NucNews - September 8, 2005 -------- NUCLEAR -------- australia New call for expansion of uranium mining September 8, 2005 Sydney Morning Herald http://smh.com.au/articles/2005/09/08/1125772638898.html?oneclick=true Queensland is missing out on valuable exports and jobs by not developing uranium mines, Liberal senator Russell Trood says. Senator Trood has joined growing calls from within the coalition, and sections of the Labor Party, for an expansion of uranium mining. He said demand for uranium was growing, with China predicting a four-fold increase in nuclear power production and India planning 24 plants over the next few years. But Australia's three-mine policy and opposition by state governments to issuing uranium mining licences was limiting growth in the industry. "There are actually tremendous opportunities for uranium mining in my own state of Queensland," Senator Trood told parliament. "The Queensland Bureau of Mining and Petroleum has identified 32 uranium deposits across the state and indeed four mine in north Queensland could begin production immediately if they were given the go-ahead." Senator Trood said the development of mines near Mount Isa, Georgetown and Townsville would have several benefits. "It would serve to meet the growing demand on the world market, it would bring millions of dollars in investment to local communities, it would bring hundreds - perhaps thousands - of jobs to regional Queensland and help to underpin its long term future," he said. But no development would occur without the Beattie government issuing mining licences. Mr Beattie recently told the Queensland parliament uranium development would undermine the state's coal industry. But Senator Trood said most of Queensland's coal was for steel production, with only a third used for electricity generation. Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane also joined the uranium debate, saying the global surge in resource prices meant there was a "real opportunity" to increase uranium exports. "It is an opportunity begging with uranium prices at a 20-year high and expected to climb further," he said. "This government is determined to see export opportunities maximised and in doing so, of course, pay due heed to the environmental, indigenous, safety and non-proliferation safeguard issues." Labor resources spokesman Martin Ferguson recently called for a change of Labor policy on uranium but is facing opposition from key Left faction federal MPs as well as state Labor figures. ---- Australia Uranium Sales Up as World Demand Rises REUTERS AUSTRALIA: September 8, 2005 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/32410/newsDate/8-Sep-2005/story.htm SYDNEY - Australian uranium export earnings grew dramatically in fiscal 2005 as global demand for the once-shunned metal pushed prices up sharply, government trade figures released on Wednesday showed. Earnings from uranium, increasingly prized to drive nuclear generators as nuclear power regains favour worldwide as a viable source of energy, rose 30 percent year-on-year in the 12 months to the end of June to A$475 million ($361 million). Australia holds about 40 percent of the world's uranium but has no nuclear industry of its own, relying solely on exports to 36 countries holding bilateral safeguard agreements for revenue from the material. It hopes shortly to begin formal talks on allowing uranium exports to China. Uranium demand waned in the 1980s as cheap oil and other energy sources such as solar power compounded a public perception that nuclear power was unsafe. Prices for the material sank to as low as $10 a pound, as what demand did exist was more than fed by a huge supply overhang. But with much of the surplus now gone, record-high oil prices and growing concerns over coal emissions, uranium has been making a comeback, analysts said. "Currently the world has 441 operable commercial nuclear power plants and a further 30 are under construction, principally in Asia," said commodities forecaster Resource Capital Research. The amount of uranium plants use is also growing, it said, predicting current prices of around $30 a pound would stick through next year. Australia has only three operating uranium mines, which are owned by BHP Billiton Ltd./Plc, Rio Tinto Ltd./Plc and General Atomics of the United States. But as many as 25 mining companies are exploring for the metal in Australia's remote Northern Territory alone, according to the Australian Minerals Council. "Coking and steaming coal continue to top our resource charts ... but uranium is coming through as a potentially strong performer for Australia," Australia's Industry Minister, Ian Macfarlane, said in a statement. Strong global demand for coal, iron ore and other industrial raw goods lifted total Australian mineral export earnings almost a third to A$67.4 billion in fiscal 2005, according to te Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics. It said the minerals and energy sector reaped a 29 percent lift in export earnings, with coking coal needed to make steel recording the biggest rise, up 65 percent to A$10.7 billion. Iron ore export revenue grew 53 percent to $A8 billion, while revenues from steaming coal used in power generation was up 45 percent to A$6.3 billion. ($US1=A$1.30) -------- depleted uranium Participate in JPG hearing 9/8/2005 3:00:00 PM Madison, WI, Courier http://www.madisoncourier.com/main.asp?SectionID=4&SubSectionID=253&ArticleID=25851&TM=56068 Anyone who wants to participate in or just listen to a public hearing today on the U.S. Army’s plans for collecting and analyzing samples from Jefferson Proving Ground can dial in on a toll-free telephone number. The public hearing is being conducted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff in Washington, D.C. The Army is proposing how it will collect samples at the former munitions testing site to look for the presence of depleted uranium, which was used in munitions that were tested. The toll-free number (800) 638-8081. The hearing is scheduled for noon to 3 p.m. Madison time. The NRC set up eight telephone lines for dial-in participation, said Richard Hill, president of the Save the Valley environmental organization and co-chairman of the JPG Restoration Advisory Board. Save the Valley will be using three of the lines for Hill, Save the Valley’s attorney and experts hired by Save the Valley, he said. The Army detailed its sampling plan in a 209-page report issued this summer. ---- Depleted uranium: A crime against humanity and the environment Posted: September 08, 2005 by: Steven Newcomb / Indigenous Law Institute http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096411531 President Bush has let us know how important it is for him to maintain his physical fitness. During his nearly five-week vacation - minus several trips to shore up support for the war in Iraq - he was determined to keep up his fitness regimen on his 1,600-acre ranch outside Crawford, Texas. And who better to assist the president with his workout schedule than Lance Armstrong, the recently retired seven-time winner of the Tour de France, who went on a 15-mile bicycle ride with Bush near Crawford. Bush is no doubt one of the most physically fit presidents in history. However, cognitive fitness ought to be an even higher priority than physical conditioning for a president who put the lives of U.S. servicemen and women in harm's way when he decided to invade Iraq. Nearly 1,900 U.S. troops have died, thousands more have been horribly wounded, tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed and nearly $300 billion spent as a direct result of Bush's ill-fated decision to invade Iraq. We expect the person who occupies the office of the president of the United States to be a cut above average as far as his mental ability to make decisions, to solve problems, to make policy, and to draw logical inferences that make sense to us. Without intending to be humorous, Bush once said that his ''job is to think beyond the immediate.'' That's pretty important for a commander in chief. After all, the responsibilities of leadership and command require not just the ability to think, but to think deeply, and to act in terms of long-range strategic consequences. Speaking of ''thinking beyond the immediate,'' I wonder how much time Bush spends thinking about the issue of depleted uranium, a substance that has a radioactive half-life of some 2.5 billion years. The United States has been using this terrible material in its munitions since the first Gulf War, and there is evidence that it has harmed and will continue to harm the lives of U.S. troops, as well as the lives of countless other people as well. According to a recent column by Thomas Jefferson School of Law professor Marjorie Cohn (''Bush and the Bomb,'' Truthout.org, Aug. 10), ''although less spectacular and obvious than a mushroom cloud, the United States has used nuclear weapons - depleted uranium warheads - in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq. Reporters from the Christian Science Monitor have measured radiation levels in downtown Baghdad that are 1,000 to 1,900 times higher than normal background radiation levels.'' According to Cohn, ''The United States is committing ongoing crimes against humanity by its use of depleted uranium.'' From an indigenous perspective, the potential of depleted uranium to make entire regions of the globe, such as Iraq, virtually uninhabitable - along with the fact that depleted uranium contaminates the air, earth and water upon which we all depend - means that the use of depleted uranium by the United States constitutes a crime not just against humanity, but against the global environment. In October 2003, Bush himself stated: ''See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction.'' Given the United States' attack upon and invasion of Iraq, and given the fact that the United States has developed and used of weapons of mass destruction such as depleted uranium - based on Bush's own criteria, the United States is far from a ''free nation.'' The United States has expended some 1,000 tons of depleted uranium in Afghanistan and some 3,000 tons of depleted uranium in Iraq during this war. Radiation specialist and whistle-blower Leuren Moret has said that ''since 1991, the U.S. has released the radioactive equivalent of at least 400,000 Nagasaki bombs into the global atmosphere.'' This spewing of depleted uranium into the environment cannot possibly make the United States or any other part of the world ''free.'' Rather, it places the entire world in the grip of a toxic, radioactive force that is wreaking havoc on our beautiful planet. Take, for example, Iraq. The radioactive sands in Iraq blow across the landscape. U.S. and other troops, and the Iraqi people, breathe radioactive dust into their nasal passages and lungs. Depleted uranium thereby enters their bodies and attacks at a molecular and genetic level. The result is a greater likelihood of various forms of cancer, organ disease and birth defects. Depleted uranium is also sexually transmitted and, as a result, depleted uranium attacks the woman's reproductive system and the fetus in the womb. Depleted uranium will continue to create shock waves of health maladies for generations to come. Just to give some idea of the scale of the problem, in some studies, of those U.S. troops who had healthy babies before the first Gulf War, some 67 percent had babies with birth defects after being in the war. Every mother and father, and every potential mother and father, ought to be outraged over this wanton and senseless destruction of life on Mother Earth. Yet where is the outrage? Speaking of mothers, Cindy Sheehan and many other mothers and fathers of fallen U.S. soldiers traveled to Crawford, Texas to protest the war. Sheehan demanded a face-to-face meeting with Bush to ask him, ''For what noble cause did my son Casey die?'' Bush refused to see her, claiming that an earlier meeting with her would have to suffice. In any case, Sheehan's question suggests some other questions: ''For what noble cause is the United States using weapons of mass destruction - depleted uranium weaponry - in the Middle East?'' Is it to spread liberty and democracy? Is it to support the U.S. troops, whose health it is very likely destroying? Is it to support the Iraqi people, whose health it is very likely destroying? Is it to end terrorism? Is not depleted uranium itself a form of terrorism for those whose lives and environment it will destroy? If so, then how do you end ''terrorism'' by using a radioactive weapon that will threaten countless generations? Anyone who loves and values life, and who loves and values the beauty of Mother Earth, needs to know that depleted uranium is a radioactive material that attacks the very basis of life itself. Thus, by allowing this crime to continue against humanity and the environment, this self-proclaimed Christian and ''pro-life'' president is certainly not demonstrating an ability to think ''beyond the immediate'' or to act beneficially on behalf of future generations. Steven Newcomb, Shawnee-Lenape, is the Indigenous Law Research Coordinator at Kumeyaay Community College, co-founder and co-director of the Indigenous Law Institute, and a columnist for Indian Country Today. -------- india Blair talks terrorism and nuclear energy with Indian PM at desert palace Thu Sep 8, 2005 6:34 AM ET (AFP) http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050908/ts_afp/indiabritain_050908103312 UDAIPUR, India - British Prime Minister Tony Blair talked terrorism, nuclear energy and India's quest for a bigger role at the UN as he capped his four-day Asian tour with a visit to a palatial resort in the desert state of Rajasthan. Indian counterpart Manmohan Singh intended to treat Blair to a day at the Himalayan hill station of Shimla, a favourite monsoon getaway of India's pre-independence British rulers, before his return to London later Thursday. But bad weather forced the venue to be changed at the last minute to the gold-domed Udaivilas resort, a replica of a moated princely palace beside Lake Pichola in Udaipur, 660 kilometres (412 miles) from New Delhi. Dotted with 16th century palaces, Udaipur is considered Rajasthan's most romantic city but on Thursday it was bustling with armed police and troops for the high-profile lunch meeting. It nevertheless afforded Blair a fleeting glimpse of the real India, with teeming crowds along the dusty road from the airport and a herd of cows slowing his motorcade. He was greeted in traditional Rajasthani fashion by teenage girls in colourful saris, who presented him with a garland, an iced rose tea and performed an "aarti" -- a Hindu ceremonial greeting -- before he and Singh retreated to a boardroom. The two-hour meeting was their second in two days after an EU-India summit on Wednesday, with both leaders now looking forward to the World Summit that opens next Wednesday at United Nations headquarters in New York. A British official said the leaders had discussed "terrorism, United Nations reform, migration, global warming, nuclear energy and cooperation on energy technology." India, he added, had expressed support for a British plan to circulate a draft UN Security Council resolution that would commit world nations to combating incitement to terrorism as well as terrorism itself. Blair said Wednesday the draft motion already enjoyed "broad support" and he hoped it could be finalised by the middle of next week. In July 56 people were killed, including four apparent Islamist suicide bombers, in an attack on three London subway trains and a double-decker bus. In an interview with the Hindustan Times newspaper, Blair said there "isn't a justifiable grievance that can permit the killing of innocent women and children in this way". Blair arrived in New Delhi late Tuesday from Beijing, in a tour of Asia's two fast-rising powers as part of Britain's turn at the rotating presidency of the 25-nation European Union. During Wednesday's EU-India summit Blair and Singh, joined by European Commission President Jose Manuel Barosso, agreed to a 19-page "action plan" or road map to intensified political, economic, trade and cultural ties. Singh announced that India would purchase 43 aircraft from Airbus for 2.2 billion dollars, after China confirmed Tuesday it was buying 10 planes from the European consortium. Blair started his day Thursday with breakfast with Indian entrepreneurs who invest in Britain. After Udaipur, he was to hold a news conference and mingle with Indian students at a televised question and answer session in New Delhi before flying home. ---- Blair urges closer India-Europe links By Anand Giridharadas International Herald Tribune THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2005 http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=/articles/2005/09/07/news/india.php MUMBAI, India Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, acting as president of the European Union, argued in New Delhi on Wednesday for closer economic and security ties between Europe and India, an emerging power with which Britain enjoys unique postcolonial ties but whose links to Continental Europe are only now reaching a "turning point," as Blair put it. On a two-day visit during which he was to represent the EU on Wednesday and Britain on Thursday, Blair focused his talks with his Indian counterpart, Manmohan Singh, on expanding business ties. The leaders left later for the second day of talks in the Himalayan retreat of Shimla, the former summer capital of the British Raj. The two leaders pledged to cooperate in disrupting terrorist networks and to expand ties in business, science and technology. Signaling the growing clout that accompanies its economic expansion, India announced that the state-owned carrier Indian Airlines would buy 43 European-made Airbus jets for more than $2 billion. Britain, for its part, announced that it would press for India's participation in a global research effort into nuclear fusion, following the recent anointment of India by the Bush administration in Washington as a "responsible" nuclear-armed nation. The European Union is India's largest trading partner, reflecting the sweep of its 25-country market. Trade between the EU and India amounts to about $30 billion a year, with Britain accounting for about a third of that figure. But Europe's ties to India hover below their potential for two reasons, analysts say. First, there are concerns in Europe that low-cost competition from India, especially in technology and food products, will produce job losses in Europe. The second reason is that Europe has taken longer than the United States or China to shift its vision of India from an exotic "great civilization" to one of a "modern country which is really moving," in the words of A.N. Ram, a former Indian ambassador to the EU. On his visit, Blair sought to allay both those concerns. On jobs, diplomats reportedly managed to coordinate an announcement by HCL Technologies, an outsourcing firm in New Delhi, that it would hire 600 Britons in Belfast and London, creating local jobs in a country where it is already the largest Indian information-technology employer. Of Europe's view of India, Blair suggested that his EU partners emulate what he described as Britain's close ties to India: "The rest of the world has got to enter into the right and equal partnership with India for mutual benefit, and that's what's happening," Blair said, according to the BBC. Blair called a new phase in EU-India ties "long overdue" and said relations were at a "turning point," nearing a "new, higher and more intensive level." The two sides also agreed to cooperate on overhauling the rules governing international trade at an upcoming meeting of the World Trade Organization in Hong Kong. In a newspaper commentary this week, Blair urged rich countries to open their food markets to foreign competition by 2010 to ease poverty in the developing world. And at the start of an EU-India business summit meeting on Wednesday, India's commerce minister, Kamal Nath, argued pointedly that rich countries were practicing hypocrisy in keeping their agricultural markets closed. "Indian trade and industry circles feel that while India has liberalized and markets have been opened up, offering new vistas to global trade and industry, reciprocal benefits have not flowed from the developed world to us," he said. Before the start of talks Wednesday, Blair paid homage to Mohandas Gandhi, the spiritual leader of India's freedom struggle against Britain. He and his wife, Cherie, threw rose petals at a marble monument near the site of Gandhi's cremation in 1948. ---- India and European Union have decided on a joint initiative to enhance trade and investment Sep. 8, 2005 India Daily http://www.indiadaily.com/breaking_news/44295.asp In a far reaching development, India and European Union have decided on a joint initiative to enhance trade and investment, energy security, IT and biotechnology. A Joint Action Plan unveiled at the sixth India-EU Summit here said the two sides have agreed to cooperate in nuclear energy, oil and gas sector with a view to promote security of supplies and stability in prices. The two sides decided to set up working groups on energy efficiencies and renewable energies, coal and clean coal conversion technologies and fusion energy including India's membership in ITER, a multinational collaboration between countries like China, European Union, Japan, Korea, Russia and USA, who are involved in fusion research. The 19-page action plan, agreed to closely cooperate in technology expertise and exchange of energy between different grid systems and development of energy markets. Considering the potential for a further enhanced dialogue, both sides agreed to establish a platform for exchange of information on industrial policy and enhanced mutual understanding of regulatory framework. It will exchange information on competition policy, develop a dialogue on best practices, in corporate governance and establish a working group on food processing. On finance and monetary affairs, both sides decided to establih regular macro economic dialogue on matters of common interest and hold regular consultations in this regard. On Information and Communication Technology (ICT), India and EU have agreed to exchange on e-commerce, internet governance, universal service under the umbrella of India-EU information Society dialogue. ---- US raises concerns with India over Iranian nuclear issue Thu Sep 8, 2005 3:35 PM ET (AFP) http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050908/pl_afp/usirannuclearindiaun_050908193532 WASHINGTON - The United States has raised concerns with India about its reported opposition to refer Iran to the UN Security Council over Tehran's controversial nuclear program, the State Department said. "We have registered our concerns with the Indian government of course," Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns told a Congressional hearing where legislators threatened to call for a review of Washington's landmark civil nuclear cooperation pact with New Delhi. Burns said that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice would also raise the issue in her meetings with her Indian counterpart Natwar Singh and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh during the UN Summit next week. Singh reportedly said at a meeting with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad earlier this week that New Delhi was opposed to referring Tehran to the UN Security Council, following US accusations that it was secretly trying to build nuclear weapons under cover of a civilian energy program. US and European Union officials have warned they will push for Iran's nuclear case to be sent to the Security Council -- which could impose sanctions -- if Tehran does not halt all nuclear fuel work and resume negotiations with the European Union. Iran denies harbouring secret plans to make nuclear bombs and says it has no intention of freezing uranium conversion at its Isfahan plant -- where UN seals were broken and work resumed last month. Democratic Representative Tom Lantos (news, bio, voting record) referred Burns to news reports quoting Singh as lamenting to the Iranian leader about "the inclination to infuse injustice in international relations" and that "India's relations with Iran is not predicated on positions and views attributed to some governments." Lantos said Singh was clearly accusing the United States of practising injustice, adding that "this is sickening, literally sickening, which we don't accept from the Indian foreign minister." He said if New Delhi did not support Washington's bid to refer Iran to the Security Council, the Bush administration should freeze its agreement to expand nuclear cooperation with India. The nuclear pact, which could only be implemented after Congress amended certain US laws, is part of a bold strategic partnership announced by US President George W. Bush after talks with prime minister Singh in July. "This pattern of dealing with us will not be productive for India and they have to be told in plain English that this great new opening which we support is predicated on reciprocity. "In this case they are not only opposing our views, they are opposing views of Britain, Germany and France," Lantos said. "If they persist in this, this great dream of a new relationship will go down the tubes," warned the ranking Democrat on the House of Representatives international relations committee, which held the hearing Thursday. Iran ended a freeze on its uranium conversion activities in retaliation to demands from Britain, France and Germany -- also known as the EU-3 -- that it scrap the program in exchange for a package of incentives. The European bloc has earlier resisted calls for Iran's referral to the Security Council and offered trade and other benefits in exchange for pledges on its nuclear plans, after striking an accord with Tehran in Paris last November. Those talks broke down last month. -------- korea North Korea offers ship if U.S. sends top official By WILLIAM C. MANN Thursday, September 8, 2005 Associated Press http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002479660_pueblo08.html?syndication=rss&source=politics.xml&items=29 WASHINGTON — Negotiations to eliminate North Korea's nuclear weapons remain in limbo, but the North Koreans are giving hints that they might be ready to end another lingering problem with the United States by returning the captured spy ship USS Pueblo. They are setting an unlikely condition, though, considering hostile U.S.-North Korean relations: a visit by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice or another top-level American official. "It would be a gesture, but somebody needs to make a gesture," said Donald Gregg, a former U.S. ambassador to South Korea who brought home the offer after a mid-August trip to North Korea. He told the State Department about his discussions. A department official said there are no plans for a high-level visit to North Korea. The Pueblo ranks low in the hierarchy of irritants causing bad blood between the two countries. Paramount is the North's admitted nuclear-weapons and missile programs. The United States has also criticized North Korea's human-rights record, its maintenance of a million-strong army while its people live off donated food, and what it sees as North Korea's support for terrorism. Still, to those involved with the Pueblo — and to the U.S. Navy — the ship's plight is far more than a footnote to the history of the Cold War. Sent defenseless on an intelligence-gathering mission off the North Korean coast, and given no help after North Korean torpedo boats mounted an attack, the Pueblo was captured Jan. 23, 1968. It was the first U.S. warship captured since 1807. Navy records show the ship was in international waters; the North Koreans insist it was inside the Korean coastal zone. In the attack, an explosion killed fireman Duane Hodges, and 10 of the 82 surviving crewmen were wounded. All 82 were held 11 months, often under heavy torture, before being sent to South Korea on Christmas Eve across the "Bridge of No Return" in the Demilitarized Zone dividing the Koreas. The Pueblo now sits at its moorings on the bank of the Taedong River in Pyongyang, North Korea's capital. Organized tours of North Koreans walk its decks to view evidence of their country's supremacy on the high seas; bullet holes on the bulkheads are circled in red. Gregg heads the Korea Society in New York, which describes itself as a nonpartisan organization dedicated to promoting "awareness, understanding and cooperation between the people of the United States and Korea." He did not identify the North Korean official who suggested the high-level visit. But he told The Associated Press that Kim Gye Gwan, North Korea's vice foreign minister and chief negotiator in the recessed nuclear talks, heard the discussion. Gregg said he has no doubt the offer was genuine. -------- pakistan Pakistan Wants Civilian Nuclear Deal By FOSTER KLUG, Associated Press Writer Thu Sep 8, 2005 9:38 AM ET http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050908/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_pakistan_nuclear_2 http://www.indiadaily.com/breaking_news/44278.asp WASHINGTON - Pakistan should have the same access to U.S. civilian nuclear technology that President Bush has proposed for India, the Pakistani ambassador to the United States says. Jehangir Karamat, Pakistan's former army chief, also warned that "the balance of power in South Asia should not become so tilted in India's favor, as a result of the U.S. relationship with India, that Pakistan has to start taking extraordinary measures to ensure a capability for deterrence and defense." The Bush administration is working to persuade Congress to approve a deal that would ship civilian nuclear technology to India. In return, New Delhi would have to place its civilian facilities under safeguards of the United Nations' nuclear watchdog agency. On Thursday, two undersecretaries of state, Nicholas Burns and Robert Joseph, were to testify before a House International Relations Committee hearing on the India-U.S. nuclear agreement. "Whatever legislation is made shouldn't be a specific, one-time affair just for India," Karamat told The Associated Press in a recent interview, "but should leave the door open for other countries that meet the same criteria and show good responsibility and satisfy the United States' concerns." Critics, however, contend that Pakistan's is a different case from India's. A.Q. Khan, a national hero known as the father of Pakistan's bomb, ran a network smuggling nuclear weapons technology. Doubts also have arisen about Pakistan's commitment to democracy. President Gen. Pervez Musharraf seized power in a bloodless military coup in 1999 and has failed to resign as the army chief, as he promised to do. Neither Pakistan nor India is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the cornerstone of global efforts to control the spread of nuclear weapons. Before nuclear technology can be shared with India, Congress must approve an exception to a U.S. law that bans civilian nuclear cooperation with countries that have not submitted to the treaty's full nuclear inspections. With India and Pakistan locked in a nuclear arms race, both are sensitive to perceived special treatment from the United States, said Michael Krepon, a South Asia analyst at the Henry L. Stimson Center, a private research group. The neighbors have fought three wars since 1947, when they left the British Empire, and came close to another in 2002. "This is a very serious competition," Krepon said. "If present trends continue, India and Pakistan could very well have greater nuclear capabilities than France and Great Britain, looking down the road." Karamat said Pakistani officials have yet to approach the Bush administration about civilian nuclear energy cooperation, but Pakistan plans eventually to broach the subject. He mentioned the strong military ties between the two countries. The United States trains Pakistani soldiers and sells weapons to Pakistan. And Musharraf was a vital U.S. ally in the war in neighboring Afghanistan in late 2001 that ousted that country's Taliban militia rulers and the al-Qaida fighters they sheltered. Pakistan has requested between 75 and 100 U.S. F-16 fighter jets, Karamat said, although the two sides haven't yet settled the specific number or cost. Two of the jets will be shipped in December, he said, but a price has not been determined. The ambassador acknowledged widespread criticism of Pakistan's nuclear program, especially "concerns on proliferation" — a reference to Khan's activities. "I think that those concerns have been largely met and satisfied," Karamat said. "The whole structure on the ground for physical security and control of those (nuclear) assets and the various steps that have been taken to prevent accidents and illegal transfers — those are now foolproof, and the U.S. is aware of that." Karamat served as army chief from 1996 to 1998. When asked if he knew of Khan's nuclear network then, he said: "There was no question of ever even thinking that such a thing could be happening. ... Indulging this activity would have been totally counterproductive to everything we were trying to do." -------- russia Rosenergoatom head says legal obstacles block concern's corporatization 19:50 | 08/ 09/ 2005 (RIA Novosti) http://en.rian.ru/business/20050908/41342388.html MURMANSK, September 8 (RIA Novosti, Yekaterina Kozlova) - Legal obstacles are blocking the corporatization of Rosenergoatom, the state electric and thermal energy producer at nuclear power plants, the concern's head said Thursday. Nikolai Sorokin, the Rosenergoatom director and member of the committee for the corporatization, said laws on the use of the nuclear energy envisage the possibility for corporatization of Rosenergoatom, but there is no mechanism of corporatization. The necessary documents are currently being prepared so that the government's decision on the corporatization would be implemented in 2006, Sorokin said. Orders were given and special commissions and working groups were set up by the government to prepare Rosenrgoatom for corporatization. -------- u.s. nuc facilities $2 billion riding on nuclear initiative N.C. utilities vie for reactor subsidy By JOHN MURAWSKI, Staff Writer Sep 8, 2005 6:37 AM Charlotte News Observer http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/story/2790869p-9229967c.html Progress Energy stands to get as much as $2 billion from the federal government if the company builds a nuclear power plant. But timing is everything. The money -- a combination of tax credits over eight years and risk insurance payouts -- was put in the energy bill Congress passed last month to encourage utilities to resume building nuclear plants. The first utilities to do so will get the most generous incentives. Right now, Raleigh-based Progress Energy and Charlotte-based Duke Power are among those front-runners. Both have said they would apply for a reactor license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission within two years and then decide whether to build the reactor. But they face strong competition. Nearly a dozen utilities nationwide are deciding whether to restart their nuclear programs. The tax credits, which form the bulk of the incentive program, would be limited to as few as four reactors, and possibly no more than six, depending on the reactor size. The insurance payout is restricted to six reactors. It's presumed that after the initial reactors are built, incentives won't be necessary to sustain a nuclear revival. "The government wants to get these plants built," said Edward Tirello Jr., senior power strategist at Berenson & Co., a New York investment banking firm. A utility could claim up to $1.5 billion in tax credits over eight years and collect $500 million in risk insurance coverage for construction delays beyond its control. That $1.5 billion roughly matches Duke Energy's income in 2004; Progress Energy's income last year was about half that. The aid is the Bush administration's response to the nuclear industry's lobbying to help jump-start the country's nuclear program after a quarter-century lull. Building a reactor is seen as a huge financial undertaking with potential costly delays. The incentives could amount to half the cost of financing and constructing a reactor, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry trade group that lobbied for the benefits. Critics describe the incentive package, which exceeds $8 billion, as corporate welfare for Fortune 500 corporations. "This industry will not build if the taxpayer does not take all the risk," said Michele Boyd, legislative director of Public Citizen's energy program in Washington. "It [nuclear power] cannot survive without those kinds of subsidies." But some in the nuclear sector wonder whether the incentives are enough to stimulate a nuclear revival. The tax credits don't start until the reactor is built, which could take at least 10 years, and the insurance provisions are conditioned on unpredictable economic factors. Progress Energy officials say that while they welcome the incentives, the prospect of financial aid is not driving their decision. "If we did not have the incentives, we would consider putting a nuclear plant in," said Joe Donahue, Progress Energy's vice president for nuclear engineering and services. "We'll decide whether we go forward with a new nuclear plant without the benefits of the incentive package. The benefits -- we'll call it gravy -- help with risk mitigation." Commissioning a nuclear plant is a technological and financial endeavor that hasn't been accomplished in this country since a partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania paralyzed the nuclear industry in 1979. In this climate, nuclear advocates say, failure is not an option. "If one or two of the plants end up not making it, or if there's a default on the loan, I don't think there'll be any others," said John Kane, the Nuclear Energy Institute's senior vice president for governmental affairs. Utilities aren't the only beneficiaries of the incentives. The federal government also is promising to back loans made to build nuclear plants so that utilities can borrow at low interest rates. The direct beneficiaries would be the Wall Street investors and institutional lenders who would recover from the federal government up to 80 percent of the value of loans that fall into default. The loan guarantees apply not just to nuclear power but to wind power and other sources of non-polluting energy as well. In 2003, the Congressional Budget Office predicted that a nuclear plant would cost $2.5 billion and that the risk of defaulting on a loan was "well above 50 percent." Those figures are disputed by the nuclear industry. Federal agencies are still writing the rules that explain the conditions under which utilities will qualify for the incentives. But in general, the provisions include: * $2 billion in risk insurance divided among six utilities. The first two utilities would qualify for 100 percent coverage up to $500 million each. The next four would be covered for half their costs, up to $250 million each. * Tax credits based on generation. A plant generating 1,000 megawatts could qualify for up to $1 billion over eight years; a plant putting out 1,500 megawatts could qualify for up to $1.5 billion over eight years. Progress and Duke are considering reactors ranging from 1,017 to 1,600 megawatts in maximum capacity. The credits are not guaranteed. They are limited to the first 6,000 megawatts of nuclear power produced, and could be restricted to as few as four companies with plants running at 1,500 megawatts. The tax credits were originally adopted by Congress in 1992 for wind power and other alternative energy sources. Progress Energy and Duke Energy are conducting cost-benefit analyses to price out new reactors. Industry estimates range from $1.2 billion to $3 billion for the cost of a new plant, depending on reactor size and other factors. That doesn't include interest payments, banking fees or other related costs. "Nobody's going to get a free plant out of this," Kane said. "This is a jump-start program. It is intended to get the first handful of plants built. After that, the incentive will stop." Staff writer John Murawski can be reached at 829-8932 or murawski@newsobserver.com. -------- louisiana Entergy Louisiana Waterford nuke moves closer to restart Thu Sep 8, 2005 8:40 AM ET (Reuters) http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticleSearch.aspx?storyID=157749+08-Sep-2005+RTRS&srch=nuclear NEW YORK, Sept 8 - Entergy Corp.'s (ETR.N: Quote, Profile, Research) Waterford 3 nuclear power station in Louisiana moved another step closer to returning to service, electricity traders said Thursday. The unit exited an unusual event on Sept. 7, the New Orleans-based energy company told the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in an event report. Entergy shut the unit on Aug. 28 and declared an unusual event as Hurricane Katrina approached southern Louisiana. An unusual event is the lowest of the NRC's four emergency classifications. The company said in the report it has restored the plant's communications and off-site power supply. The company, which is deciding whether to repair a check valve in the safety injection system, said the unit would remain shut "until further notice." Electricity traders guessed the unit would soon return to service. The company has said restart depends on the approval of the NRC, the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency and the ability of the grid to accept the reactor's output. The NRC and FEMA have said they will not approve a restart until the off-site evacuation routes are open and emergency sirens are available. The hurricane did not damage the plant. The 1,911 MW Waterford station is located in Taft, in St. Charles Parish, about 30 miles west of New Orleans. There are three units at the Waterford station, including two 411 MW natural gas- and oil-fired units 1 and 2, and the 1,089 MW nuclear unit 3. One MW powers about 800 homes, according to North American averages. Entergy's regulated Entergy Louisiana Inc. subsidiary owns the station. Entergy's subsidiaries own and operate about 30,000 MW of generating capacity, market energy commodities, and transmit and distribute power to 2.6 million customers in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. -------- missouri Reactors at MIT, Missouri slow to convert to safer fuel By Alan Scher Zagier, Associated Press | September 8, 2005 http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/09/08/reactors_at_mit_missouri_slow_to_convert_to_safer_fuel/?rss_id=Boston+Globe+--+National+News COLUMBIA, Mo. -- For University of Missouri tailgaters, the name of the new parking lot down the hill from Memorial Stadium is little more than a curiosity: Reactor Field, a nod to the nearby nuclear research reactor. The nation's largest university-based reactor keeps an intentionally low local profile, despite its cutting-edge research into promising cancer drugs. But among regulators and nuclear energy watchdogs, it has a troubling distinction: The reactor is one of only two university reactors still unable to convert highly enriched uranium -- an ingredient crucial to building nuclear weapons -- to a safer fuel. The other reactor is at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. As little as 25 kilograms of highly enriched uranium is needed to build a nuclear bomb on the scale of the one dropped on Hiroshima 60 years ago. Smaller bombs could use as little as 12 kilograms, specialists say. The Missouri reactor's federal license limits to 5 kilograms the amount of unirradiated, or ''fresh" highly enriched uranium. MIT officials declined to disclose the amount of fresh highly enriched uranium stored at the reactor, though previously published reports suggest at least 9 kilograms are in the reactor at any given time. The distinction between irradiated and unirradiated fuel is significant. Once uranium-based fuel is doused with radiation, the number of isotopes rapidly diminishes, making it unsuitable as a weapon. Research reactors sprouted worldwide in the wake of President Eisenhower's ''Atoms for Peace" program in 1953, including at dozens of American colleges. But by 1978, Cold War tensions and security concerns prompted a Department of Energy initiative to convert the fuel at research reactors to the low-enriched alternative more commonly found at commercial power reactors. At MIT, officials have set aside $50,000 to expedite the conversion process, said reactor director John Bernard. -------- ohio USEC restructuring won't affect Piketon operations Some employees may be moved to Pike County The Chillicothe Gazette Staff September 8, 2005 http://www.chillicothegazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050908/NEWS01/509080310&SearchID=73219746540538 A major realignment of USEC Inc. will have little impact on Piketon's plant, but will ensure the organization remains sharply focused on current operations, the company announced Wednesday. Spokeswoman Elizabeth Stuckle said the restructuring plan likely will not affect current employees or operations at the American Centrifuge in Piketon, as the changes are focused on operations at the company's headquarters in Bethesda, Md. "USEC's restructuring of the headquarters will not significantly affect the Piketon plant's organization or staffing," Stuckle said. "There may be some positions and operations that are eliminated from the headquarters and picked up at Piketon." She said the plan will be finalized by the end of September, and the change is expected to increase productivity and efficiency. "We expect to complete this restructuring of the company before naming USEC's new chief executive officer in the near future," said James R. Mellor, chairman, president and CEO of USEC, Inc. "This will allow him to hit the ground running and immediately focus on the business going forward." According to a press release, the realignment will streamline USEC's organization and resize headquarters operations beginning with the elimination of some senior positions and the realignment of responsibilities under a smaller senior management team. The USEC headquarters staff of 132 is being reduced by one-third. The restructuring is at all levels, including senior management, and involves the elimination of positions, retirements and the transfer of a number of functions and activities from Bethesda to the Paducah, Ky., and Piketon plants, Mellor said. In addition, USEC recently announced a voluntary reduction of 50 people in the salaried work force at the Paducah production plant. -------- pennsylvania Peach Bottom's efficiency hailed The power station's Unit 3 reactor ranked second in nation for operating capacity. By SEAN ADKINS Daily Record/Sunday News Thursday, September 8, 2005 http://ydr.com/story/business/84387/ General Electric has claimed that Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Unit 3 lists among the nation's most energy-efficient boiling-water nuclear reactors. In 2004, Unit 3 ranked second in the United States and fifth in the world with a 99.67 percent capacity factor. Peach Bottom Unit 3 did not shut down in 2004 for a refueling outage. The average capacity factor for a nuclear power reactor is 91 percent, said Mitchell Singer of the Nuclear Energy Institute. Basically, capacity factor is the number of hours a reactor could theoretically run at full power compared to the actual number of hours the site was online, said Neil Sheehan, spokesman for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Aside from Peach Bottom's Unit 3, Exelon Nuclear's Limerick Units 1 and 2 near Pottstown and La Salle Units 1 and 2 in Illinois ranked in the top 12 in the world in regard to boiling-water reactor efficiency. In terms of capacity, Limerick Unit 2 ranked No. 4 in the world for boiling-water reactors that did not have a refueling outage in 2004. Limerick Unit 1 ranked No. 3 in the world for reactors that did shut down because of a refueling outage. General Electric built all five of the boiling-water reactors. Each year, General Electric presents awards to the top 23 most efficient boiling-water reactors out of 89 of the company's units in operation worldwide. This will mark the second consecutive year that GE has recognized Peach Bottom's Unit 3 for its capacity factor. "Exelon is dedicated to the safe and reliable operation of all its nuclear generating stations," Chris Crane said. "This high level of performance is a testament to the expertise and professionalism of the people who run and maintain these plants." Crane is president of Exelon Nuclear and Chief Nuclear Officer. Sheehan said that Peach Bottom's Unit 3 high capacity factor helps to maintain the stability of the PJM Interconnection power grid. All of York County's power flows through PJM's grid. Designed to run continuously at 100 percent power, nuclear plants provide primary power to the grid, Sheehan said. Michael Love of the Energy Association of Pennsylvania said deregulation has helped keep customer rates in check while ensuring the efficiency of nuclear power plants. Deregulation allows for competition within the power generation market, which is meant to lower rates for consumers. Basically, under deregulation nuclear power plants must remain running in order for the utility to get paid for the power it ships. "The more efficient a unit runs, the better it is for John Q. Public," Love said. Reach Sean Adkins at 771-2047 or sadkins@ydr.com. -------- utah NRC is unlikely to back Utah on N-waste protest Friday vote: But Bennett notes the site still faces obstacles By Robert Gehrke and Judy Fahys 09/08/2005 The Salt Lake Tribune http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_3010126 Utah's leaders are offering little hope that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will reject a nuclear waste storage site in the state, as commissioners prepare to meet Friday on Utah's last remaining objection. Friday's scheduled vote is whether to affirm a technical board ruling that the waste containers won't release too much radiation if a jet fighter crashes into them. Once that's done, commissioners would be free to sign off on Private Fuel Storage's license to store 44,000 tons of nuclear fuel on the Skull Valley Goshute Indian reservation. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, conceded Wednesday that a ruling against the state is probable. "They just want to get it off their hands, and that's always been the case," Hatch said. Sen. Bob Bennett said the storage site would still face many obstacles. "I wouldn't be surprised if they vote to license the facility, but as I said all along, licensing the facility doesn't mean it's going to get built," he said. Private Fuel Storage, a group of electric utilities, wants to store reactor fuel on the reservation, about 50 miles southwest of Salt Lake City, until a permanent dump is built, presumably at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. PFS originally estimated the project's cost at $3.1 billion, with potentially hundreds of millions of dollars set to go to the 121-member Skull Valley band for leasing 820 acres for up to 40 years. It was unclear Wednesday how far the NRC would go this week in deciding the PFS issue. It has tentatively scheduled a vote Friday on the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's April ruling about the safety of the waste-storage containers. If an F-16 jet fighter crashed into one of the nuclear casks, the board found, it would be highly unlikely the container would release worrisome amounts of radiation. One board member, a nuclear engineer, dissented in the rare split vote of 2-1. Bennett said there is a rumor that the NRC may not take the vote because one of the five commissioners is "not quite ready." PFS spokeswoman Sue Martin said the companies are not expecting a final decision Friday, just a ruling on the containers. "We're just watching the situation like everybody else," she said. Utah Assistant Attorney General Denise Chancellor said the state is hopeful the commission will reject the container ruling. She would not speculate on a final license decision. "We'll have to wait and see," she said. The state already has lost more than four dozen technical challenges to the project before the NRC. "I never have a whole bunch of confidence" in the NRC decisions, said Utah Republican Rep. Rob Bishop. "If they rule in our favor, I'd be surprised and happy. If they do not rule in favor of the state, we still have some options. We plan on moving ahead on this issue." If the license is granted, it would take several years for PFS to ink deals with utilities to transport and store the waste and to build the facility, which is essentially a concrete parking lot where long rows of concrete and steel casks containing the waste would be stored. Jason Groenewold, director of the Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah, which opposes PFS, said he expects that "the NRC will do whatever it takes to ensure the nuclear industry has a place to dump its waste." He said it was disappointing the NRC did not look at the worst-case scenario - the impact on the public if waste were released from a container- and order a thorough plan for emergency response. "That is frightening, given what we're seeing happen nationally right now," he said. "What we're prepared to expect from the federal government is for them to put their heads in the sand and ignore the problem." Hatch said while he will be disappointed if the NRC rules in favor of PFS, it is "just the beginning of the battle. . . . Once the proposal leaves the NRC, it becomes vulnerable to lengthy examination by the courts, as well as administrative actions, which we will pursue relentlessly." Tribune reporter Thomas Burr contributed to this story. -------- washington $4.7 million awarded to safety whistleblowers POSTED: 09/08/2005 http://www.ishn.com/CDA/ArticleInformation/news/news_item/0,2169,159292,00.html A jury awarded more than $4.7 million in damages in early September to 11 workers who say a contractor fired them for airing safety concerns about work at the Hanford nuclear reservation in Washington state, reports the Associated Press. Workers say seven pipefitters objected in 1997 when told to install a valve rated to withstand less pressure than required for a test of radioactive waste pipes. The crew was later laid off, but a settlement required the contractor, Fluor Federal Services, to rehire them. The plaintiffs' attorneys contended that foremen on the job were told they would have to lay off seven other pipefitters to bring the first seven back. Attorneys for Fluor Federal Services argued there was not enough work at the Hanford site for all of the pipefitters. An attorney told AP the company would consider an appeal. Jury awards ranged from $89,700 for one plaintiff to more than $553,000 for another. The plaintiffs sought lost wages, and all but one sought damages for emotional distress. The lawsuit involved five of the original seven pipefitters and six included in the second layoffs. "It's the workers who are putting themselves in danger when things don't go right, and they are the ones, for the most part, who know what they are working around," one plaintiff told AP. "If they have concerns, they need to be addressed, and they need to be addressed properly." An attorney for Fluor Federal Services told AP the company's view is that it did not retaliate against workers. The Hanford site was created as part of the top-secret Manhattan Project to build an atomic bomb. Today, it is the nation's most contaminated nuclear site. Cleanup costs are expected to total $50 billion to $60 billion, with the work to be finished by 2035. -------- POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS / JUSTICE -------- human rights Amnesty International Says U.S. Consortium's African Oil Pipeline Threatens Human Rights September 08, 2005 — By Todd Pitman, Associated Press http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=8734 DAKAR, Senegal — Amnesty International accused U.S. oil giant ExxonMobil of putting profits over human rights with its involvement in a multibillion dollar oil pipeline that runs from Chad to a seaport in the West African nation of Cameroon. A spokeswoman for ExxonMobil said the company had no immediate comment on the accusations but "condemns human rights violations in any form." Chad said it had taken steps to protect the rights of those affected by the project. Government officials Cameroon could not immediately be reached. The 1,070-kilometer (665-mile) pipeline, which stretches from the landlocked desert oil fields of Chad to an Atlantic Ocean seaport in Cameroon, first began operating in 2003 and now pumps about 200,000 barrels of crude a day. The pipeline is operated by an oil consortium led by ExxonMobil. Amnesty said in a statement there was "a prevailing climate of fear and intimidation around the pipeline, some of whose critics have already been arrested and intimidated." "The US$4.2 (euro3.37) billion Chad-Cameroon oil pipeline risks freezing human rights protection for decades to come for the thousands of people who live in its path," Amnesty said. The project is one the largest private investments ever in sub-Saharan Africa. ExxonMobil, Chevron and Malaysia's Petronas financed the project, with the World Bank providing 4 percent of the funding. Opponents say the pipeline threatens to pollute farmlands and has disrupted local communities, who were given cash compensation for moving out of its path. Supporters say the project has employed tens of thousands of people on a continent where most get by on less than a dollar (euro) a day. Some impoverished farmers in the region claim they've been denied access to water supplies and their land, which ExxonMobil refused either to compensate them for or to return to them," Amnesty said. "The project's contracts open the door for further abuses such as these," the rights group said. Susan Reeves, a spokeswoman for ExxonMobil, said in an e-mail that "ExxonMobil condemns human rights violations in any form and has actively expressed these views to governments and others around the world." Reeves said Amnesty "elected to neither consult with us during the report preparation nor share the report prior to its release. We have not yet had the opportunity to study the report and have no immediate comment." Amnesty said the legal agreements under which the project is run, signed by Chad, Cameroon and the consortium, weren't made public before being passed into law. Chad's communications minister, Hourmadji Moussa Doumgor, said Chad had nothing to hide. "The environment should be protected, the rights of the population and the workers should be protected so that those who have seen their land taken up by the project be compensated, which has been done," Doumgor said. Amnesty said the deal discourages local governments from protecting human rights and could force them to pay financial penalties if they cease pumping for any reason -- "even when making an intervention to protect rights and enforce laws that apply elsewhere in their countries." The agreements "risk seriously undermining the ability and willingness of Chad and Cameroon to protect their citizens' human rights, making the oil companies de facto unaccountable in the pipeline zone," Amnesty said. Andrea Shemberg, a legal adviser for Amnesty, said the agreements should be amended. "This project must not continue without changes that guarantee that human rights will be upheld. Human rights are not negotiable items that companies and governments are permitted to eliminate by contract," Shemberg said. Human rights activists have long argued that oil, far from being a boon to citizens of developing countries, can exacerbate official corruption, weaken democracy and widen the gulf between rich and poor. West Africa is one of the world's fastest increasing oil-producing regions, with production projected to provide 25 percent of U.S. oil imports alone by 2015. -------- POLITICS -------- propaganda wars Rep. Ron Paul: Why We Fight HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES September 8, 2005 http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2005/cr090805.htm Many reasons have been given for why we fight and our youth must die in Iraq. The reasons now given for why we must continue this war bear no resemblance to the reasons given to gain the support of the American people and the United States Congress prior to our invasion in March of 2003. Before the war, we were told we faced an imminent threat to our national security from Saddam Hussein. This rationale, now proven grossly mistaken, has been changed. Now we’re told we must honor the fallen by “completing the mission.” To do otherwise would demean the sacrifice of those who have died or been wounded. Any lack of support for “completing the mission” is said, by the promoters of the war, to be unpatriotic, un-American, and detrimental to the troops. They insist the only way one can support the troops is to never waver on the policy of nation building, no matter how ill-founded that policy may be. The obvious flaw in this argument is that the mission, of which they so reverently speak, has changed constantly from the very beginning. Though most people think this war started in March of 2003, the seeds were sown many years before. The actual military conflict, involving U.S. troops against Iraq, began in January 1991. The prelude to this actually dates back over a hundred years, when the value of Middle East oil was recognized by the industrialized West. Our use of troops to eject Saddam Hussein from Kuwait was the beginning of the current conflict with Muslim fundamentalists who have been, for the last decade, determined to force the removal of American troops from all Muslim countries-- especially the entire Arabian Peninsula, which they consider holy. Though the strategic and historic reasons for our involvement in the Middle East are complex, the immediate reasons given in 2002 and 2003 for our invasion of Iraq were precise. The only problem is they were not based on facts. The desire by American policymakers to engineer regime change in Iraq had been smoldering since the first Persian Gulf conflict in 1991. This reflected a dramatic shift in our policy, since in the 1980s we maintained a friendly alliance with Saddam Hussein as we assisted him in his war against our arch nemesis, the Iranian Ayatollah. Most Americans ignore that we provided assistance to this ruthless dictator with biological and chemical weapons technology. We heard no complaints in the 1980s about his treatment of the Kurds and Shiites, or the ruthless war he waged against Iran. Our policy toward Iraq played a major role in convincing Saddam Hussein he had free reign in the Middle East, and the results demonstrate the serious shortcomings of our foreign policy of interventionism that we have followed now for over a hundred years. In 1998 Congress capitulated to the desires of the Clinton administration and overwhelmingly passed the Iraq Liberation Act, which stated quite clearly that our policy was to get rid of Saddam Hussein. This act made it official: “The policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein.” This resolution has been cited on numerous occasions by neo-conservatives as justification for the pre-emptive, deliberate invasion of Iraq. When the resolution was debated, I saw it as a significant step toward a war that would bear no good fruit. No legitimate national security concerns were cited for this dramatic and serious shift in policy. Shortly after the new administration took office in January 2001, this goal of eliminating Saddam Hussein quickly morphed into a policy of remaking the entire Middle East, starting with regime change in Iraq. This aggressive interventionist policy surprised some people, since the victorious 2000 campaign indicated we should pursue a foreign policy of humility, no nation building, reduced deployment of our forces overseas, and a rejection of the notion that we serve as world policemen. The 9/11 disaster proved a catalyst to push for invading Iraq and restructuring the entire Middle East. Though the plan had existed for years, it quickly was recognized that the fear engendered by the 9/11 attacks could be used to mobilize the American people and Congress to support this war. Nevertheless, supposedly legitimate reasons had to be given for the already planned pre-emptive war, and as we now know the “intelligence had to be fixed to the policy.” Immediately after 9/11 the American people were led to believe that Saddam Hussein somehow was responsible for the attacks. The fact that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were enemies, not friends, was kept from the public by a compliant media and a lazy Congress. Even today many Americans still are convinced of an alliance between the two. The truth is Saddam Hussein never permitted al Qaeda into Iraq out of fear that his secular government would be challenged. And yet today we find that al Qaeda is now very much present in Iraq, and causing chaos there. The administration repeatedly pumped out alarming propaganda that Saddam Hussein was a threat to us with his weapons of mass destruction, meaning nuclear, biological, and chemical. Since we helped Saddam Hussein obtain biological and chemical weapons in the 1980s, we assumed that he had maintained a large supply-- which of course turned out not to be true. The people, frightened by 9/11, easily accepted these fear-mongering charges. Behind the scenes many were quite aware that Israel’s influence on our foreign policy played a role. She had argued for years, along with the neo-conservatives, for an Iraqi regime change. This support was nicely coordinated with the Christian Zionists’ enthusiasm for the war. As these reasons for the war lost credibility and support, other reasons were found for why we had to fight. As the lone superpower, we were told we had a greater responsibility to settle the problems of the world lest someone else gets involved. Maintaining and expanding our empire is a key element of the neo-conservative philosophy. This notion that we must fight to spread American goodness was well received by these neo-Jacobins. They saw the war as a legitimate moral crusade, arguing that no one should be allowed to stand in our way! In their minds using force to spread democracy is legitimate and necessary. We also were told the war was necessary for national security purposes because of the threat Saddam Hussein presented, although the evidence was fabricated. Saddam Hussein’s ability to attack us was non-existent, but the American people were ripe for alarming predictions by those who wanted this war. Of course the routine canard for our need to fight, finance, and meddle around the world ever since the Korean War was repeated incessantly: UN Resolutions had to be enforced lest the United Nations be discredited. The odd thing was that on this occasion the United Nations itself did everything possible to stop our pre-emptive attack. And as it turned out, Saddam Hussein was a lot closer to compliance than anyone dreamed. It wasn’t long before concern for the threat of Saddam Hussein became near hysterical, drowning out any reasoned opposition to the planned war. The one argument that was not publicly used by those who propagandized for the war may well be the most important-- oil. Though the administration in 1990 hinted briefly that we had to eject Saddam Hussein from Kuwait because of oil, the stated reasons for that conflict soon transformed into stopping a potential Hitler and enforcing UN resolutions. Publicly oil is not talked about very much, but behind the scenes many acknowledge this is the real reason we fight. This is not only the politicians who say this. American consumers have always enjoyed cheap gasoline and want it kept that way. The real irony is that the war has reduced Iraqi oil production by one-half million barrels per day and prices are soaring-- demonstrating another unintended economic consequence of war. Oil in the Middle East has been a big issue since the industrial revolution, when it was realized that the black substance bubbling out of the ground in places like Iraq had great value. It’s interesting to note that in the early 20th century Germany, fully aware of oil’s importance, allied itself with the Turkish Ottoman Empire and secured the earliest rights to drill Iraqi oil. They built the Anatalia railroad between Baghdad and Basra, and obtained oil and mineral rights on twenty kilometers on each side of this right-of-way. World War I changed all this, allowing the French and the British to divide the oil wealth of the entire Middle East. The Versailles Treaty created the artificial nation of Iraq, and it wasn’t long before American oil companies were drilling and struggling to participate in the control of Middle East oil. But it was never smooth sailing for any occupying force in Iraq. After WWI, the British generals upon arriving to secure “their” oil said: “Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators.” Not long afterward a jihad was declared against Britain and eventually they were forced to leave. The more things change, the more they stay the same! Too bad we are not better at studying history. After World War II the U.S. emerged as the #1 world power, and moved to assume what some believed was our responsibility to control Middle East oil in competition with the Soviets. This role prompted us to use our CIA, along with the help of the British, to oust democratically elected Mohammed Mosadeh from power in Iran and install the Shah as a U.S. puppet. We not only supported Saddam Hussein against Iran, we also supported Osama bin Laden in the 1980s-- aggravating the situation in the Middle East and causing unintended consequences. With CIA assistance we helped develop the educational program to radicalize Islamic youth in many Arab nations, especially in Saudi Arabia to fight the Soviets. We even provided a nuclear reactor to Iran in 1967-- which today leads us to threaten another war. All of this has come back to haunt us. Meddling in the affairs of others has consequences. Finally, after years of plotting and maneuvering, the neo-conservative plan to invade Iraq came before the U.S. House in October 2002 to be rubber-stamped. Though the plan was hatched years before, and the official policy of the United States government was to remove Saddam Hussein ever since 1998, various events delayed the vote until this time. By October the vote was deemed urgent, so as to embarrass anyone who opposed it. This would make them politically vulnerable in the November election. The ploy worked. The resolution passed easily, and it served the interests of proponents of war in the November election. The resolution, HJ RES 114, explicitly cited the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998 as one of the reasons we had to go to war. The authorization granted the President to use force against Iraq cited two precise reasons: 1. “To defend the national security of the U.S. against the continuing threat posed by Iraq and” 2. “Enforce all relevant United Nations Council resolutions regarding Iraq.” Many other reasons were given to stir the emotions of the American public and the U.S. Congress, reasons that were grossly misleading and found not to be true. The pretense of a legal justification was a sham. The fact that Congress is not permitted under the Constitution to transfer the war power to a president was ignored. Only Congress can declare war, if we were inclined to follow the rule of law. To add insult to injury, HJ RES 114 cited United Nations resolutions as justifications for the war. Ignoring the Constitution while using the UN to justify the war showed callous disregard for the restraints carefully written in the Constitution. The authors deliberately wanted to make war difficult to enter without legislative debate, and they purposely kept the responsibility out of the hands of the executive branch. Surely they never dreamed an international government would have influence over our foreign policy or tell us when we should enter into armed conflict. The legal maneuvering to permit this war was tragic to watch, but the notion that Saddam Hussein-- a third world punk without an air force, navy, and hardly an army or any anti-aircraft weaponry-- was an outright threat to the United States six thousand miles away, tells you how hysterical fear can be used to pursue a policy of needless war for quite different reasons. Today, though, all the old reasons for going to war have been discredited, and are no longer used to justify continuing the war. Now we are told we must “complete the mission,” and yet no one seems to know exactly what the mission is or when it can be achieved. By contrast, when war is properly declared against a country we can expect an all-out effort until the country surrenders. Without a declaration of war as the Constitution requires, it’s left to the President to decide when to start the war and when the war is over. We had sad experiences with this process in Korea and especially in Vietnam. Pursuing this war merely to save face, or to claim it’s a way to honor those who already have died or been wounded, is hardly a reason that more people should die. We’re told that we can’t leave until we have a democratic Iraq. But what if Iraq votes to have a Shiite theocracy, which it looks like the majority wants as their form of government-- and women, Christians, and Sunnis are made second-class citizens? It’s a preposterous notion and it points out the severe shortcomings of a democracy where a majority rules and minorities suffer. Thankfully, our founding fathers understood the great dangers of a democracy. They insisted on a constitutional republic with a weak central government and an executive branch beholden to the legislative branch in foreign affairs. The sooner we realize we can’t afford this war the better. We’ve gotten ourselves into a civil war within the Islamic community. But could it be, as it had been for over a hundred years prior to our invasion, that oil really is the driving issue behind a foreign presence in the Middle East? It’s rather ironic that the consequence of our intervention has been skyrocketing oil prices, with Iraqi oil production still significantly below pre-war levels. If democracy is not all it’s cracked up to be, and a war for oil is blatantly immoral and unproductive, the question still remains-- why do we fight? More precisely, why should we fight? When is enough killing enough? Why does man so casually accept war, which brings so much suffering to so many, when so little is achieved? Why do those who suffer and die so willingly accept the excuses for the wars that need not be fought? Why do so many defer to those who are enthused about war, and who claim it’s a solution to a problem, without asking them why they themselves do not fight? It’s always other men and other men’s children who must sacrifice life and limb for the reasons that make no sense, reasons that are said to be our patriotic duty to fight and die for. How many useless wars have been fought for lies that deserved no hearing? When will it all end? Why We Should Not Fight Since no logical answers can be given for why we fight, it might be better to talk about why we should not fight. A case can be made that if this war does not end soon it will spread and engulf the entire region. We’ve already been warned that war against Iran is an option that remains on the table for reasons no more reliable than those given for the pre-emptive strike against Iraq. Let me give you a few reasons why this war in Iraq should not be fought. It is not in our national interest. On the contrary, pursuing this war endangers our security, increases the chances of a domestic terrorist attack, weakens our defenses, and motivates our enemies to join together in opposition to our domineering presence around the world. Does anyone believe that Russia, China, and Iran will give us free reign over the entire Middle East and its oil? Tragically, we’re setting the stage for a much bigger conflict. It’s possible that this war could evolve into something much worse than Vietnam. This war has never been declared. It’s not a constitutional war, and without a proper beginning there can be no proper ending. The vagueness instills doubts in all Americans, both supporters and non-supporters, as to what will be accomplished. Supporters of the war want total victory, which is not achievable with a vague mission. Now the majority of Americans are demanding an end to this dragged-out war that many fear will spread before it’s over. It’s virtually impossible to beat a determined guerrilla resistance to a foreign occupying force. After 30 years the Vietnam guerillas, following unbelievable suffering, succeeded in forcing all foreign troops from their homeland. History shows that Iraqi Muslims have always been determined to resist any foreign power on their soil. We ignored that history and learned nothing from Vietnam. How many lives, theirs and ours, are worth losing to prove the tenacity of guerilla fighters supported by a large number of local citizens? Those who argue that it’s legitimate to protect “our oil” someday must realize that it’s not our oil, no matter how strong and sophisticated our military is. We know the war so far has played havoc with oil prices, and the market continues to discount problems in the region for years to come. No end is in sight regarding the uncertainty of Middle East oil production caused by this conflict. So far our policies inadvertently have encouraged the development of an Islamic state, with Iranian-allied Shiites in charge. This has led to Iranian support for the insurgents, and has placed Iran in a position of becoming the true victor in this war as its alliance with Iraq grows. This could place Iran and its allies in the enviable position of becoming the oil powerhouse in the region, if not the world, once it has control over the oil fields near Basra. This unintended alliance with Iran, plus the benefit to Osama bin Laden’s recruiting efforts, will in the end increase the danger to Israel by rallying the Arab and Muslim people against us. One of the original stated justifications for the war has been accomplished. Since 1998 the stated policy of the United States government was to bring about regime change and get rid of Saddam Hussein. This has been done, but instead of peace and stability we have sown the seeds of chaos. Nevertheless, the goal of removing Saddam Hussein has been achieved and is a reason to stop the fighting. There were no weapons of mass destruction, no biological or chemical or nuclear weapons, so we can be assured the Iraqis pose no threat to anyone, certainly not to the United States. No evidence existed to show an alliance between Iraq and al Qaeda before the war, and ironically our presence there is now encouraging al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden to move in to fill the vacuum we created. The only relationship between Iraq and 9/11 is that our policy in the Middle East continues to increase the likelihood of another terrorist attack on our homeland. We should not fight because it’s simply not worth it. What are we going to get for nearly 2,000 soldier deaths and 20 thousand severe casualties? Was the $350 billion worth it? This is a cost that will be passed on to future generations through an expanded national debt. I’ll bet most Americans can think of a lot better ways to have spent this money. Today’s program of guns and butter will be more damaging to our economy than a similar program was in the 1960s, which gave us the stagflation of the 1970s. The economic imbalances today are much greater than they were in those decades. Eventually, we will come to realize that the Wilsonian idealism of using America’s resources to promote democracy around the world through force is a seriously flawed policy. Wilson pretended to be spreading democracy worldwide, and yet women in the U.S. at that time were not allowed to vote. Democracy, where the majority dictates the rules, cannot protect minorities and individual rights. And in addition, using force to impose our will on others almost always backfires. There’s no reason that our efforts in the 21st century to impose a western style government in Iraq will be any more successful than the British were after World War I. This especially can’t work if democracy is only an excuse for our occupation and the real reasons are left unrecognized. It boils down to the fact that we don’t really have any sound reasons for continuing this fight. The original reasons for the war never existed, and the new reasons aren’t credible. We hear only that we must carry on so those who have already suffered death and injury didn’t do so in vain. If the original reasons for starting the war were false, simply continuing in the name of those fallen makes no sense. More loss of life can never justify earlier loss of life if they died for false reasons. This being the case, it’s time to reassess the policies that have gotten us into this mess. What does all this mean? The mess we face in the Middle East and Afghanistan, and the threat of terrorism within our own borders, are not a result of the policies of this administration alone. Problems have been building for many years, and have only gotten much worse with our most recent policy of forcibly imposing regime change in Iraq. We must recognize that the stalemate in Korea, the loss in Vietnam, and the quagmire in Iraq and Afghanistan all result from the same flawed foreign policy of interventionism that our government has pursued for over 100 years. It would be overly simplistic to say the current administration alone is responsible for the mess in Iraq. By rejecting the advice of the Founders and our early presidents, our leaders have drifted away from the admonitions against entangling alliances and nation building. Policing the world is not our calling or our mandate. Besides, the Constitution doesn’t permit it. Undeclared wars have not enhanced our national security. The consensus on foreign interventionism has been pervasive. Both major parties have come to accept our role as the world’s policeman, despite periodic campaign rhetoric stating otherwise. The media in particular, especially in the early stages, propagandize in favor of war. It’s only when the costs become prohibitive and the war loses popular support that the media criticize the effort. It isn’t only our presidents that deserve the blame when they overstep their authority and lead the country into inappropriate wars. Congress deserves equally severe criticism for acquiescing to the demands of the executive to go needlessly to war. It has been known throughout history that kings, dictators, and the executive branch of governments are always overly eager to go to war. This is precisely why our founders tried desperately to keep decisions about going to war in the hands of the legislature. But this process has failed us for the last 65 years. Congress routinely has rubber stamped the plans of our presidents and even the United Nations to enter into war through the back door. Congress at any time can prevent or stop all undue foreign entanglements pursued by the executive branch merely by refusing to finance them. The current Iraq war, now going on for 15 years, spans the administration of three presidents and many congresses controlled by both parties. This makes Congress every bit as responsible for the current quagmire as the president. But the real problem is the acceptance by our country as a whole of the principle of meddling in the internal affairs of other nations when unrelated to our national security. Intervention, no matter how well intended, inevitably boomerangs and comes back to haunt us. Minding our own business is not only economical; it’s the only policy that serves our national security interests and the cause of peace. The neo-conservatives who want to remake the entire Middle East are not interested in the pertinent history of this region. Creating an artificial Iraq after World War I as a unified country was like mixing water and oil. It has only led to frustration, anger, and hostilities-- with the resulting instability creating conditions ripe for dictatorships. The occupying forces will not permit any of the three regions of Iraq to govern themselves. This is strictly motivated by a desire to exert control over the oil. Self-determination and independence for each region, or even a true republican form of government with a minimalist central authority is never considered-- yet it is the only answer to the difficult political problems this area faces. The relative and accidental independence of the Kurds and the Shiites in the 1990s served those regions well, and no suicide terrorism existed during that decade. The claim that our immediate withdrawal from Iraq would cause chaos is not proven. It didn’t happen in Vietnam or even Somalia. Even today, the militias of the Kurds and the Shiites may well be able to maintain order in their regions much better than we can currently. Certainly the Sunnis can take care of themselves, and it might be in their best interests for all three groups not to fight each other when we leave. One thing for sure: if we left no more young Americans would have to die for an indefinable cause. Instead, we have been forcing on the people of Iraq a type of democracy that, if implemented, will mean an Islamic state under Sharia’ law. Already we read stories of barbers no longer being safe shaving beards; Christians are threatened and forced to leave the country; and burqas are returning out of fear. Unemployment is over 50%, and oil production is still significantly below pre-war levels. These results are not worth fighting and dying for. In this war, like all others, the propagandists and promoters themselves don’t fight, nor do their children. It’s always worth the effort to wage war when others must suffer and die. Many of those who today pump the nation up with war fever were nowhere to be found when their numbers were called in the 1960s-- when previous presidents and Congresses thought so little about sending young men off to war. Then it was in their best interests to find more important things to do-- despite the so-called equalizing draft. The inability of taxpayers to fund both guns-and-butter has not deterred those who smell the glory of war. Notoriously, great nations fall once their appetite for foreign domination outstrips their citizens’ ability or willingness to pay. We tried the guns-and-butter approach in the 1960s with bad results, and the same will happen again as a consequence of the current political decision not to cut back on any expenditure, domestic or foreign. Veto nothing is current policy! Tax, borrow, and print to pay the bills is today’s conventional wisdom. The problem is that all the bills eventually must be paid. There’s no free lunch, and no free war. The economic consequences of such a policy are well known and documented. Excessive spending leads to excessive deficits, higher taxes, and more borrowing and inflation-- which spells economic problems that always clobber the middle class and the poor. Already the suffering has begun. A lackluster recovery, low paying jobs, outsourcing, and social unrest already are apparent. This economic price we pay, along with the human suffering, is an extravagant price for a war that was started with false information and now is prolonged for reasons unrelated to our national security. This policy has led to excessive spending overseas and neglect at home. It invites enemies to attack us, and drains the resources needed to defend our homeland and care for our own people. We are obligated to learn something from the tragedy of Katrina about the misallocation of funds away from our infrastructure to the rebuilding of Iraq after first destroying it. If ever there was a time for us to reassess our policy of foreign interventionism, it is today. It’s time to look inward and attend to the constitutional needs of our people, and forget about the grandiose schemes to remake the world in our image through the use of force. These efforts not only are doomed to fail, as they have for the past one hundred years, but they invite economic and strategic military problems that are harmful to our national security interests. We’ve been told that we must fight to protect our freedoms here at home. These reasons are given to make the sacrifices more tolerable and noble. Without an honorable cause, the suffering becomes intolerable. Hiding from the truth, though, in the end is no panacea for a war that promises no peace. The most important misjudgment regarding Iraq that must be dealt with is the charge that Muslim terrorists attack us out of envy for our freedoms, our prosperity, and our way of life. There is no evidence this is the case. On the contrary, those who have extensively researched this issue conclude that the #1 reason suicide terrorists attack anywhere in the world is because their land is occupied by a foreign military power. Pretending otherwise and constantly expanding our military presence in more Arab and Muslim countries as we have since 1990 has only increased the danger of more attacks on our soil, as well as in those countries that have allied themselves with us. If we deny this truth we do so at our own peril. It’s not unusual for the war crusaders to condemn those who speak the truth in an effort to end an unnecessary war. They claim those who want honest reasons for the enormous sacrifice are unpatriotic and un-American, but these charges only serve to exacerbate the social unrest. Any criticism of policy, no matter how flawed the policy is, is said to be motivated by a lack of support for the troops. Yet it is preposterous to suggest that a policy that would have spared the lives of 1900 servicemen and women lacks concern for the well being of our troops. The absence of good reasoning to pursue this war prompts the supporters of the war to demonize the skeptics and critics. They have no other defense. Those who want to continue this war accuse those who lost loved ones in Iraq, and oppose the war, of using the dead for personal political gain. But what do the war proponents do when they claim the reason we must fight on is to honor the sacrifice of the military personnel we lost by completing the mission? The big difference is that one group argues for saving lives, while the other justifies more killing. And by that logic, the additional deaths will require even more killing to make sure they too have not died in vain. Therefore, the greater number who have died, the greater is the motivation to complete the mission. This defies logic. This argument to persevere has been used throughout history to continue wars that could and should have ended much sooner. This was true for World War I and Vietnam. A sad realism struck me recently reading how our Marines in Afghanistan must now rely on donkey transportation in their efforts at nation building and military occupation. Evidently the Taliban is alive and well, as Osama bin Laden remains in this region. But doesn’t this tell us something about our naïve assumption that our economic advantages and technical knowledge can subdue and control anybody? We’re traversing Afghan mountains on donkeys, and losing lives daily in Baghdad with homemade primitive bombs. Our power and dominance clearly is limited by the determination of those who see us as occupiers, proving that just more money and sophisticated weapons won’t bring us victory. Sophisticated weapons and the use of unlimited military power is no substitute for diplomacy designed to promote peace while reserving force only for defending our national interests. Changing our policy of meddling in the affairs of others won’t come quickly or easily. But a few signals to indicate a change in our attitude would go a long way to bringing peace to a troubled land. 1. We must soon, and Congress can do this through the budget process, stop the construction of all permanent bases in Iraq and any other Muslim country in the region. Think of how we would react if the Chinese had the military edge on us and laid claims to the Gulf of Mexico, building bases within the U.S. in order to promote their superior way of life. Isn’t it ironic that we close down bases here at home while building new ones overseas? Domestic bases might well promote security, while bases in Muslim nations only elicit more hatred toward us. 2. The plans for the biggest U.S. embassy in the world, costing nearly 1 billion dollars, must be canceled. This structure in Baghdad sends a message, like the military bases being built, that we expect to be in Iraq and running Iraq for a long time to come. 3. All military forces, especially on the Arabian Peninsula, must be moved offshore at the earliest time possible. All responsibility for security and control of the oil must be transferred to the Iraqis from the United States as soon as possible, within months not years. The time will come when our policies dealing with foreign affairs will change for the better. But that will be because we can no longer afford the extravagance of war. This will occur when the American people realize that war causes too much suffering here at home, and the benefits of peace again become attractive to us all. Part of this recognition will involve a big drop in the value of the dollar, higher interest rates, and rampant price inflation. Though these problems are serious and threaten our freedoms and way of life, there’s every reason to work for the traditional constitutional foreign policy that promotes peace over war, while not being tempted to mold the world in our image through force. We should not forget that what we did not achieve by military force in Vietnam, was essentially achieved with the peace that came from our military failure and withdrawal of our armed forces. Today, through trade and peace, U.S. investment and economic cooperation has westernized Vietnam far more than our military efforts. We must remember initiating force to impose our will on others negates all the goodness for which we profess to stand. We cannot be fighting to secure our freedom if we impose laws like the Patriot Act and a national ID card on the American people. Unfortunately, we have lost faith and confidence in the system of government with which we have been blessed. Today too many Americans support, at least in the early stages, the use of force to spread our message of hope and freedom. They too often are confused by the rhetoric that our armies are needed to spread American goodness. Using force injudiciously, instead of spreading the worthy message of American freedom through peaceful means, antagonizes our enemies, alienates our allies, and threatens personal liberties here at home while burdening our economy. If confidence can be restored in our American traditions of peace and trade, our influence throughout the world would be enhanced just as it was once we rejected the military approach in Vietnam. This change in policy can come easily once the people of this country decide that there is a better way to conduct ourselves throughout the world. Whenever the people turn against war as a tool to promote certain beliefs, the war ceases. That’s what we need today. Then we can get down to the business of setting an example of how peace and freedom brings prosperity in an atmosphere that allows for excellence and virtue to thrive. A powerful bureaucratic military state negates all efforts to preserve these conditions that have served America so well up until recent times. That is not what the American dream is all about. Without a change in attitude, the American dream dies: a simple change that restates the principles of liberty enshrined in our Constitution will serve us well in solving all the problems we face. The American people are up to the task; I hope Congress is as well. -------- ENERGY -------- alternative energy Cooking with the Heat of the Sun September 08, 2005 — By Kate Lohnes, The Monitor, McAllen, Texas Source: Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=8730 For some people, the concept called solar cooking is a hobby. For others, it's a lifestyle change. Solar cooking uses sunlight-generated heat to prepare food. Many solar cookers are made from household materials, such as cardboard and aluminum foil. Most are fairly inexpensive and can be made at home. When the solar cooker is placed around a dark-colored pot, sunlight reflects off the foil and concentrates on the pot. The light is then absorbed and converted into heat, which cooks the food within the pot. There are three basic models of solar cookers: box cookers, panel cookers (which look like the reflectors you put in car windshields), and parabolic cookers (a large reflective dish with a pot in the center). Depending on the model, solar cookers can reach 300 degrees Fahrenheit or higher. While largely unknown in the culinary arts, solar cooking is not a new trend. Beverly Blum, director and founding member of Sacramento-based Solar Cookers International, said U.S. interest in solar cooking first developed in the mid-1970s. In countries such as China and India, interest in solar cooking began due to wood and fossil fuel shortages. According to Blum, SCI formed to spread enthusiasm for solar cooking as well as the idea of free energy. "What motivated us [to start SCI] was the realization that there are many parts of the world which were already facing severe fuel shortages," she said. "Our purpose was and is to see if we couldn't spread access to solar cooking and water pasteurization, and to benefit people whom it would help the most." Blum, who has traveled to refugee camps in Kenya and other countries, said solar cooking is helpful for Third World residents because women are not required to hunt for cooking resources. "It's wonderful for people in fuel-scarce areas," she said. "Finding wood and fuel to burn is a terrible burden for women and girls in these countries. A third of the world still cooks over fires. It's tedious and hazardous to gather wood, and then these women get home and have to cook over smoky fires. It's kind of an invisible problem." Solar cooking is also convenient, Blum said, because the cooker needs no extra attention. Food goes into the cooker in the morning and is left to cook all day in its own juices. By evening, dinner is ready, with no stirring and no burning. Not only is solar cooking easy, Blum said, but building or buying a cooker is inexpensive. SCI's easiest model, the CooKit, was designed with impoverished families in mind, and can be purchased for $25 or less. Instructions for building homemade solar cookers are also available on the Internet, as are Web sites to purchase manufactured cookers. Solar cooking has also caught the eye of environmentalists in the United States. San Antonio native Monica Salyer started her own group, Texas Solar Cookers, after she first researched the concept three years ago. The 12-member group meets once a month at a San Antonio-area park to discuss solar cooking promotions, swap recipes and cook together. Salyer said she owns several solar cookers, including the SCI CooKit, which she said works well when fixing Texas cuisine. "It's a blast," she said. "For Texas cooking, fajitas and ribs comes out just absolutely fantastic." In addition to starting Texas Solar Cookers, Salyer gives demonstrations around the state at fairs and festivals, including impromptu sessions at South Padre Island. "I went to the beach with my sister and pulled [the cooker] out," she said. "People were gathering around want to know about it. What changes their disbelief into wonder is when you open the cooking vessel and steam comes out. People can smell the food cooking and that's when they get interested." Tom and Nancy Vineski of Livingston, Texas said solar cooking is a useful addition to their lifestyle. The Vineskis are self-described "solar nomads," who travel the United States in a solar-paneled mobile home. They have three solar cookers they use daily for everything from bread-baking to fixing Cuban black bean soup. "You can cook almost anything, except deep fry, which is probably better for you anyway," Tom Vineski said. "Most any favorite recipe can be adapted readily to the solar cooker, and because the food tends to steam and not burn, foods can cook longer and deeper for some incredibly rich flavors." In spite of the benefits of solar cooking, Blum said there are disadvantages. Weather plays a huge part in determining whether or not a solar cooker works. Solar cooking can be time consuming as well, usually taking twice as long to cook than the average recipe. Because solar cooking is still "under the radar," Blum said it's taking longer to change people's minds. "This is still the introduction of a new product in many areas, and that takes time," she said. "Most of us are not risk takers, and the poorest people are the least able to take risks with precious food or anything else. They have no spare resources, so they have to see community leaders using these new ideas before they themselves will dare to try." Vineski said solar cookers and sun ovens could help reduce energy consumption in the United States, but not enough people are interested. "We scratch our heads wondering all the time why people don't take advantage of it," he said. "In the southwest, we could easily turn around and use the heat, but there appears to be inertia there, and people don't make that change." Salyer said the use of solar cooking signifies a paradigm shift in cooking, and that as time passes, more people will be interested. "I don't think it will ever replace cooking indoors," she said. "It's a trade off between convenience and saving the environment and money. It's a tool in food preparation, a novelty. It's something new, and what's new takes a while to catch on." To see more of The Monitor, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.themonitor.com. -------- OTHER -------- environment EPA Proposal Would Ban Use of Pesticide Tests on Pregnant Women, Children September 08, 2005 — By Erica Werner, Associated Press http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=8736 WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday proposed banning pesticide testing on pregnant women and children. The move followed criticism that the government's reliance on human pesticide tests has irresponsibly endangered vulnerable people. "The government here is imposing strict standards for both what we will be allowed to give consideration to, and what we will allow people who are doing research on pesticides to do," Jim Jones, director of the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs, said in an interview. "We're going to prohibit certain kinds of intentional dosing, and for that which is not prohibited we're going to put in place strict ethical guidelines." Critics, however, said the proposed regulation, the agency's first aimed at human pesticide testing conducted with or without government funding, contains too many loopholes. Among them: not banning the use of data from unintentional or everyday exposure of pregnant women and children to pesticides. "It has so many exceptions, it's not an unvarnished advance," said Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. "There are far more safeguards for similar studies for drugs and medicines to help people." The rule is subject to a 90-day public comment period, and the agency aims to implement it by Jan. 29. It categorically prohibits pesticide testing studies, conducted with or without federal government sponsorship, that involve intentionally dosing pregnant women or children. EPA would be prohibited from relying on any data from such tests, even if they were conducted before the rule took effect. The rule requires people conducting other human testing to submit protocols to EPA for review, and says that subjects of pesticide tests must consent to risks. It also establishes an independent Human Studies Review Board to review proposals for human dosing studies. Earlier this year, controversy forced EPA to cancel a study that would have paid families in a low-income Florida neighborhood to allow their children to be tested for household exposure to pesticides. In response, Congress included language in a spending bill restricting testing on humans, and setting a timeline for EPA to develop a rule banning tests on pregnant women and children. Ruch said it appears that the Florida study would have been able to go forward under the proposed new rule. An industry group said it would evaluate the rule. "We believe it has the potential to establish ethical and scientific safeguards and uniform standards to protect research subjects and improve the risk assessment process," Jay Vroom, president of CropLife America, which represents pesticide developers and manufacturers, said in a statement. EPA stopped accepting industry data from experiments on humans near the end of the Clinton administration. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in 2003 in a suit brought by the pesticide industry that the EPA cannot refuse to consider data from manufacturer-sponsored human exposure tests until it developed regulations on the issue. The agency now uses human testing studies after evaluating them on a case-by-case basis. Jones said more than 90 percent of tests EPA relies on in deciding whether to allow pesticides on the market involve animals, not humans. Most of the tests are conducted by industry without government funding.