes over there. Then I can be guilty of conspiracy to commit murder, attempted murder, whatever various laws you can. Robertson's quote arguably falls within the line that says, you know, you can advocate this, and therefore it wouldn't be illegal, but I can tell you, if there were other people in this country doing similar kinds of things, if someone advocated an Islamic cleric, for example, in the same level as Robertson, the murder or assassination of Tony Blair in the United Kingdom because of the Iraq war, I can tell you that cleric would be in jail in this country, and they would figure out a way to make the law say that, well, his followers were imminently going to do something about it, and advocating it helped him. Or if someone during the anti-apartheid period said, “Let’s kill the President of South Africa, who is supporting anti-apartheid,” I can tell you that -- AMY GOODMAN: Who’s supporting apartheid. MICHAEL RATNER: Right, supporting apartheid. I can tell you those people would likely be in jail. If they were non-citizens, they would be jailed and deported very quickly. AMY GOODMAN: Sami Al-Arian, the Florida professor who they say advocated violence, is currently in jail. Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, the government has continually said he called for the overthrow or assassination of Hosni Mubarak, the Egyptian president. MICHAEL RATNER: Right, particularly with non-citizens, the line that I gave you is very different. Non-citizens advocating assassinations, violence, can be jailed under various terrorist laws, they can be deported, etc. And, of course, as we know now, Britain is now conceiving of a certain – a wide set of laws particularly aimed at non-citizens for advocating any kind of violence. Those laws under Britain would have put Robertson in jail. AMY GOODMAN: Do you think Robertson should be in jail? MICHAEL RATNER: Well, do I think he should be in jail? I mean, I think people should be tried for crimes and jailed if it's found to be the case. What I think is happening here, though, is Robertson really in a broad way, if not a literal conspiracy with officials of this government and other people in the United States, to essentially sew the ground for the eventual overthrow of Chavez. AMY GOODMAN: Again, among Robertson's comments, “If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him,” talking about Hugo Chavez, “I think we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war, and I don't think any oil shipments will stop,” he said. Chris Hedges, let's look back at the history of Pat Robertson. You have been a foreign correspondent for The New York Times for many years. You're now a senior fellow at the Nation Institute. You worked in Central America in the early 1980s. Can you talk about that period? CHRIS HEDGES: Robertson, you know, has latched onto very despotic movements. You know, he was chose to Charles Taylor, for instance. He had invested -- AMY GOODMAN: Liberia. CHRIS HEDGES: In Liberia. He invested $8 million in a Liberian gold mine. He has – you know, we don't know exactly how much he is worth. Estimates range anywhere from $200 million to $1 billion, certainly an extremely wealthy figure. And he has set up alliances with some of the most despotic regimes around the globe, including a very deep involvement in the forces extremism in Central America. He was an avid supporter of the Contras in the war against -- set up by the Reagan administration against the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, a strong supporter of Rios Montt, who carried out wholesale massacres in Guatemala in the early 1980s, and the regime in El Salvador during the war at a time when the death squads in El Salvador were killing between 800 and a thousand people a month. And this was not limited to statements of support from the United States, but visits, and I actually covered visits by Robertson and Falwell to embrace these movements. I think that what makes this particularly dangerous is that it's not just a very radical rightwing agenda, but a kind of sanctification of violence, a belief that violence – and this is the language that they use -- can be used to defeat the forces of Satan. And believe me, people like Pat Robertson don't see boundaries. Satan's influence for people like Robertson or Falwell is as pervasive, in some ways more so, within American society, just as it is without, so that when I hear them call for the assassination of a head of state in Latin America, when I see him embrace people like Charles Taylor, those running the death squads in El Salvador, the Contras, Rios Montt, I think we have to understand that this ideology is one that is also going to come into play within our own country. And the notion that somehow it's going to be limited, this kind of call for violence is going to be limited to simply those who he perceives as a raid against that’s outside our own borders as naive. What we are talking about is a movement, a very, very increasingly powerful movement that endorses violence as a way to create what they term the Christian society or the Christian nation. And that endorsement of violence, while they’re certainly very clever and careful, is one that is not going to be limited to non-Americans. AMY GOODMAN: Chris Hedges, a former foreign correspondent for The New York Times, graduate of the Harvard Divinity School. His latest book is, Losing Moses on the Freeway. Do you think, I'll ask both of you this question, Michael Ratner and Chris Hedges, that the fact that Chavez was going to Cuba was significant here, with the U.S. trying to up the ante against Fidel Castro, as well, talking about his overthrow or destabilizing the government? MICHAEL RATNER: Well, I think this is Chavez's fourth trip to Cuba. The U.S. is obviously credibly concerned about Chavez's relationship to Cuba. He sells oil to Cuba. He's trying to form sort of a Bolivarian group in Latin America that will oppose U.S. hegemony in the region. He’s not about to turn his oil resources over to the United States. So I think this is all part of it. That it happened while he was in Cuba, I think, is significant and makes you wonder to what extent was there some kind of connection with some kind of U.S. officials over this statement, whether at the highest level or at the middle level. AMY GOODMAN: And what does Cuba represent to Pat Robertson, Chris Hedges? CHRIS HEDGES: Well, you heard it in the rhetoric. I mean, you know, remember that these people, they always need to set up a dark satanic force that they're battling against. That used to be Marxism and communism, you know, although the, you know, the insurgencies I covered in Central America had nothing to do with Marxism, in essence, and now that's been replaced by terrorism and Islam. So, you know, we have this absolutely convoluted statement that we have to fight the president of Venezuela because we're fighting Muslim extremists, and I think that what it has to do with is that bifurcation of the world into the forces of darkness and the forces of light and all of the forces of darkness are lumped together, even if there's a tremendous incongruity between the head of a state of a Latin American country and a follower of Osama bin Laden. AMY GOODMAN: Michael Ratner, you have written books on the U.S. and Cuba, and you talk about, of course, the attempted assassination of Castro, but when you say, “of course,” a lot of young people, particularly don't understand the level. You have the latest head of the U.S. Interest Section in Havana actually, basically promising Castro would be taken out. What is this history? MICHAEL RATNER: Well, it's been 40 years. I mean, since 1959 or shortly thereafter, the U.S. has embargoed Cuba, attempted to overthrow Castro, sent in terrorists to maim and kill people in Cuba. As we know – AMY GOODMAN: How many assassination attempts against Castro himself? MICHAEL RATNER: I don't know. There's scores of them, I'm sure. Everything from exploding cigars to, you know, all kinds of things that we make fun of, but were actually really, really serious. So it's been a history of U.S. terrorism against Cuba, attempts against Castro's life, and now he’s survived some 40 years. And now they're saying it again. So, are they serious again about it? Well, these guys, you have to take them seriously when they make these kind of statements about wanting to take people out. It’s remarkable. AMY GOODMAN: It's interesting, while President Bush did talk to reporters yesterday, it seems like he has taken a break from his break now at Crawford and gone to Idaho, because of the protests. You have these reporters who are just sitting there baking in the hot sun with nothing to do, and -- except to interview the people who are protesting, like Cindy Sheehan, outside, and so President Bush knows he's got an obliging press. He goes to Idaho, the press follows, and he can take them away from interviewing these protesters. But he was talking to reporters, talking about Cindy Sheehan, but not talking about the comment of Pat Robertson. What about the relationship between Pat Robertson and President Bush, and also the way Pat Robertson is treated by the press? When he goes on different programs to comment on different issues, he is very much treated as a kind of elder statesman, and these quotes are not raised, at least in the past. CHRIS HEDGES: Well, I think that's a really important point. I think, you know, as somebody who spent most of their career in the mainstream media, I think that the problem is that the mainstream media is mystified and doesn't understand who these people are. They are willing to give them a kind of religious legitimacy that they should not have. That's, I think, largely because the mainstream media itself is secular and uncomfortable with religiosity, and so they – I think that what we are seeing is essentially an attempt at appeasement, an attempt to include these radical figures within the mainstream in the hope that they will be domesticated. This, you know, having watched this process around the globe, including in places like Yugoslavia, it’s a disastrous mistake, because these people are very clear and quite upfront. You know, everyone should listen to their broadcasts. They're very open about what they want to do to this country and what they want to create. And there is no place in their vision of America for people like you and me. AMY GOODMAN: Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez, said yesterday that he was offering to help needy Americans with cheap supplies of gasoline. He said, quote, “We want to sell gasoline and heating fuel directly to poor communities in the United States.” He didn't say how Venezuela would go about providing gas to these poor communities, but the Venezuelan state oil company owns Citgo which operates 14,000 gas stations here. Chavez said Venezuela would supply gasoline to Americans at half the price they now pay if intermediaries who speculated and exploited consumers were cut out. What about the politics of oil and Chavez, former head of OPEC, extremely significant now with gas prices at their highest in many years? MICHAEL RATNER: Well, it seems obvious, I mean, that the U.S. – you know, not only what we have been saying about Latin America and the shifts in Latin America going toward a more – many governments moving in a more progressive way, the tumult in Latin America, but – you know, Venezuela is the fourth biggest oil supplier to the United States. It controls huge amount of reserves. It's dealing with Cuba right now, and the U.S. – I remember back in the Grenada days, when we went after Grenada, they talked about like the shipping lanes for oil, you know, in the Caribbean. And they went after Grenada on that. So I think you have to look at this as part of the Latin American movement toward a more progressive government, but part of it, obviously, about oil. AMY GOODMAN: We are going to talk about hybrid cars and alternative energy and the use of gas in this country in a minute. But I just wanted to end by asking about this comment of the Venezuelan Ambassador to the United States being concerned in if and when Hugo Chavez comes to New York for the United Nations General Assembly meetings in September, as so many heads of state do from around the world, what this means for him. Will Pat Robertson be detained during that time because he presents a danger to a foreign president? MICHAEL RATNER: You know, this is – you know this is – we should not underestimate the seriousness of what Robertson did. I mean, what we have here is a man with millions of adherents around the world, in this country, possibly in Venezuela and other places. And when that person says it's good to take somebody out, it's good to assassinate him, what is he saying to his adherents except go for this guy? So, when Robertson – when Chavez is in Venezuela, there may be some guys there, when he comes to the U.S., obviously, this is the heart and core of Robertson's support, and is that statement, are his strong statements about what this guy represents going to cause somebody to do something? So, they have cause – they have asked for real protection, if and when Chavez comes here. CHRIS HEDGES: And I think we have to remember that the radical fringe of this movement is violent, that those who attack abortion clinics, those who embrace this creed and are members of militia movements are people who not only believe in the use of violence but practice the use of violence. So, what you have potentially is the incitement of these fringe groups within the movements who are happy and willing to use force. AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank you both very much for being with us, Michael Ratner, President of the Center for Constitutional Rights; Chris Hedges, former correspondent for The New York Times, a graduate of Harvard Divinity School, has written a number of books, including War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning: What Every Person Should Know About War, and most recently, Losing Moses on the Freeway: The Ten Commandments in America. He is currently writing a book on the Christian right. -------- ENERGY -------- alternative energy Hybrid Cars: How Alternative Technologies Are Shaping the Future of Car Travel Wednesday, August 24th, 2005 Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/24/1343231 We take a look at sustainable energy solutions as gas prices skyrocket, focusing on the increasingly popular hybrid cars. We speak with the founder of hybridcars.com and go to an interview with an activist from the alternative energy movement. [includes rush transcript] We turn to the future of fossil fuel-based transportation in the United States. Gasoline prices continue to hit record highs this week, reaching above $2.60 per gallon and $65 a barrel. According to the Washington Post, last week saw the biggest one-week jump in the average price of a gallon of gas since the Energy Department began compiling the data 15 years ago. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration proposed new fuel efficiency standards on Tuesday. The updated standards would change the way compliance is measured starting with some SUVs and trucks built in 2008. So-called light trucks would be required to increase their fuel efficiency by 1.8 miles per gallon over four years. President Bush's Secretary of Transportation, Norman Mineta, announced the proposal in front of a Los Angeles gas station. * Norman Mineta, Secretary of Transportation, speaking August 23, 2005. Environmental groups criticized the proposal for failing to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil and for opening up new loop holes for car companies to get around fuel efficiency standards. For example, companies can get around the new standards if they build trucks that run on a mix of ethanol and gasoline, even if the proportion of ethanol is very small. * Brad Berman, founder and editor of Hybridcars.com. His writing on hybrids has appeared in the New York Times and Energy Security. The Bush administration has proposed slightly increasing the fuel efficiency of minivans, pickups and some SUVS over the next five years. Environmentalists have criticized the proposals because the rules will not apply to the biggest SUVs such as the H-2 Hummer. This comes as gas prices are reaching record high. Amy traveled to SolFest, an annual festival in Hopland, California that showcases sustainable energy solutions and also features hybrid cars. The increasingly popular vehicles run on a combination of electricity and gasoline. These are some voices of the alternative energy movement. * Ty Robinson, Intergalactic Hydrogen RUSH TRANSCRIPT AMY GOODMAN: President Bush's Secretary of Transportation, Norman Mineta, announced the proposal in front of a Los Angeles gas station. NORMAN MINETA: Our plan will require light trucks to be more fuel efficient regardless of size. Now, this plan is good news for American consumers because it will ensure that the vehicles that they will buy get more miles to the gallon and ultimately save them money. AMY GOODMAN: Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta. Environmental groups criticized the proposal for failing to reduce US dependence on foreign oil and for opening up new loopholes for car companies to get around fuel efficiency standards. Well, we're going to go right now to a person who has been talking about fuel efficiency for quite some time. Brad Berman is in the studio with us. He is editor of HybridCars.com. Welcome to Democracy Now! BRAD BERMAN: Thank you, Amy. AMY GOODMAN: It's great to have you us with. First respond to Mineta's statement, and what this means? BRAD BERMAN: Well, I think the key thing to look at are the numbers. And to suggest that the big goal is to reach 23.5 miles a gallon by 2010 for light trucks is not to close an SUV loophole and, in addition, the way that they have structured it and the complexity of it creates more loopholes. The fact is that approximately 50% of the cars on the road today are these light duty trucks because of the popularity of SUVs, and to not require them to reach certain levels of fuel efficiency and high levels of fuel efficiency that are possible is just to procrastinate when we’ve already been procrastinating for 30 years. AMY GOODMAN: Okay. How much gas miles per gallon do these cars get, basically? BRAD BERMAN: You know, it depends. If you look at the big monster SUVs which are not even -- like the hummers, are not even included in this at all. AMY GOODMAN: Why can they exclude them? BRAD BERMAN: I think the original thinking was that they were business related. When these laws were initially put in, the idea was that if you need a truck for your business, then in order to keep the wheels in motion for business to do its work, then we don't have to require these big hauling trucks to fall in line, but with the popularity of SUVs and the fact that they're called light duty trucks even though they're being used to go to the grocery store, is the result of -- AMY GOODMAN: And their fuel efficiency or inefficiency? BRAD BERMAN: It depends. I mean, they can go down to single digits, you know, or maybe more commonly 13 or 14 miles to the gallon. AMY GOODMAN: Hybrid cars, first of all, a lot of people won't even know what we're referring to, but you are a specialist in this area. What are they? BRAD BERMAN: Well, we currently have eight hybrid gas/electric vehicles on the market today. And it's essentially a technology innovation, which means that we are moving away from strictly using a gasoline internal combustion engine to combining the gas engine with an electric motor and electric batteries. So, it's -- you don't -- first of all, you don't need to plug them in. The electric batteries, the hybrid batteries recharge themselves and the car uses a sophisticated computer technology to decide, okay, I need to go faster, or I'm slowing down, when do I use the batteries, the electric side, and when do I use the gas? And as a result, commonly you can double the fuel economy of your car. AMY GOODMAN: What's the average miles per gallon? BRAD BERMAN: Well, if you look at the smaller hybrid cars like the Toyota Prius, the Honda Civic Hybrid or the Honda Insight. The Toyota Prius, you are talking in real world conditions about 50 miles to the gallon. Honda Insight, which is just a two-seater car, is closer to 60. And the Civic Hybrid, which I drive, is in the mid-40s. AMY GOODMAN: Well, I was at Solfest this weekend in Northern California, which is an annual festival in Hopland that showcases sustainable energy solutions. And I went over to the area where people were promoting hybrid cars. Let's just listen and watch. TY ROBINSON: Hi. My name is Ty Robinson from Intergalactic Hydrogen. Our company supports all fuel types, and we believe in a distributed approach to fuels. This is a multi-fuel vehicle. It can run on hydrogen or natural gas or ethanol. And it still retains its ability to use gasoline. It’s an historic vehicle, gold medal-winning; we won a gold medal at the Michelin Challenge Bibendum with this vehicle for emissions. This is the first vehicle to cross the country using compressed hydrogen for fuel. We led Dennis Weaver's “Drive to Survive” from Santa Monica to Washington, DC. It also has an altitude record for driving on hydrogen at 13,114 feet over Imogene Pass. Basically, this vehicle saves me a lot of money, because hydrogen is available today at half the cost of gasoline. My favorite place to fill up is in Phoenix, Arizona, at APS, Arizona Public Service, where they make what I call “free range hydrogen.” They make hydrogen from the electrolysis of water using solar panels. So this is a renewable form of hydrogen that we can make again and again, and it's an endless supply, because we put electricity in the water to make hydrogen and oxygen. When we burn the hydrogen with oxygen in the engine it makes water out the tailpipe. And so, we make purified water again, and it's half the cost of gasoline. And that's the second most used fuel I use in this vehicle. The primary fuel I use for transportation, because this is my daily driver – it’s got over 140,000 miles on it -- I use methane or natural gas. Where I live in Utah, it's available for $1 a gallon. So that's cut my fuel costs by two-thirds. I’m saving a lot of money with natural gas, and natural gas even cleans the air. On an inversion day in Salt Lake or any time down in LA, the air coming out the tailpipe is cleaner than the air coming in the air filter. So that's a pretty good deal: save money, clean the air, support our economy and, boy, probably help our nation's security at the same time. Then I use ethanol as a last resort to gasoline. And the ethanol I get comes from corn, corn-based, so supporting our American farmers. The ethanol is available predominantly for less than the cost of gasoline. So that's again a great deal. This year, so far, I have had to buy 13 gallons of gasoline, but I made a point to buy American-sourced petroleum gasoline. I actually buy from Sinclair, so it comes from Wyoming. So that's why I call this an American-fueled vehicle. A lot of people call these alternative fuel vehicles or AFVs. I figure if we are going to make this go mainstream, we can't keep calling it the alternative. So we can keep the AFV initials, but we gotta call these American fuel vehicles here. AMY GOODMAN: Where do people get cars like this? TY ROBINSON: Well, you know, these vehicles should be rolling off the assembly line in numbers, because if they were, it wouldn't cost any difference than building the vehicle to run on gasoline. But right now, they're being built one at a time at our shop. We can build a natural gas vehicle for just about anybody, take any vehicle, make it run on natural gas and start saving you money immediately. We can also build hydrogen vehicles for people. Building them one at a time, though, isn’t economical, so that's for the rock stars and the movie stars, people that want to promote their green side and do a good thing for themselves, for the health of people, as well as for the environment. AMY GOODMAN: Brad Berman, your comment. BRAD BERMAN: Well, he was speaking about a lot of different choices for how we're going to fuel our cars, and that's great. We should be looking to all kinds of different options. I think the distinction between what he was speaking about and hybrid gas/electric vehicles are that hybrids are being sold. This year, we'll have over 200,000 sold in the United States. So, we can continue to try to innovate and think about new ways to change our automotive technology, but the key thing is for people right now, they can make a decision, they can go to a local dealership, they can check out things on HybridCars.com and they can be in a hybrid car in the next couple of days. AMY GOODMAN: People may say, okay, 40, 50, 60, that's pretty astounding, but the cost of these vehicles will in the end balance that savings out on the road, not maybe environmentally, but certainly price-wise. BRAD BERMAN: Right, if you look at it in pure dollars and cents, the argument is commonly made in the mainstream media that hybrids don't pay off. You don't get a payback period. Even if you look at -- if you disregard the fact that people don't really buy cars that way and you just look at the equation, I think as a result of rising gas prices, strong resale values for these cars, tax credits, which go in on January 1, that will be – will greatly increase the tax incentive, all -- and savings at the pumps all add up to a good deal. I mean, you're going to not only save money, but you’re doing it for many other reasons, obviously, such as energy, security and the environment, but all of it adds up to essentially a no-brainer from my point of view. AMY GOODMAN: Brad Berman, why haven't hybrid cars been more developed in this country? Can you talk about the history of them? BRAD BERMAN: Sure. Well, you know, at the turn of the century -- I don't want to go back too far, but at the turn of the century, we had gas -- we had gasoline engines like we have now, we had electric cars and we had steamers. And people preferred electric cars. It wasn't until Ford came along with some innovations like the electric starter that it completely wiped out all those choices. As the clip pointed out, we're now at the point again where there are a lot of choices. You can carry it straight through to the 1960s, where backyard tinkerers started looking at electric vehicles again, especially as a result of environmental concerns, and as you move into the 70s concerns related around oil. So, the main factor is that the carmakers haven't, especially Detroit carmakers, have not jumped forward with this. I mean, it's -- the technology is there. It has been there for 30 years. And the constant excuse is that the American public cares more about speed and performance than they care about fuel economy. In the last couple of years, with the innovation with hybrids that's completely changed, and people are caring a lot more about fuel economy. AMY GOODMAN: What role does the government play, and did the government play a role in suppressing the development of hybrid cars? BRAD BERMAN: I think it was more total disregard. I mean, and looking at pie in the sky plans, such as hydrogen, which we're probably still a decade or two away from any kind of viable hydrogen vehicle. So, it's more not making it an imperative that we increase fuel efficiency. I mean, that's the great unfinished business. AMY GOODMAN: The current energy bill, what does it do, that was just signed, the Energy Act of 2005? BRAD BERMAN: It does increase the tax -- the federal tax incentive on hybrid cars from a current deduction, which is a reduction of taxable income of $2,000, which is worth about $300 to $500 in people's pockets, to a full-out tax credit with a sliding scale, meaning that a Toyota Prius, you can take as much as about $3,000 directly off of your taxes. So that's part of the equation why it makes sense starting on January 1. But, you know, it’s -- again, this is a little bit of window dressing. I mean, the point is unless we increase fuel efficiency standards or increase gas taxes -- I mean, that's a taboo that nobody will touch -- but if we increase gas taxes like they have higher gas taxes in Europe and use the proceeds from that to invest in alternative vehicle technology, then we start to have a solution. AMY GOODMAN: Do you plug in your car? BRAD BERMAN: No, you do not need to plug the cars in. The innovation with hybrid cars is that it's the first, quote/unquote, “alternative” technology that requires no special usage. You don't have to do anything differently. AMY GOODMAN: It just itself shifts from electric to gas, back and forth? BRAD BERMAN: It does it all by itself. You get in the car, you turn the key, you go. You don't have to do anything special. And that's why it's being adopted by larger and larger numbers of people throughout the country. AMY GOODMAN: We just have a few seconds, and I wanted to ask with our latest discussion about Pat Robertson talking about the assassination of Hugo Chavez, President of Venezuela, big oil supplier; on the blogs around hybrid cars and energy, has there been discussion about this? BRAD BERMAN: Yes, we have a very active set of – group of bloggers on HybridCars.com, and people have commented about Pat Robertson and Hugo Chavez. The fact is that all the government incentives won't have as much of an effect as rising gas prices or insecurity in the gas market. If something happens with Victor Chavez, it's gonna disrupt our oil supply, prices are gonna go way up, people are gonna be lining up at the pumps, and people are gonna be wanting hybrid cars even more. AMY GOODMAN: Brad Berman, thanks for joining us, editor of HybridCars.com. -------- -------- energy -------- -------- OTHER -------- environment -------- -------- genetics -------- -------- health -------- -------- imf / world bank / wto (economics) -------- poverty -------- ACTIVISTS -------- --------