NucNews - December 12, 2005 -------- NUCLEAR -------- business The Uranium Story by Sol Palha December 12, 2005 SAFEHAVEN.com http://www.safehaven.com/article-4261.htm "If you want to succeed in the world you must make your own opportunities as you go on. The man who waits for some seventh wave to toss him on dry land will find that the seventh wave is a long time a-coming. You can commit no greater folly than to sit by the road side until someone comes along and invites you to ride with him to wealth or influence." - John B. Gough 1817-1886, British-born American Temperance Orator http://www.uxc.com/review/uxc_g_price.html http://www.uxc.com/review/uxc_g_2yr-price.html The first chart is an 18 year chart of uranium and the second is a 2 year chart; both reveal that Uranium is in a major up trend and it has been putting in new multi year highs for quite some time now. One of the reasons for this rapid move is fear. The fear is based on the fact that approx 91 million kilos of Uranium will be needed but mines only produce approx 45.5 million Kilos; so far this short fall has been met with above the ground reserves. Most of this above the ground uranium has come from the decommissioning of nuclear warheads (this accounts for roughly 45% of the global supply); sooner then later these supplies are going to run out and then we are going to have a problem. Currently there are roughly 441 nuclear power plants operating around the world producing approx 17% of the world's electricity. 24 new power plants are under construction in about 9 countries (this number does not take into account future projects only current ones). 103 of these plants are in the US alone and they produce roughly 20% of our electricity; the only other source that produces more energy is Coal. Nuclear power plants can run roughly 540 days before they need to be shut down for refuelling. The problem with nuclear power plants is that unlike their fossil fuel operated counterparts, which can run on coal, gas, or oil they can only run on Uranium and nothing else. This means that we could face a serious problem in the future if supply cannot meet demand. Currently the demand outstrips supply by approx 100% and when all the new nuclear plants come online things could get even worse. One can see how bad the situation is when sub par mines start opening up in Colorado, the grade of the yellow cake here is far inferior to that found in Australia and Canada; despite this 3 new mines have opened in Colorado. This simply illustrates that the industry experts understand the gravity of the situation and are even willing to invest in sub par mines because they expect prices to trade at much loftier levels. The worlds need for electricity is going to increase exponentially over the next decade and there is simply not enough fossil fuel to meet these demands; so nuclear energy appears to be the only viable option until some new energy source is discovered. The decision to take nuclear Energy much more seriously can be seen by the following 1. Thirty reactors received 20-year license extensions, 18 reactors have filed for license renewals and another 22 are likely to seek renewal in the next six years, the NEI reports. 2. India currently has 14 reactors and plans on building an additional 24 reactors. China has about 10 and plans on building another 18, and South Korea plans on building another 8. Even the US is starting to seriously look into the nuclear option; 13 plants out of the total of 103 are going to be upgraded. In addition, three consortia are seeking licenses for new plants. Russia has approx 31 nuclear power plants, 6 new plants are under construction and roughly an additional 16 plants will be built over the next few years. Russia's electricity needs are increasing at the rate of 3% per year and Gazparon has cut back on gas supplies for the production of electricity by approx 12% because it can make far more money by selling to the Europeans on the open market. So the Russians had to come up with several alternative plans and it appears that they have already begun to implement some of them. Russia has cut back on Uranium sales because they know that they are going to need these supplies sooner than later. They currently hold 4% of the world's recoverable uranium and so they appear to be in a somewhat decent position to deal with their future needs. The huge plunge In Uranium prices was attributable to several factors, all which resulted in virtually everyone wanting to shun away from this industry. Here are list of some of the main reasons 1. The meltdown at the Three Mile Island reactor in Middletown, PA in 1979. Prior to this event plans were underway for 50 more nuclear plants in the US. After the Incident all plans were scrapped. 2. The 1986 explosion at Chernobyl. 3. The end of the cold war that stopped the arms race all contributed to serious drop in demand for uranium and thus for awhile the market was suddenly flooded with too much uranium. The end result was that production was severely cut back and many mines were eventually shut down; that's why the nuclear industry is in the position it's in today. Now demand is about to go ballistic and there is simply no way to meet all this demand in time. Should the US actually join this race, which it might have to then already constrained supplies are going to be stretched even further? Since only uranium can power these plants we are eventually going to have a bidding war on hands the likes that the world has never seen before. There is actually no way to effectively predict how high uranium prices could eventually go. It seems we have a confluence of disasters all aligning up waiting to happen in the not to distant future. It's for this reason we are taking key positions in certain stocks (one of which we sold for a 100% gain and are looking to take new positions in now that it has pulled back) and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Now all the above info is based on the longer-term outlook. In the short to intermediate time frames Uranium could pull back simply because it has experienced a rather rapid move up. This pull back will be nothing but a mouth-watering opportunity to take additional positions in this sector. Don't expect this pull back to take place over night and neither can we expect all the stocks to pull back to the same extent. Some stocks will pull back less while others will pull back more; the key thing is to know when to add to or take new positions in these stocks. Conclusion Since owning uranium is not an easy task the only option for regular individuals is to buy uranium stocks. However as with any sector there are many worthless stocks here so one has to know which ones to buy and which ones to avoid like the plague. Dozens of new plants are going to come online in the not too distant future and the tragedy is that there is simply not enough uranium right now to power them all. Opportunity comes knocking once in awhile while disaster comes in kicking all the time. "One can present people with opportunities. One cannot make them equal to them." - Rosamond Lehmann 1901-1990, British Novelist -------- europe Finland's decision powers nuclear debate By Lizette Alvarez The New York Times MONDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2005 http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/12/12/business/nuke.php# HELSINKI Finland is nothing if not pragmatic and law-abiding. So when Finland, a country with a long memory of the 1986 Chernobyl disaster and considerable environmental bona fides, chose to move ahead this year with the construction of the world's largest nuclear reactor, the nuclear industry portrayed it as a victory, one that would force the rest of Western Europe to take note. But the decision to build the reactor, Olkiluoto 3, Europe's first in 15 years, was not taken quickly or lightly. The proposal, which was fiercely opposed by the Green Party, wound its way through nearly every committee in Parliament, was the subject of intense lobbying and was exhaustively covered by Finland's numerous newspapers. Ultimately, the 1,600-megawatt reactor was approved in 2002 by a vote of 107 to 92. Construction began this year in Olkiluoto, a small island on Finland's southwestern shore. The plant is scheduled to open in 2009. "There was only one question that has been discussed more in Parliament, and that was Finland's EU membership," said Anneli Nikula, vice president for corporate communications at Teollisuuden Voima, the Finnish power group that is building Olkiluoto 3 and operates two of Finland's four existing reactors. "All the facts were on the table." Now, with continued spikes in gas and other fuel prices, fears about overdependence on foreign oil and the growing threat of global warming, Finland's decision to embrace nuclear energy appears prescient. A number of countries that have turned away from nuclear power in recent decades, including the United States, are reconsidering their options and freshening up languishing proposals to build nuclear plants. Others with a renewed interest in nuclear energy include Britain, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Switzerland, Hungary and Slovakia. "There is an expectation that others will follow, both because of the way the decision was made and the boosting of confidence in being able to get through all the oppositional fear-mongering," said Ian Hore-Lacy, the director of public communications for the World Nuclear Association, an industry lobbying group. The United States, which has not had a nuclear plant on order since 1978, is experiencing a groundswell of interest. Taking the first step in a long process, Constellation Energy, a Baltimore-based holding company, announced in October that it would apply to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for permission to construct and operate a pressurized water reactor like the kind being built in Finland, possibly in upstate New York or in Maryland. The Finnish reactor, designed by Areva, the French state-controlled nuclear power group, is being built by Framatome, a joint venture of Areva and Siemens, a Germany company. In addition, President George W. Bush in August signed into law an energy bill that offers billions of dollars in research and development funds and construction subsidies to companies willing to build new nuclear plants. Several utility companies have applied for early site permits, a preliminary step toward building reactors. Worldwide, the resurgent interest in nuclear power is even more pronounced. Twenty-three reactors are under construction this year in 10 countries, most of them in Asia, which has aggressively pursued nuclear energy. India is building eight reactors. China and Taiwan are building a total of four reactors and are planning eight more. Russia is building four and South Korea is planning eight. The Finnish government first sought approval to build its fifth nuclear reactor in 1993. Few were willing to accept the risks. Twelve years later, a skittish and uncertain energy market has changed everything. Global warming, Finland's dependence on foreign sources of natural gas and oil, and the potential impact of high electricity prices on Finland's crucial energy-intensive industries have managed to trump concerns about nuclear energy's safety and waste. That same shift is occurring in many other countries as well, with a few notable holdouts, including Germany, Sweden and Belgium. At the same time, the nuclear industry, which says its reactors now are safer and more affordable than they were in the past, deftly reframed the debate, focusing less on the risks than on the economy and environment. Finland takes seriously its commitment under the Kyoto Protocol to lower carbon dioxide emissions, which are produced in large quantities by burning oil, coal and gas, a position that weighed heavily in the reactor's favor. "The climate change debate was not here 10 years ago," said Oras Tynkkynen, a Green Party member of Parliament who opposed the reactor and accused the government of failing to pursue renewable energy - wind power, for example - as a solution. "Now all they say is we have this terrible problem with climate change and we need to do something about it. It's hard to refute in 15 seconds." Nuclear energy's selling points were timely: It does not create emissions, unlike coal, oil and gas, and provides predictable electricity prices, a major bonus for Finnish industries, nuclear proponents said. "The only viable alternative, if we want to maintain the structure of the economy, maintain our industries and meet our Kyoto targets, is nuclear," said Juha Rantanen, the chief executive of Outokumpu, one of the world's largest steel producers and one of Finland's biggest energy users. "We can't have a declining economy. "We face huge challenges and an aging population. Something had to be done." Environmentalists, however, argued that nuclear reactors could never be entirely safe. They are always radioactive, and some waste can remain toxic for 100,000 years. But the designers of Areva's pressurized water reactor, which is costing $3.5 billion to build, helped counter those arguments. In the event of a core meltdown, they said, the nuclear material would flow into a separate enclosure for cooling. They also said that the reactor is being built with enough concrete to withstand the impact of an airliner crashing into it. In the end, Finland's largest trade union supported the project, basically sealing the deal. Environmentalists, who argue that building more nuclear reactors simply allows the government to put off serious investment in alternative energy, are now confronting possible plans for a sixth reactor in Finland. "It makes life nice for 10 years," Tynkkynen said. "But in the long term it causes trouble." ---- Russian environmental activist seeks asylum in Finland Critic of Sosnovyi Bor power plant feels he is in danger in Russia 12.12.2005 Helsingin Sanomat http://www.helsinginsanomat.fi/english/article/Russian+environmental+activist+seeks+asylum+in+Finland/1101981929378 Renowned Russian environmental activist Sergei Kharitonov is applying for political asylum in Finland. Kharitonov, who has made a reputation for himself by drawing attention to the safety problems at the Sosnovyi Bor nuclear power plant on the southern shore of the Gulf of Finland, says that he is in great danger in Russia. "My persecution is based on the fact that human rights are violated in Russia", Kharitonov says. "The real threat to my life stems from the fact that I have investigated issues of corruption linked with nuclear plants", he says. Helsingin Sanomat last met Kharitonov a year ago at an event sponsored by the environmental organisation Bellona, where he spoke about the shortcomings of safety measures implemented at the Sosnovyi Bor nuclear power plant. In January 2004 Kharitonov visited the Finnish Parliament and spoke to MPs about the matter. Kharitonov submitted his application for asylum in Finland to Finnish authorities in October this year. He spoke to Helsingin Sanomat about matters that he has discussed countless times before both in Russia and in Finland. The difference is that now he is afraid. "I was told that an accident could happen. Attempts were made to get rid of me unofficially - to kill me". Kharitonov also discusses the threats he has received and bribes that he has been offered. "There have been attempts to get documents and other information that I have collected." Kharitonov says that he is a dangerous man from Russia’s point of view, because he has criticised the safety measures in force at the country’s nuclear power plants, and he claims that extensive corruption is involved. Kharitonov, who has worked at the Sosnovyi Bor nuclear power plant, published an extensive report on the plant’s safety along with the environmental organisation Bellona. According to the report, the storage of spent fuel at the plant is haphazard. He worked at the plant for 27 years - most of the time as an operator. His last job there was at the storage site for spent fuel. He was fired in 2000. Under planned legislation, activities of environmental organisations and other civic groups, will come under closer scrutiny in Russia. The proposed law would place restrictions on activities of non-governmental organisations, and limit their right to receive financial aid from abroad. Kharitonov does not believe that the tougher line has had much of an effect on his activities. He is also criticical of the activities of Russian environmental groups, saying that they focus primarily on internal problems within the organisations. "The environmental organisations are restricting their own activities themselves, because they have lost their contact with the grass-roots level", Kharitonov ponders. "When civic groups start to take part in politics, they become marginalised. Getting political asylum in Finland is very difficult, as asylum is granted to fewer than one percent of applicants. Last year 29 people were given asylum, out of a total of 3,861 who applied. Ten of those who got asylum last year were Russian citizens, six were from Azerbaijan, and four were from Tajikistan. The number of asylum applicants has grown somewhat in recent years. In 2000, 3,170 people applied for asylum in Finland, and in 2003 there were 3,221. The applicants have to wait between six months to a year and a half for their applications to be processed. Kharitonov does not want to speculate on his chances of getting asylum in Finland. "It is undoubtedly a difficult decision. If Finland grants me asylum, it would be evidence that human rights are violated in Russia", he ponders. -------- india India and the nuclear deal K SUBRAHMANYAM Times of India 12.12.2005 http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1327306.cms The world is witnessing a rethink on nuclear power. The British prime minister has unveiled a policy review of the need for new nuclear plants for Britain. Finland has inaugurated the largest nuclear power plant in Europe. China is going in for nuclear energy on a large scale. The US administration is of the view that energy problem of the 21st century cannot have hydrocarbon solutions. Major industrialised nations are pooling their R&D efforts for International Thermo Nuclear Energy Research (ITER). A fourth-generation nuclear power reactor is under development and it is expected to be safer and more proliferation-proof. The Bush administration's offer of a nuclear deal with India should be seen in the context of US interest in an economic partnership with India to ensure its own competitiveness and innovativeness. The discussion between prime minister Manmohan Singh and President Bush on July 18 essentially focused on civil nuclear energy and creating conditions to enable the international community (all but three nations are members of the NPT) to permit India access to civil nuclear energy. India reiterated its earlier commitments — continuing its unilateral nuclear test moratorium, working with the US on the conclusion of a multilateral fissile materials cut-off treaty (FMCT) and committing itself to principles of non-proliferation. The controversial issue in implementation of Indian commitments concerns the possibility of FMCT coming into force and foreclosing Indian build-up of its minimum credible deterrent. There are fears and suspicions in India that US is attempting to trap India into an inferior status, less than that of a full-fledged nuclear weapon power. Some of the serious concerns need to be addressed. It should be obvious that the international community will only assist India's civil nuclear programme and that necessitates separation of civil and military facilities. Given India's uranium ore crunch and the need to build up our minimum credible nuclear deterrent arsenal as fast as possible, it is to India's advantage to categorise as many power reactors as possible as civilian ones to be refuelled by imported uranium and conserve our native uranium fuel for weapon-grade plutonium production. The confusion and delay in carrying out this separation indicates lack of clarity about strategy. Minimum credible deterrent is a politico-strategic, and not a technical, issue. The fact that it took the NDA government more than three years merely to confirm the draft nuclear doctrine and come up with a not-too-credible national command authority suggests that there are serious organisational and conceptual deficiencies in this area. China has complicated matters. The Chinese Communist Party newspaper, Renmin Ribao, has come out with a bitter attack on the US for sponsoring the extension of civil nuclear energy assistance to India. China — which wields considerable influence on sections of nuclear proliferation lobby in the US which were protective of China's nuclear proliferation to Pakistan and of A Q Khan and his network — has conveyed veiled threats about its enlarging its nuclear proliferation activity to Pakistan. Obviously, China has no interest in India's strategic partnership with the US and other powers. If this proposal, on which Bush and his administration have staked so much of their prestige does not get through, the failure will have a serious impact on Indo-US relations. India was without a nuclear arsenal for 45 years of the nuclear era. It had a covert arsenal for eight years and a declared one for the last seven years. In a globalising world with six forces engaged in a balance of power, the risks of nuclear power are decreasing. The US offer, endorsed by European Union and Russia, is the beginning of a process to reshape the international system with a significant role for a rising India. It requires a post-Cold War globalised worldview to assess the vast possibilities that open up for India. The conventional Cold War conditioning of sections of the political class and bureaucracy may lead to India missing this opportunity. II. Why the DAE's nuclear reactors cannot be said to be running safely... Ramana ---- Indian PM says nuclear facility separation at 'advanced stage' NEW DELHI (AFP) Dec 12, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/051212075417.rhljgqfc.html http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051212/wl_sthasia_afp/indiausnuclearenergytalks_051212082045 The separation of India's civilian and military nuclear plants, key to a July deal with the United States on nuclear technology sales, is at an "advanced stage," Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has said. Singh was quoted Monday in the Indian press as saying that New Delhi has made rapid progress on identifying those plants to be considered civilian and hence subject to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The exercise of designating nuclear plants as military or civilian is at "a fairly advanced stage," Singh told reporters flying with him Sunday as he headed to Malaysia to attend three days of meetings with Asian leaders. US President George W. Bush agreed to give India, which is not a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), access to civilian nuclear energy technology under a deal he signed with Singh in July. But India has to first separate its civilian and military nuclear programs, which could mean an effective cap on nuclear weapons production. India tested nuclear weapons in May 1998 -- tests which were matched by rival Pakistan the same month, which sparked concerns of a nuclear arms race in South Asia. Under the US-Indian deal, the US Congress would amend proliferation laws that would allow India to buy advanced nuclear technology once the facilities are separated. "The separation plan must ensure, and the safeguards must confirm, that US-India civil nuclear cooperation does not in any way assist India in manufacturing nuclear weapons," Republican Senator Richard Lugar, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said last week. "This is consistent with US obligations under the NPT and with US law." But some Indian security analysts have expressed unease over the move. "What is not clear is how and why the Manmohan Singh regime got into a position wherein New Delhi is ready to be hustled into delivering a plan to separate the civilian and military parts of a wholly-integrated Indian nuclear program that will permanently undercut India's military nuclear options in the future," Bharat Karnad, an analyst at the Center for Policy Research think tank, wrote in the Asian Age newspaper on Monday. Under the July deal, the United States also agreed to lobby allies in the Nuclear Suppliers Group, which controls sales of nuclear technology by advanced countries, for full civilian nuclear energy cooperation and trade with India. But Lugar hinted that if India decides to take a "minimalist" approach and designate only a few facilities as civilian, keeping the rest out of the purview of IAEA inspections, the deal could be affected. "A minimalist approach will likely only delay consideration of this initiative in the US Congress and in the Nuclear Suppliers Group. Or, at worst, it could result in unfavorable action by one or both bodies," he said. The United States and other countries placed sanctions on India and Pakistan after the May 1998 nuclear tests. Many of the sanctions were waived after the September 11, 2001, attacks in the United States as both countries pledged support to Washington in the so-called "war on terror". -------- iran Iran needs US security guarantees in nuclear talks: IAEA chief STOCKHOLM (AFP) Dec 12, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/051212154854.009v82g8.html Mohamed ElBaradei, head of nuclear watchdog IAEA, on Monday called on the United States to use security assurances to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons, along the lines what had been offered to North Korea. "I see security assurances provided by the US as part of the solution," ElBaradei, this year's Nobel peace prize winner, told reporters in Stockholm, two days after picking up his award in Oslo. "I hope that as the negotiations with the European Union will resume that the US at some point will be more engaged," he said. Iran said Sunday that a planned meeting later this month with Britain, France and Germany on its disputed nuclear programme will be decisive for the future of diplomacy over the crisis. Foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi also reiterated that Iran would be sticking by its demand to conduct ultra-sensitive nuclear fuel work -- despite fears such activities could be diverted to make an atomic bomb. North Korea in September agreed to to dismantle its nuclear weapons programme in return for economic and diplomatic benefits, after two years of negotiations. ---- Iran does not have the right to enrich uranium - US official VIENNA (AFP) Dec 12, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/051212201508.f1uzolnw.html Iran does not have the right to enrich uranium since it is secretly trying to develop nuclear weapons, a senior US State Department official said in Vienna Monday, disputing Iranian claims. "The whole premise of the question is that Iran has this right to enrich. Iran does not. No non-nuclear weapons state party to the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty) has the right to enrich if the purpose of that enrichment is for a weapons program," said the official, who asked not to be identified. Iran says its nuclear program is a strictly peaceful effort to generate electricity but the United States charges this civilian program is hiding weapons development. The US official was speaking with the European Union and Iran expected to meet December 21 in an attempt to set the stage for re-starting formal talks on winning guarantees that Tehran will not make nuclear weapons. But Iranian Foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said in Tehran Sunday that Iran insists on its right to enrich uranium. Iranian officials have said the Islamic Republic is only suspending the activity as a confidence-building gesture. Enriched uranium can be fuel for civilian nuclear power reactors but also the raw material for atom bombs. EU-Iran talks collapsed in August when Tehran ended its suspension of uranium conversion, a first step towards enrichment. The UN nuclear watchdog the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has still not ruled, after an almost three-year investigation, on whether Iran's nuclear program is peaceful or dedicated to making weapons. This is crucial as the NPT, which has been in effect since 1970, guarantees in its Article 4 "the inalienable right of all the parties to the treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes" but says this should be in conformity with Article 2, in which nations pledge "not to manufacture of otherwise acquire nuclear weapons." The EU, backed by the United States, wants Iran to permanently give up enrichment work as an "objective guarantee" it will not acquire weapons. The West wants to push for a compromise under which Iran's enrichment work would be carried out in Russia, although this has already been rejected by Tehran. Asefi said the only chance for the negotiations was if the European side compromises. But the US official said: "The red line of enrichment is just that, it is a bright red line and if Iran crosses it, I think the issue ought to go immediately to the (United Nations) Security Council," which could impose sanctions. The official said the United States was "working to broaden the international consensus on this . . . to try to get the Chinese and the Russians and others on board so that when it does go to the Security Council we have their support." Russia supports Iran's civilian nuclear program and is building the Islamic Republic's first nuclear power reactor. The IAEA has said Iran is not complying with the NPT due to almost two decades of hidden nuclear activities. This opens the door to taking Iran before the Security Council. But the IAEA last month put off such action after the EU-3 agreed to give time for Russian diplomacy to work. -------- israel Der Spiegel: Israel preparing strike to take out Iranian nuclear sites By Ellis Shuman October 12, 2003 Israel Insider http://web.israelinsider.com/bin/en.jsp?enPage=ArticlePage&enDisplay=view&enDispWhat=object&enDispWho=Article%5El2851&enZone=Security&enVersion=0 The German weekly Der Spiegel reported Saturday that the Mossad has marked six Iranian nuclear facilities as targets for an Israeli Air Force pre-emptive strike. An unnamed IAF pilot told the weekly that such a mission would be "complex, but feasible." The Los Angeles Times reported that Israel has modified U.S.-made Harpoon cruise missiles so it can launch nuclear warheads from submarines. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon ordered Mossad chief Meir Dagani to devote "utmost efforts" to gather information about Iran's growing nuclear capabilities, Maariv reported today. According to Maariv, Sharon told associates that "Iran is the greatest danger to Israel" and that he was coordinating intelligence gathering efforts with the United States "down to the last detail." Last week, Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz told senior IDF commanders that Iran's nuclear efforts constitute "the gravest danger to Israel's existence in the future. This is because Iran calls for Israel's annihilation. We must do out our utmost, under U.S. guidance, to delay or eliminate the prospect of the extremist regime [in Tehran] securing weapons of this sort." According to Der Spiegel, a special unit of the Mossad received an order two months ago to prepare a detailed plan to destroy Iran's nuclear sites. The Mossad believes Iran has reached an advanced stage in its nuclear program and is capable of producing enriched uranium, a vital ingredient of nuclear bombs. The report said that three of Iran's nuclear sites were totally unknown to the outside world. The Mossad's plan is now ready and has been delivered to the Israeli Air Force, which will carry out the strike, Der Spiegel said. The simultaneous air strike on six Iranian nuclear facilities would be carried out by IAF F-16 fighter jets. The paper quoted an unnamed IAF pilot who said the operation, which would be far more complicated than Israel's strike at Iraq's nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1981, would be "complex, but feasible." "We think that next summer, if Iran is not stopped, it will reach self-sufficiency and this is the point of no return. After this self-capability, it will take them some two years to make a nuclear bomb," IDF OC Intelligence Maj.-Gen. Aharon Ze'evi (Farkash) announced on Channel One television in August. The UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) issued an ultimatum to Iran that by October 31 it would have to open all of its nuclear facilities for IAEA inspection. Media analysts suggested that the leak of the Der Spiegel report was intended to pressure Iran into complying with the international agency. Unnamed American officials were quoted by Army Radio as saying that the United States had no plans to launch an attack against Iran at this stage, but it was impossible to know what the "crazy" Israelis would do. Nuclear missile capability on Israeli submarines Meanwhile, U.S. and Israeli officials say Israel has modified U.S.-made Harpoon cruise missiles so it can launch nuclear warheads from submarines, the Los Angeles Times reported on Saturday. "The previously undisclosed submarine capability bolsters Israel's deterrence in the event that Iran develops nuclear weapons," the report said. But, the newspaper added, "It also complicates efforts by the United States and the United Nations to persuade Iran to abandon its suspected nuclear weapons program." The deployment of the modified Harpoon cruise missiles completes Israel's nuclear program, the Los Angeles Times said. Israel has the capability of launching nuclear missiles from the land, air and sea, the report claimed. Israeli military spokesmen refused to comment on the report, in line with the country's policy of refusing to say if it has nuclear weapons. MK Ephraim Sneh (Labor) told Army Radio that publication of the reports harm Israel, divert international attention from Iran's efforts to develop nuclear capabilities, and are "incorrect." Sneh said, "Anyone who knows the Harpoon missile realizes it could never carry a nuclear warhead." ---- Israeli Defense Min. official: No plan to attack Iran 'at the moment' By Haaretz Service and The Associated Press 11/12/2005 http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/656093.html The senior Defense Ministry official for diplomatic policy refrained Sunday from ruling out a future Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear sites, saying that "at the moment" the emphasis was on international diplomatic pressure, and that the details in a British newspaper report saying plans were being prepared for such an operation appeared "more imaginary than real." Army Radio, meanwhile, quoted officials of the Prime Ministers Office and the Defense Ministry as denying the report by the Sunday Times, which wrote that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon told military officials to prepare for a possible attack on Iranian nuclear targets to take place at the end of March. The Times said it received confirmation from military officials that both ground and air forces would be employed to impede Iran's nuclear development. The paper said the intelligence was gleaned in part from cross-border operations apparently launched from Iraq, and from what it said was a base established by Israelis in northern Iraq. The same sources were quoted as saying that the alert level among special forces units was raised after the prime minister gave preparation orders to the Israel Defense Forces last week. An attack on Iran at this time would coincide with general elections in Israel, which are set to take place on March 28. In 1981, days before Israeli elections, then-prime minister Menachem Begin ordered an air strike on Iraq's nuclear facility in Osirak, near Baghdad. As a result of the attack, which was strongly supported by then-defense minister Ariel Sharon, Iraq's nuclear armament plan was thwarted. Referring to the Sunday Times report, Defense Ministy diplomatic policy chief Amos Gilad said that with respect to the description of "The order that was given, linked to a date, an operation in north Iraq - this appears more imaginary than real." Asked directly if he had no knowledge of such an order, Gilad said "At the moment, in the current phase, the focus is in the sphere of international diplomacy. The international system is working with a great deal of determination to prevent the Iranian nuclear threat." Gilad refrained from a blanket denial of the report. "I deny the concrete matters, the [description of] the plan, the timetables, the operation in northern Iraq, but it's impossible to say, in advance, that all options will be ruled out." The Sunday Times, quoting unnamed security sources, said "A 'massive' Israeli intelligence operation has been underway since Iran was designated the 'top priority for 2005.'" "Cross-border operations and signal intelligence from a base established by the Israelis in northern Iraq are said to have identified a number of Iranian uranium enrichment sites unknown to the the IAEA," the paper said. Gilad, interviewed on Israel Radio, was pressed to state when Israel might feel itself compelled to attack. "We will do this under very exacting monitoring," Gilad replied. "Diplomatic, strategic, and security situation assessments are being conducted all the time surrounding the subject. At the moment, the focus is on the sphere of international diplomacy." Asked why he reiterated that "at the moment" the emphasis was on diplomacy, Gilad said "No one knows what will happen in the future. "If it happens that the nightmare scenarios ... are realized, and the picture doesn't change, or, on the contrary, the regime gets even more extreme," Gilad said, "this subject is at the focus of defense assessment all the time, and at the moment, the preference is for the channel of international diplomacy." Mofaz calls for preparing non-diplomatic options On Friday, Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz also left open the possibility of Israeli action, speaking harshly against Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadenijad and saying Israel must prepare solutions "other than diplomatic" in the face of Tehran's persistent advancement of its nuclear program. Tensions between Israel and Iran have escalated in the past week following Benjamin Netanyahu's calls for Israeli action against Iran and Ahmadenijad's demands that Israel to be moved to Europe and statements of doubt on whether the Holocaust happened. Iran responded last week to Netanyahu's call for Israeli action against Iran, reiterating an earlier warning that Israel would pay a heavy price for any attempt to wipe out its nuclear program. "The Zionist regime is well aware that if it made such a grave mistake, the Iranian reaction would be devastating," Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid-Reza Assefi was quoted as saying by the Iranian student news agency ISNA. Netanyahu had said that Israel should take "bold and daring" action to thwart Iran's plans for nuclear armament, citing Israel's 1981 air strike on the Iraqi nuclear facility. "These are empty threats and prove that Israel is pulling the strings behind the scenes and is directing the international community to impose sanctions," the Iranian spokesman said of Netanyahu's statements. Iran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful, civilian purposes. But last month, the European Union accused Iran of having documents that show how to make nuclear warheads, and joined the U.S. in warning Tehran that it could face referral to the United Nations Security Council for possible sanctions. The head of the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency reinforced concerns when he told he British newspaper The Independent last week that if Iran's Natanz enrichment plant becomes fully operational, the Iranians could be few months away from a nuclear weapon. "If they start enriching this is a major issue and a serious concern for the international community," Mohamed ElBaradei told the newspaper. "I know they are trying to acquire the full fuel cycle. I know that acquiring the full fuel cycle means that a country is months away from nuclear weapons, and that applies to Iran and everybody else," he added. Iran's supreme ruler backs president over anti-Israel comments Iran's supreme ruler came out in support of his maligned president on Saturday, who created an international storm by demanding Israel be moved to Europe and casting doubt on whether the Holocaust happened. "The unusual sensitivity of Zionists and their American supporters toward Iran's stance over the Zionist state reveals their increased weakness and fear about the level of attention given by Islamic nations to the Palestinian issue," state-run Iranian radio quoted Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as saying. Khamenei did not refer specifically to Ahmadinejad's remarks made Thursday in Saudi Arabia on the sidelines of a Saudi Arabian summit of more than 50 Islamic nations, convened to show a Muslim front against terrorism. Khamenei has ultimate say on all issues in Iran and backed similar controversial remarks made in October by Ahmadinejad, who said Israel should be "wiped off the map." -------- korea Nuclear differences overshadow inter-Korean talks By Jon Herskovitz Mon Dec 12, 2005 4:09 AM ET (Reuters) http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051212/wl_nm/korea_north_ministers_dc_2 SEOUL - North and South Korea hold ministerial talks this week on improving cooperation, but a row in separate multinational discussions on ending Pyongyang's nuclear weapons programmes could overshadow the meeting. Ties between North and South Korea have warmed in recent months and past ministerial meetings have produced agreements covering economic assistance, mining and humanitarian cooperation. This round of talks, from Tuesday to Friday on the South Korean resort island of Cheju, would focus on finishing a rail link and increasing confidence-building measures between the two armies, South Korea's unification minister has said. Last week, Chung Dong-young told reporters he would also try to bring up the nuclear crisis as well as the issue of South Korean prisoners of war and abductees still in the North. At a previous meeting in September, North Korea said it was willing to discuss the cases of thousands of South Koreans either taken prisoner during the 1950-1953 Korean War or believed to have been abducted by the North. Since then, inter-Korean cooperation has remained broadly on track, but North Korea's relations with the United States have soured further. Washington said it suspects North Korea of being involved in counterfeiting, money laundering and the drug trade, which it says have helped Pyongyang fund its nuclear weapons programmes. Pyongyang responded by saying a U.S. crackdown on its financial assets made it impossible to resume six-country talks on dismantling the North's nuclear weapons programmes. The U.S. State Department and South Korea's Foreign Ministry have said the crackdown on North Korean finances is a legal matter separate from the six-party talks. POSTPONEMENT LOOMS The next round of nuclear talks among the two Koreas, China, Japan, Russia and the United States had been expected to be held in January. "Postponing the next round is inevitable in light of North Korea's strong position about financial sanctions," said Kim Sung-han, head of North America studies at Seoul's Institute of Foreign Affairs and National Security. Kim said he was curious to see how North Korea would approach the ministerial talks on Cheju to see if it would try to form a united front with the South on economic sanctions. Diplomats say the Unification Ministry, which is conducting the talks, has taken a softer line with the North than the Foreign Ministry in some cases. "North Korea's typical habit is driving a wedge between Seoul and Washington," Kim said. North Korea was likely to cool down on the financial sanctions eventually and thus put the six-party talks back on track, he added. South Korea had proposed an informal meeting on Cheju this month in advance of the next nuclear talks, but admitted on Monday there was little chance of them being held. "It seems virtually impossible to hold informal six-way talks on Cheju this month, which we had been pushing," Yonhap news agency quoted Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon as telling South Korean reporters in Malaysia, where he was attending a regional meeting. The United States had proposed December 19 for the informal talks, Japan's Kyodo news agency said last week, citing comments made by a leading Japanese politician after a meeting in Washington with the State Department's head of Korean affairs. (With additional reporting by Lee Jin-joo) -------- space PLUTONIUM LAUNCH ACCIDENT COULD HAVE GLOBAL IMPLICATIONS By Karl Grossman, 12 December 2005 Global Network http://www.space4peace.org/articles/pluto-kuiper/global_implications.htm NASA is again threatening the lives of people on Earth. On January 11, the window opens for a launch from Cape Canaveral of a rocket lofting a space probe with 24 pounds of plutonium fuel on board. Plutonium is considered the most deadly radioactive substance. Once it separates from the rocket, the probe, on what NASA calls its New Horizons mission, would move through space powered by conventional chemical fuel. The plutonium is in a Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (RTG) that is to provide on-board electricity for the probe’s instruments—a mere 180 watts when it gets to its destination of Pluto. Until after the probe leaves the rocket and breaks from the Earth’s gravitational pull, the plutonium endangers life on Earth. Because a fatal dose of plutonium is just a millionth of a gram, anyone breathing just the tiniest particle of plutonium dispersed in an accident could die. NASA has divided the sequence into four phases before what it calls “escape” of the probe from the Earth’s gravity. It is most concerned about the launch phase. NASA’s Final Environmental Impact Statement for the New Horizons Mission (EIS) says there is “about 6 percent probability” of an accident during launch. If plutonium is released in a launch accident—and NASA says there is a 1-in-620 chance of that—it could spread far and wide. Some could drift up to 62 miles from the launch site at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, says the EIS. And “a portion” of the plutonium could go well beyond that, says NASA, and “two-thirds of the estimated radiological consequences would occur within the global population.” That’s because “fine particles less than a micron in diameter” of the plutonium “could be transported beyond 62 miles and become well mixed in the troposphere, and have been assumed to potentially affect persons living within a latitude band from approximately 20-degrees North to 30-degrees North,” says NASA. The troposphere is the atmosphere five to nine miles overhead. The 20- to 30-degree band goes through parts of the Caribbean, across North Africa and the Mideast and then India and China and Hawaii and other Pacific Islands and then Mexico and southern Texas. But life elsewhere on Earth could be impacted if the plutonium-fueled probe falls back to Earth before its “escape” and flight on to Pluto. NASA says the “probability of an accident” releasing plutonium “for the overall mission is estimated to be approximately 1 in 300.” An “enormous disaster” could result with the spread of the plutonium, says Dr. Ernest Sternglass, professor emeritus of radiological physics at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. The issue is how much plutonium is released in respirable particles, he explains. “The problem is it takes so little plutonium,” says Dr. Sternglass. The NASA EIS acknowledges that in the event of plutonium release “costs may include: temporary or longer term relocation of residents; temporary or longer term loss of employment; destruction or quarantine of agricultural products…land use restrictions which could affect real estate values, tourism and recreational activities; restrictions or bans on commercial fishing; and public health effects and medical care.” The EIS says the cost to decontaminate land on which the plutonium falls would range from “about $241 million to $1.3 billion per square mile.” But, it notes, compensation would be subject to the Price-Anderson Act, a U.S. law first enacted in 1957. It sets a cap on how much people can collect for property damage, illnesses and death resulting from a “nuclear incident.” Under the Energy Bill passed this year, the cap in the United States was increased to $10 billion. But the cap for damage from a “nuclear incident occurring outside the United States shall not exceed $100 million,” the law stipulates. This is the limit in the original Price-Anderson Act. It has never been raised. And it is in violation of the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, the basic international law on space—which the U.S. has signed and was central in drafting—which declares that “states shall be liable for damage caused by their space objects.” Demanding that the New Horizons mission be cancelled is the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space (www.space4peace.org). Bruce Gagnon, its coordinator, says “one thing we know is that space technology can and does fail and when you mix deadly plutonium into the equation, you are asking for catastrophe.” NASA, he charges, is “playing nuclear Russian roulette with the public.” Indeed, NASA is planning a series of additional launches of plutonium-fueled space probes and other shots involving nuclear material. And under its $3 billion Project Prometheus program, the agency is working on nuclear reactors to be carried up by rockets for placement on the moon and the building and launching of actual atomic-propelled rockets. Disaster may or may not strike on the New Horizons mission but if these nuclear missions are allowed to proceeded, some will inevitably result in accidents dispersing radioactive material. Indeed, accidents have already happened in the U.S. space nuclear program. Of the 25 U.S. space missions using plutonium fuel, three have undergone accidents, admits the NASA EIS on New Horizons. That’s a 1-in-8 record. The worst occurred in 1964 and involved, notes the EIS, the SNAP-9A RTG with 2.1 pounds of plutonium fuel. It was to provide electricity to a satellite that failed to achieve orbit and dropped to Earth. The RTG disintegrated in the fall, spreading plutonium widely. Release of that plutonium caused an increase in global lung cancer rates, says Dr. John Gofman, professor emeritus of medical physics at the University of California at Berkeley. After the SNAP-9A accident, NASA pioneered the development of solar energy in space. Now all satellites—and the International Space Station—are solar-powered. But NASA keeps insisting on plutonium power for space probes—even as the Rosetta space probe, launched this year by NASA’s counterpart, the European Space Agency, with solar power providing all on-board electricity, now heads for a rendezvous with a comet near Jupiter. Along with the U.S. military, which for decades has been planning for the deployment of nuclear-energized weapons in space, NASA seeks wider uses of atomic power above our heads. In its New Horizons EIS, NASA maintains the risks to people from the mission are not so bad in view of a chart it presents titled “Calculated Individual Risk and Probability of Fatality by Various Causes in the United States.” The chart lists the probability of getting killed by lightning or in a flood or by a tornado as higher than someone dying of cancer because of plutonium dispersed in New Horizons. Of course, we can’t control lightning or floods or tornadoes. These are involuntary assaults. NASA’s space nuclear gamble using tax dollars (the cost of New Horizons: $650 million) is being carried out by choice. An additional wrinkle: the Boeing machinists who were to install the New Horizons probe on the Atlas rocket that is to carry it up are on strike—and warning that the company’s bringing in of replacement workers poses a safety risk. Because of the strike, other NASA missions at Cape Canaveral have been grounded. But NASA is continuing with the New Horizons launch. “If it’s not safe to work on all the other projects with replacement workers, it’s irresponsible to continue with New Horizons,” says Robert Wood, a spokesperson for the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. Gagnon says his organization is “building opposition to New Horizons and all missions that launch nuclear power in space. The public needs to know more about this issue and we need the grassroots to pressure Congress and NASA and others responsible. We say that NASA should be developing alternative, non-nuclear power sources for space travel.” Paul Gunter of the Washington, D.C.-based Nuclear Information and Resource Services comments: “The fact that both the planet Pluto and the manmade isotope plutonium are named after the god of hell lends bizarre insight into NASA’s fascination with launching this hideous stuff into the heavens at the risk of fouling the very nest of all humankind.” New Horizons and the rest of NASA’s deadly-dangerous nuclear space operations must be stopped. If space is to be explored, let that be done safely. To destroy a portion of life on Earth to explore space makes no sense. Karl Grossman, professor of journalism at the State University of New York/College at Old Westbury, is the author of The Wrong Stuff: The Space Program’s Nuclear Threat To Our Planet (Common Courage Press) and wrote and narrates the TV documentary Nukes In Space: The Nuclearization and Weaponization of the Heavens (EnviroVideo, http://www.envirovideo.com). Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space PO Box 652 Brunswick, ME 04011 (207) 729-0517 globalnet@mindspring.com http://www.space4peace.org http://space4peace.blogspot.com (Our blog) -------- ukraine Chernobyl zone to be revived 12 December 2005 ForUm http://eng.for-ua.com/news/2005/12/12/183729.html President of Ukraine Victor Yushchenko assigned members of the Organization Committee on the Twentieth Anniversary of the Chornobyl Accident, which is headed by Deputy Prime Minister Stanislav Stashevsky, to meet this week. The President believes it is important to draw people’s attention to problems of the Chornobyl zone and to formulate a complex plan of its re-cultivation. He criticized former governments for their indifference to the Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant. “There is still no complex plan to solve problems of the Chornobyl zone. We remember about it once a year – on April 26. But that does not help us solve social problems of Slavutych, aid more than three hundred self-settlers, or cope with the problem of re-cultivation,” he stressed. Yushchenko thinks all state officials should formulate common approaches to the solution of these problems. He said this was one of the key subjects at a recent meeting of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine. The Head of State added that he was grateful to the Verkhovna Rada for its resolution to hold special hearings on Chornobyl problems on December 13. “There is no need to pretend that there is no zone. This only conserves all problems,” he stressed, adding that we should “revive the zone where it is possible.” The President noted that there was no official plan to rationally use the zone. “Our incomprehension of what to do with the zone creates new problems,” he opined. Yushchenko thinks the plan to solve Chornobyl problems should include “unique moves” and first of all concern social and economic issues. To attract our attention to these problems, the President made several statements while visiting the Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant last week. The Head of State said we should construct a modern and environmentally safe plant in the Chornobyl zone to store and process nuclear waste from Ukraine’s nuclear power plants. He reiterated that we annually paid USD 60-80 mln to Russia for storing our waste, which should still be returned to Ukraine according to international rules, Ukrainian laws, and interstate Russian-Ukrainian agreements. Yushchenko said the plant would not only save budget money but would also help create jobs for the people residing in the zone. He added, however, that this issue should be first thoroughly studied by experts and scientists and publicly debated. The construction should also be consistent with current Ukrainian laws. Yushchenko noted that we needed investments to re-cultivate the Chornobyl zone or to complete the construction of the Shelter over the fourth unit. Investors will be interested, he said, when there is a detailed and economically reasoned development project. The President urged the government to closely cooperate with the Verkhovna Rada and its committees, explaining their decisions to the community and constantly communicating with environmental organizations. ---- Yushchenko proposes Chernobyl waste site 12/12/2005 (UPI) http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20051212-101008-5776r KIEV, Ukraine, Dec. 12 -- Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko has proposed building a nuclear waste disposal plant near the site of the world's worst nuclear accident. Speaking at a session of the organizing committee established to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, Yushchenko said the construction of a plant to process and dispose waste from Ukrainian nuclear power plants could help revive the area, Novosti reported. "We should not only attract the world's attention to the problems of the Chernobyl area, but also draft a complex plan of its restoration," he said. Ukraine annually paid $60-80 million to Russia for disposing of its nuclear waste. -------- u.n. ElBaradei issues nuclear warning By Walter Gibbs in Oslo December 12, 2005 Sydney Morning Herald http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/elbaradei-issues-nuclear-warning/2005/12/11/1134235945976.html THE world should stop treating the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea as isolated cases and instead deal with them in a common effort to eliminate poverty, organised crime and armed conflict, the director-general of the United Nations' nuclear monitoring agency said in accepting the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize. Mohamed ElBaradei said a "good start" would be for the US and other nuclear powers to cut nuclear weapon stockpiles sharply and redirect spending towards international development. "More than 15 years after the end of the Cold War, it is incomprehensible to many that the major nuclear weapon states operate with their arsenals on hair-trigger alert," Dr ElBaradei, 63, said on Saturday. Despite some disarmament, the existence of 27,000 nuclear warheads in various hands around the world still hold the prospect of "the devastation of entire nations in a matter of minutes", he said. Feelings of insecurity and humiliation, exaggerated by the nuclear imbalance, are behind the spread of bomb-development programs at the national level, said Dr ElBaradei, who has headed the International Atomic Energy Agency since 1997. No less dangerous, he added, are the presumed efforts of extremist groups to acquire nuclear materials. "We cannot respond to these threats by building more walls, developing bigger weapons or dispatching more troops. These threats require primarily multinational co-operation." The Norwegian Nobel Committee divided the 2005 award between Dr ElBaradei and the agency as a whole. They will split this year's prize money of 10 million Swedish kronor ($1.7 million) and have promised their shares to charitable causes. Also at the Oslo ceremony, to receive their prize for medicine, were the Australian scientists Barry Marshall and Robin Warren from the University of Western Australia. Professor Marshall became one of the most memorable Nobel prize winners for his experiment to prove his theory that a bacterium caused stomach ulcers rather than stress. He downed a brew that contained the Helicobacter pylori bacterium that he and Dr Warren were sure caused stomach ulcers. The New York Times, Reuters -------- u.s. nuc facilities -------- new york Newest test well at nuclear site shows much higher contamination December 12, 2005 Associated Press http://www.wstm.com/Global/story.asp?S=4195928 WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. Officials say the water in a new well near the spent-fuel pool at the Indian Point 2 nuclear power plant is contaminated with radioactive tritium at a level 30 times higher than the federal standard for drinking water. The well was drilled by Entergy Nuclear Northeast, owner of the plant in Buchanan, as part of an attempt to find the source of a small leak from the 40-foot-deep pool, which holds the highly radioactive fuel assemblies that have been used in the nuclear reactor. The leak was discovered in August when moisture was spotted on the outside wall of the pool, beneath ground level, during an adjacent excavation. Large amounts of tritium can damage internal organs. Critics have expressed fears that it could eventually work its way into drinking water supplies or into the nearby Hudson River. The wells are dug only for sampling the ground water and are not drinking water sources. Entergy plans to dig eight more wells to try to map the underground flow of contaminated water as well as to find the leak. -------- utah Support for Utah nuke site wanes By Benjamin Grove Las Vegas Sun Washington Bureau December 12, 2005 http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/bw-other/2005/dec/12/519806252.html For weeks speculation has swirled around the comprehensive new national nuclear waste policy being drafted by the Energy Department, and for now, kept under wraps. But nuclear power companies seem to know all about it -- enough at least, to know that they won't be needing that proposed temporary nuclear waste dump site in Utah, after all. Seven nuclear companies have been investing in the Utah site for years, saying they need a place to dump their waste until the long-delayed, permanent repository at Yucca Mountain is built. But last week, two of the seven utilities unexpectedly withdrew their support for the Utah site. Southern Co. pulled out entirely; Minneapolis-based Xcel Energy, a one-third partner in the project, froze any future investment. Why the sudden change of heart? The two companies have had extensive meetings with Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who opposes the Utah dump, it was revealed in a letter from Xcel to Hatch last week. But it's not clear what Hatch -- or perhaps, the Energy Department -- has been telling the company to convince it to drop its support for the Utah site. In the letter to Hatch, Xcel President Richard Kelly said the company was "encouraged" by the Energy Department's new plan to use a new waste container system that "will simplify the design of Yucca and should accelerate the process for acceptance and removal of used fuel from Minnesota." The letter also embraces the Energy Department's secretive new plan, calling it legislation that would promote a "new initiative to begin moving waste early in the next decade." "We are also pleased to note that Congress seems well disposed to quickly consider such legislation upon introduction," Kelly wrote. Support in Congress? For a plan that hasn't been made public yet? That's not a surprise, Nevada Nuclear Projects Agency Director Bob Loux said. The department won't unveil its plan until it is sure it has solid support in the House and Senate, Loux said. The Xcel letter concludes with the company's promise to Hatch to maintain its investment freeze in the Utah site as long as there is progress on the other waste initiatives under discussion, including waste recycling and, notably, "federally sponsored interim storage." In other words, people in high places have given reasonable assurance to Xcel that the company doesn't need to pay for the Goshute site because the government is pursuing a temporary federal dump site. Where? At Yucca? Or some other site or sites? The Energy Department won't say -- not publicly at least. Benjamin Grove can be reached at (202) 662-7436 or at grove@lasvegassun.com. -------- MILITARY -------- iraq Daniel Ellsberg on Exiting Iraq The man who released the Pentagon Papers talks about the quagmire and why the Bush Administration won’t withdraw our troops from Iraq. By Brad Kennedy Monday, December 12, 2005 Intervention Magazine http://interventionmag.com/Primary/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=67 Two obstacles stand in the way of the prompt and safe return of U.S. troops from Iraq, according to Daniel Ellsberg. First, a real “mission accomplished” is unlikely any time soon. Second, President Bush doesn’t want their prompt return. Ellsberg disavows claim to expertise in Mid-Eastern affairs, but without question he has deep experience with wars of insurgency and with embattled American presidents. He incurred the ire of President Richard Nixon by making public the Department of Defense’s secret history of the Vietnam War, commonly known as the Pentagon Papers, which he helped compile. His firsthand knowledge of our Vietnam policy serves as his prism for viewing our involvement in Iraq, and it reveals disturbing parallels. Ellsberg aired his views publicly several times in New Jersey, starting November 12, 2005 at a fund-raiser for New Jersey Peace Action and later at local colleges, and he sat for a 90-minute interview to round out his views for this article. His appearances are part of the promotion of his personal account, Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers (New York: Penguin Books, 2003). The Fatal Flaw In Ellsberg’s view, the fatal flaw of the 2003 invasion of Iraq has always been that it made the U.S. an occupying power vulnerable to a war of insurgency. He’s hardly out of step when he asserts this. Military chroniclers since Julius Caesar have bemoaned the risks and hardships of occupation. Avoiding these very perils governed US policy during the first Gulf War, recalls General Brent Scowcroft. The president’s National Security Advisor at that time, Scowcroft said in a recent New Yorker interview that President Bush senior had no trouble grasping the risks of extending the war to Baghdad. Since World War II only one outside power, the British in Malaysia, has fought a successful counter-insurgency war. Whatever magic Sir Robert Thompson, the mastermind of that British effort, may have possessed failed to rub off on the U.S. effort in Vietnam during his separate stints advising both Presidents Kennedy and Nixon. Ellsberg spent two years -- from 1965 to 1967 -- working for the State Department evaluating the U.S. pacification program in Vietnam, where he saw firsthand how being an occupier worked against the American efforts. Ellsberg explains that an occupier is seen as a foreigner, an invader, an outsider. Nobody likes an outsider telling them what to do. Nobody trusts an outsider to keep inside interests ahead of outside interests. When forced to choose between a fellow native or an outsider, most natives will choose another native. This closing of local ranks makes it near impossible to get advance intelligence of an ambush or Improvised Explosive Device (I.E.D.) attack. “A lot of Americans lost their lives in Vietnam from American shells that didn’t go off when they hit the ground but were later command-detonated by the VC,” says Ellsberg. “And the French laid their earlier loss in Vietnam to ‘the ambush problem.’ ” A Direct Backlash The same suspicions and resentments against outsiders also make it difficult for outsiders to broker negotiations between competing Iraqi factions as part of rallying support for a coalition government, Ellsberg says. U.S. troop support determines who is the dominant faction and enables it to avoid negotiating necessary workable compromises. This leads the other factions to see U.S. presence as an obstacle to workable peace. “The major Sunni violence is because we are there,” says Ellsberg. In other words, it is a direct backlash to our presence. But such a backlash also provides protective cover for those seeking to hijack any groups of true nationalistic resistance, be they hijackers communists as in Vietnam or Wahhabi extremists as in Iraq. These problems are inherent to any strategy of occupation, Ellsberg feels, and will lead to self-perpetuation of the occupation. That measured against the vast cost of the occupation to both Iraqis and Americans has led him to call for a shift in policy -- the immediate withdrawal of American troops on a fixed timetable. Ellsberg readily acknowledges American troop withdrawal to be a painful solution but he says there are no good solutions. Great pain may accompany U.S. withdrawal, but that pain largely will be the inevitable consequence of the improper strategy of occupation at the outset, just as is the pain suffered on a daily basis in Iraq now. Withdrawal is the solution, not the problem. It is the only solution because “there isn’t going to be any improvement if the U.S. stays in Iraq.” As both a participant in and a careful student of the Vietnam War, Ellsberg is no stranger to such pain. He understands the hardships and sacrifices American troops suffer every day trying to improve the lives of Iraqis and to make the world safer. He saw plenty of the same in Vietnam. He also saw what happens when you refuse to face the realities of the battlefield and execute a disorderly withdrawal, such as the pandemonium engulfing the evacuation of the American embassy in Saigon in 1975. “That was a horrible way to leave and disgraceful. The idea that we would abandon our friends, the Vietnamese who worked with us, is dishonorable. I have personal friends who were left there, one of whom I’ll be seeing soon. As late as March '75, the U.S. could have arranged for an orderly departure, taking with us the Vietnamese who had worked closely with us that wanted to leave. The problem was Ambassador Graham Martin denied the gravity of the situation and so those steps weren’t taken.” Getting Out “If we will not make things better by staying,” Ellsberg says, we must “set a definite timetable for getting out, three or six months and we’re totally out. I would make averting civil war a secondary objective, but to think that can be done only by an American occupation is hogwash. We should get out of Iraq the way Gorbachev got out of Afghanistan, the way De Gaulle got out of Algeria, and the way Mendes-France got the French out of Indochina. Getting out doesn’t mean we don’t use diplomacy to try and moderate the situation and that we don’t contribute to the rebuilding of Iraq. Contributing $150 billion for rebuilding Iraq would be far cheaper than where we are headed now.” The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the U.S. costs of war in Iraq at current rates will pile up fast enough to reach $600 billion by the year 2010, according to the Christian Science Monitor. Once again, Ellsberg appears less out of step than out front by advocating withdrawal of the 160,000 U.S. troops in Iraq as the December elections approach there. Clearly, there is no more “cut and run” in Ellsberg, a former Marine officer, than there is in John Murtha, a decorated Vietnam vet who retired as a colonel in the Marine Reserves. The ranking Democrat on the House Defense Appropriations Sub-committee, Murtha called on the floor of Congress on November 17th for an immediate redeployment of U.S. forces in Iraq and cited a British poll that 80% of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of coalition forces and about 45% believe attacks against American troops are justified. He went on to report that General George W. Casey, Jr., Multinational Force-Iraq Commander, said at a September 2005 House committee hearing that the perception of occupation in Iraq is a major driving force behind the insurgency. Murtha also cited General John Abizaid, Commander, U.S. Central Command, as stating in the same hearing that reducing the visibility of the coalition forces in Iraq is a part of our counterinsurgency strategy.” At the Iraqi reconciliation conference on November 21st in Cairo, sponsored by the Arab League, the Iraqi factions memorialized the one point upon which they could agree: “a withdrawal of foreign troops on a specified timetable, dependent on an immediate national program for rebuilding the security forces.” So, the Army, the Iraqis, Ellsberg, and Murtha agree that withdrawal of some sort is necessary, with the latter two holding that withdrawal should be immediate and independent of events controlled by the Iraqis. Why Bush Won’t Budge Where Ellsberg stands apart is by asserting that President Bush and his advisors are the obstacle to a timely, safe return of U.S. troops. “The problem is that the President wants to stay. You have to want to get out, and he’s not remotely interested in hearing about it.” When and how the President wants to get out of Iraq has to do with why he went in. But that isn’t so easy to figure given the failure to find WMDs, the failure to provide border security, basic services, and economic renewal, and the failure to free the Iraqi people from a life of terror. The President’s strategy document released November 30th reads like his letter to Santa in that it wishes for the best of everything without concern for what it costs others. Nonetheless, it does make plain his intention to stay in Iraq until all good things come to pass, short of hell freezing over. Thus, it vindicates Ellsberg from any charge of overstatement. The President does want to stay. It may be tempting to think that President Bush is ashamed to admit a mistake. The Bush policy ignored each one of the lessons canonized as the Weinberger-Powell Doctrine by the Reagan Administration, and the American nation is paying dearly for it, none more so than the military -- except for the Iraqis. Perhaps the greatest of his mistakes was the President’s embarkation for Iraq without the enlightened consent of the American people. How could the people’s consent be enlightened if they were misled? Forget the cherry-picking of intelligence regarding the WMD’s for now because, whether it was honest error or deceit, it was never central to why Bush has insisted on a US force in Iraq. The White House’s Iraq Group, the “cabal” headed by the Vice-President that pushed for war, asserted that taking down Saddam was a key to effectively fighting the War on Terror. To make that case, it invoked the WMD threat and vastly exaggerated the tenuous connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam, even going so far as to imply Saddam played a vital role in 9/11. The Bush Administration won a lot of support on that basis, but as the facts emerged that support has slipped away. Like the WMD’s, though, the allegations against Saddam -- true or false -- never were central to Bush’s doctrinaire belief that Iraq was a key to fighting global terrorism. The White House Iraq Group’s doctrine, in a nutshell, has ample evidence that the Saudis, including the royal family, are up to their eyeballs in financing Wahhabi extremism, and this includes Al Qaeda. The royal family has financed terrorist operations for years, both directly and indirectly, particularly through their funding of the madrassas, the local Islamic schools that recruit for the terror organizations. The royals do so, at least in part, to buy protection from Al Qaeda attacks, who have it in for the Saudi government, because they have allowed American troops to garrison on Saudi soil since the first Gulf war. On the third anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, the Port of NY and NJ Authority, a US government agency, joined a $7 billion lawsuit started by Cantor Fitzgerald investment group, which sued the Saudi government and many Saudi corporations for funding Al Qaeda. A group of 9/11 families has upped the ante to $116 trillion in its own suit, naming also the Saudi Bin Laden Construction Co. and The Sudan, according to the CNN.com Law Center, an online journalistic library of high profile law cases. The Saudi Solution Effective prosecution of the War on Terror must include taking a hard line against the Saudis, the neo-con doctrine goes, but no U.S. executive branch has felt it could without jeopardizing the US’s lifeline to a stable national oil supply. The neo-cons believe that sponsoring a client state in oil-rich Iraq will guarantee the U.S. stable oil imports enabling it to deal from strength when confronting Saudi Arabia about terror and the need for continuity of Saudi oil flow to the US at a time of increasing world demand. This strategy has been stated and written about many times, including in the Weekly Standard and in Commentary. Thomas E. Ricks summarized this view in his August 6, 2002 Washington Post report on a July 10th briefing of the Defense Policy Board by Laurent Murawiec, a Rand Corporation analyst. Another Rand Corporation analyst -- a former one -- Daniel Ellsberg, summed up where he thought this would lead: “We are going to be in Iraq far longer than we were in Vietnam, because there was no oil in Vietnam.” Not that this is just about oil; it is about anti-terrorism, too. The essence of the Bush policy is a meld of plentiful oil and anti-terrorism. Right or wrong, the White House Iraq Group believes we cannot confront the bankers of Bin Laden, because they are also our local filling station. We will only be free to stand up to the Saudis when we are less dependent on their gas pumps. This must have put the Bush family’s personal relationship with the royal Saudi family to the test. There is a larger problem, though. The pipeline Iraq can offer the U.S. will be secure only as long as it is secured, and that means US military bases, perhaps “over-the horizon,” as Murtha suggests, but bases for the foreseeable future nonetheless. Ellsberg could be sure of the White House’s intent to stay because these bases are well under construction. Author Chalmers Johnson was once a CIA analyst; Director Richard Helms recruited him for his expertise in peasant nationalism and revolutionary war. Johnson lists five military bases being constructed apparently for the long haul: • a part of Baghdad International Airport • Tallil air base to the south • one on the western frontier with Syria • Bashur air field to the north • the Anaconda operating base currently in use These should be seen, Johnson says, in conjunction with the “1,600 square miles out of Kuwait's 6,900 square miles” the U.S. plans to keep “that we now use to resupply our Iraq legions and as a place for Green Zone bureaucrats to relax.” A Matter of Means The strategy of permanent or enduring bases, for all its tactical advantages, is but a variant of occupation, subject to the various hazards and risks intrinsic to occupation. As time passes and construction on these bases progresses, the intent of the US will be less a matter of words and more a matter of fact verifiable by the Islamic eye. About the same time the U.S. mission in Iraq will emerge from the shadows into the light of day and the American people will have a fundamental choice to make. Americans will finally see that choice as not about the ends or purposes of the Iraq mission, but about the means used to achieve them. Everyone can applaud plentiful oil and effective anti-terrorism, but it is the means that will determine if the US achieves those goals and at what cost. Chalmers Johnson, now retired from his endowed chairs at the University of California, is best known to the reading public for his book Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire (New York: Henry Holt, 2000), which after 9/11 became an unexpected bestseller reprinted eight times in less than two months. In his new introduction for the post-9/11 world, Johnson explains that “blowback” is a CIA term for the unintended consequences of covert operations, first appearing in print in an after-action report on the CIA’s secret overthrow of the Iranian government of Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953. Veterans of close-quarter combat may recognize this as a metaphoric extension of the term sometimes used to describe the unexpected dose of blood sprayed in their faces when they had to shoot someone in the head at too close range. And that’s exactly what happened to America on 9/11, according to Johnson. Johnson goes on to detail the sordid tale of America’s role in provoking the Soviet attack on Afghanistan, the CIA’s recruitment, training and arming of Osama Bin Laden and his mujahedeen during the Afghan resistance there, and its ultimate abandonment of Bin Laden after the Soviet Union collapsed. An angry Bin Laden made his way home to Saudi Arabia where he was outraged to find the American infidel ensconced on his doorstep. Thus did Bin Laden decide to use what the US had taught him, this time to counter US foreign policy. All that is in the past now. But what unintended consequences will America’s future actions bring? It is the future about which Daniel Ellsberg worries. “I’m afraid we are looking at a widening of the war right now to Iran and Syria.” Actions have consequences. Sometimes the consequences are unintended. Sometimes even the actions are unintended. Either way Americans at home may live or die by those consequences as they did on 9/11 and as American soldiers now do every day in faraway lands. Brad Kennedy is the author of the forthcoming novel BLOOD AND COUNTRY: A Soldier’s Call, based on his service with the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment in Vietnam in 1966-67. He can be reached at: RBradKennedy@Optonline.Net -------- ACTIVISTS Harold Pinter Nobel Lecture: Art, Truth & Politics Monday, 12 December 2005, 12:01 pm Opinion: Guest Opinion Harold Pinter – Nobel Lecture http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0512/S00142.htm From: http://nobelprize.org/literature/laureates/2005/pinter-lecture-e.html In 1958 I wrote the following: 'There are no hard distinctions between what is real and what is unreal, nor between what is true and what is false. A thing is not necessarily either true or false; it can be both true and false.' I believe that these assertions still make sense and do still apply to the exploration of reality through art. So as a writer I stand by them but as a citizen I cannot. As a citizen I must ask: What is true? What is false? Truth in drama is forever elusive. You never quite find it but the search for it is compulsive. The search is clearly what drives the endeavour. The search is your task. More often than not you stumble upon the truth in the dark, colliding with it or just glimpsing an image or a shape which seems to correspond to the truth, often without realising that you have done so. But the real truth is that there never is any such thing as one truth to be found in dramatic art. There are many. These truths challenge each other, recoil from each other, reflect each other, ignore each other, tease each other, are blind to each other. Sometimes you feel you have the truth of a moment in your hand, then it slips through your fingers and is lost. I have often been asked how my plays come about. I cannot say. Nor can I ever sum up my plays, except to say that this is what happened. That is what they said. That is what they did. Most of the plays are engendered by a line, a word or an image. The given word is often shortly followed by the image. I shall give two examples of two lines which came right out of the blue into my head, followed by an image, followed by me. The plays are The Homecoming and Old Times. The first line of The Homecoming is 'What have you done with the scissors?' The first line of Old Times is 'Dark.' In each case I had no further information. In the first case someone was obviously looking for a pair of scissors and was demanding their whereabouts of someone else he suspected had probably stolen them. But I somehow knew that the person addressed didn't give a damn about the scissors or about the questioner either, for that matter. 'Dark' I took to be a description of someone's hair, the hair of a woman, and was the answer to a question. In each case I found myself compelled to pursue the matter. This happened visually, a very slow fade, through shadow into light. I always start a play by calling the characters A, B and C. In the play that became The Homecoming I saw a man enter a stark room and ask his question of a younger man sitting on an ugly sofa reading a racing paper. I somehow suspected that A was a father and that B was his son, but I had no proof. This was however confirmed a short time later when B (later to become Lenny) says to A (later to become Max), 'Dad, do you mind if I change the subject? I want to ask you something. The dinner we had before, what was the name of it? What do you call it? Why don't you buy a dog? You're a dog cook. Honest. You think you're cooking for a lot of dogs.' So since B calls A 'Dad' it seemed to me reasonable to assume that they were father and son. A was also clearly the cook and his cooking did not seem to be held in high regard. Did this mean that there was no mother? I didn't know. But, as I told myself at the time, our beginnings never know our ends. 'Dark.' A large window. Evening sky. A man, A (later to become Deeley), and a woman, B (later to become Kate), sitting with drinks. 'Fat or thin?' the man asks. Who are they talking about? But I then see, standing at the window, a woman, C (later to become Anna), in another condition of light, her back to them, her hair dark. It's a strange moment, the moment of creating characters who up to that moment have had no existence. What follows is fitful, uncertain, even hallucinatory, although sometimes it can be an unstoppable avalanche. The author's position is an odd one. In a sense he is not welcomed by the characters. The characters resist him, they are not easy to live with, they are impossible to define. You certainly can't dictate to them. To a certain extent you play a never-ending game with them, cat and mouse, blind man's buff, hide and seek. But finally you find that you have people of flesh and blood on your hands, people with will and an individual sensibility of their own, made out of component parts you are unable to change, manipulate or distort. So language in art remains a highly ambiguous transaction, a quicksand, a trampoline, a frozen pool which might give way under you, the author, at any time. But as I have said, the search for the truth can never stop. It cannot be adjourned, it cannot be postponed. It has to be faced, right there, on the spot. Political theatre presents an entirely different set of problems. Sermonising has to be avoided at all cost. Objectivity is essential. The characters must be allowed to breathe their own air. The author cannot confine and constrict them to satisfy his own taste or disposition or prejudice. He must be prepared to approach them from a variety of angles, from a full and uninhibited range of perspectives, take them by surprise, perhaps, occasionally, but nevertheless give them the freedom to go which way they will. This does not always work. And political satire, of course, adheres to none of these precepts, in fact does precisely the opposite, which is its proper function. In my play The Birthday Party I think I allow a whole range of options to operate in a dense forest of possibility before finally focussing on an act of subjugation. Mountain Language pretends to no such range of operation. It remains brutal, short and ugly. But the soldiers in the play do get some fun out of it. One sometimes forgets that torturers become easily bored. They need a bit of a laugh to keep their spirits up. This has been confirmed of course by the events at Abu Ghraib in Baghdad. Mountain Language lasts only 20 minutes, but it could go on for hour after hour, on and on and on, the same pattern repeated over and over again, on and on, hour after hour. Ashes to Ashes, on the other hand, seems to me to be taking place under water. A drowning woman, her hand reaching up through the waves, dropping down out of sight, reaching for others, but finding nobody there, either above or under the water, finding only shadows, reflections, floating; the woman a lost figure in a drowning landscape, a woman unable to escape the doom that seemed to belong only to others. But as they died, she must die too. Political language, as used by politicians, does not venture into any of this territory since the majority of politicians, on the evidence available to us, are interested not in truth but in power and in the maintenance of that power. To maintain that power it is essential that people remain in ignorance, that they live in ignorance of the truth, even the truth of their own lives. What surrounds us therefore is a vast tapestry of lies, upon which we feed. As every single person here knows, the justification for the invasion of Iraq was that Saddam Hussein possessed a highly dangerous body of weapons of mass destruction, some of which could be fired in 45 minutes, bringing about appalling devastation. We were assured that was true. It was not true. We were told that Iraq had a relationship with Al Quaeda and shared responsibility for the atrocity in New York of September 11th 2001. We were assured that this was true. It was not true. We were told that Iraq threatened the security of the world. We were assured it was true. It was not true. The truth is something entirely different. The truth is to do with how the United States understands its role in the world and how it chooses to embody it. But before I come back to the present I would like to look at the recent past, by which I mean United States foreign policy since the end of the Second World War. I believe it is obligatory upon us to subject this period to at least some kind of even limited scrutiny, which is all that time will allow here. Everyone knows what happened in the Soviet Union and throughout Eastern Europe during the post-war period: the systematic brutality, the widespread atrocities, the ruthless suppression of independent thought. All this has been fully documented and verified. But my contention here is that the US crimes in the same period have only been superficially recorded, let alone documented, let alone acknowledged, let alone recognised as crimes at all. I believe this must be addressed and that the truth has considerable bearing on where the world stands now. Although constrained, to a certain extent, by the existence of the Soviet Union, the United States' actions throughout the world made it clear that it had concluded it had carte blanche to do what it liked. Direct invasion of a sovereign state has never in fact been America's favoured method. In the main, it has preferred what it has described as 'low intensity conflict'. Low intensity conflict means that thousands of people die but slower than if you dropped a bomb on them in one fell swoop. It means that you infect the heart of the country, that you establish a malignant growth and watch the gangrene bloom. When the populace has been subdued – or beaten to death – the same thing – and your own friends, the military and the great corporations, sit comfortably in power, you go before the camera and say that democracy has prevailed. This was a commonplace in US foreign policy in the years to which I refer. The tragedy of Nicaragua was a highly significant case. I choose to offer it here as a potent example of America's view of its role in the world, both then and now. I was present at a meeting at the US embassy in London in the late 1980s. The United States Congress was about to decide whether to give more money to the Contras in their campaign against the state of Nicaragua. I was a member of a delegation speaking on behalf of Nicaragua but the most important member of this delegation was a Father John Metcalf. The leader of the US body was Raymond Seitz (then number two to the ambassador, later ambassador himself). Father Metcalf said: 'Sir, I am in charge of a parish in the north of Nicaragua. My parishioners built a school, a health centre, a cultural centre. We have lived in peace. A few months ago a Contra force attacked the parish. They destroyed everything: the school, the health centre, the cultural centre. They raped nurses and teachers, slaughtered doctors, in the most brutal manner. They behaved like savages. Please demand that the US government withdraw its support from this shocking terrorist activity.' Raymond Seitz had a very good reputation as a rational, responsible and highly sophisticated man. He was greatly respected in diplomatic circles. He listened, paused and then spoke with some gravity. 'Father,' he said, 'let me tell you something. In war, innocent people always suffer.' There was a frozen silence. We stared at him. He did not flinch. Innocent people, indeed, always suffer. Finally somebody said: 'But in this case “innocent people” were the victims of a gruesome atrocity subsidised by your government, one among many. If Congress allows the Contras more money further atrocities of this kind will take place. Is this not the case? Is your government not therefore guilty of supporting acts of murder and destruction upon the citizens of a sovereign state?' Seitz was imperturbable. 'I don't agree that the facts as presented support your assertions,' he said. As we were leaving the Embassy a US aide told me that he enjoyed my plays. I did not reply. I should remind you that at the time President Reagan made the following statement: 'The Contras are the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers.' The United States supported the brutal Somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua for over 40 years. The Nicaraguan people, led by the Sandinistas, overthrew this regime in 1979, a breathtaking popular revolution. The Sandinistas weren't perfect. They possessed their fair share of arrogance and their political philosophy contained a number of contradictory elements. But they were intelligent, rational and civilised. They set out to establish a stable, decent, pluralistic society. The death penalty was abolished. Hundreds of thousands of poverty-stricken peasants were brought back from the dead. Over 100,000 families were given title to land. Two thousand schools were built. A quite remarkable literacy campaign reduced illiteracy in the country to less than one seventh. Free education was established and a free health service. Infant mortality was reduced by a third. Polio was eradicated. The United States denounced these achievements as Marxist/Leninist subversion. In the view of the US government, a dangerous example was being set. If Nicaragua was allowed to establish basic norms of social and economic justice, if it was allowed to raise the standards of health care and education and achieve social unity and national self respect, neighbouring countries would ask the same questions and do the same things. There was of course at the time fierce resistance to the status quo in El Salvador. I spoke earlier about 'a tapestry of lies' which surrounds us. President Reagan commonly described Nicaragua as a 'totalitarian dungeon'. This was taken generally by the media, and certainly by the British government, as accurate and fair comment. But there was in fact no record of death squads under the Sandinista government. There was no record of torture. There was no record of systematic or official military brutality. No priests were ever murdered in Nicaragua. There were in fact three priests in the government, two Jesuits and a Maryknoll missionary. The totalitarian dungeons were actually next door, in El Salvador and Guatemala. The United States had brought down the democratically elected government of Guatemala in 1954 and it is estimated that over 200,000 people had been victims of successive military dictatorships. Six of the most distinguished Jesuits in the world were viciously murdered at the Central American University in San Salvador in 1989 by a battalion of the Alcatl regiment trained at Fort Benning, Georgia, USA. That extremely brave man Archbishop Romero was assassinated while saying mass. It is estimated that 75,000 people died. Why were they killed? They were killed because they believed a better life was possible and should be achieved. That belief immediately qualified them as communists. They died because they dared to question the status quo, the endless plateau of poverty, disease, degradation and oppression, which had been their birthright. The United States finally brought down the Sandinista government. It took some years and considerable resistance but relentless economic persecution and 30,000 dead finally undermined the spirit of the Nicaraguan people. They were exhausted and poverty stricken once again. The casinos moved back into the country. Free health and free education were over. Big business returned with a vengeance. 'Democracy' had prevailed. But this 'policy' was by no means restricted to Central America. It was conducted throughout the world. It was never-ending. And it is as if it never happened. The United States supported and in many cases engendered every right wing military dictatorship in the world after the end of the Second World War. I refer to Indonesia, Greece, Uruguay, Brazil, Paraguay, Haiti, Turkey, the Philippines, Guatemala, El Salvador, and, of course, Chile. The horror the United States inflicted upon Chile in 1973 can never be purged and can never be forgiven. Hundreds of thousands of deaths took place throughout these countries. Did they take place? And are they in all cases attributable to US foreign policy? The answer is yes they did take place and they are attributable to American foreign policy. But you wouldn't know it. It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn't happening. It didn't matter. It was of no interest. The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them. You have to hand it to America. It has exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It's a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis. I put to you that the United States is without doubt the greatest show on the road. Brutal, indifferent, scornful and ruthless it may be but it is also very clever. As a salesman it is out on its own and its most saleable commodity is self love. It's a winner. Listen to all American presidents on television say the words, 'the American people', as in the sentence, 'I say to the American people it is time to pray and to defend the rights of the American people and I ask the American people to trust their president in the action he is about to take on behalf of the American people.' It's a scintillating stratagem. Language is actually employed to keep thought at bay. The words 'the American people' provide a truly voluptuous cushion of reassurance. You don't need to think. Just lie back on the cushion. The cushion may be suffocating your intelligence and your critical faculties but it's very comfortable. This does not apply of course to the 40 million people living below the poverty line and the 2 million men and women imprisoned in the vast gulag of prisons, which extends across the US. The United States no longer bothers about low intensity conflict. It no longer sees any point in being reticent or even devious. It puts its cards on the table without fear or favour. It quite simply doesn't give a damn about the United Nations, international law or critical dissent, which it regards as impotent and irrelevant. It also has its own bleating little lamb tagging behind it on a lead, the pathetic and supine Great Britain. What has happened to our moral sensibility? Did we ever have any? What do these words mean? Do they refer to a term very rarely employed these days – conscience? A conscience to do not only with our own acts but to do with our shared responsibility in the acts of others? Is all this dead? Look at Guantanamo Bay. Hundreds of people detained without charge for over three years, with no legal representation or due process, technically detained forever. This totally illegitimate structure is maintained in defiance of the Geneva Convention. It is not only tolerated but hardly thought about by what's called the 'international community'. This criminal outrage is being committed by a country, which declares itself to be 'the leader of the free world'. Do we think about the inhabitants of Guantanamo Bay? What does the media say about them? They pop up occasionally – a small item on page six. They have been consigned to a no man's land from which indeed they may never return. At present many are on hunger strike, being force-fed, including British residents. No niceties in these force-feeding procedures. No sedative or anaesthetic. Just a tube stuck up your nose and into your throat. You vomit blood. This is torture. What has the British Foreign Secretary said about this? Nothing. What has the British Prime Minister said about this? Nothing. Why not? Because the United States has said: to criticise our conduct in Guantanamo Bay constitutes an unfriendly act. You're either with us or against us. So Blair shuts up. The invasion of Iraq was a bandit act, an act of blatant state terrorism, demonstrating absolute contempt for the concept of international law. The invasion was an arbitrary military action inspired by a series of lies upon lies and gross manipulation of the media and therefore of the public; an act intended to consolidate American military and economic control of the Middle East masquerading – as a last resort – all other justifications having failed to justify themselves – as liberation. A formidable assertion of military force responsible for the death and mutilation of thousands and thousands of innocent people. We have brought torture, cluster bombs, depleted uranium, innumerable acts of random murder, misery, degradation and death to the Iraqi people and call it 'bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East'. How many people do you have to kill before you qualify to be described as a mass murderer and a war criminal? One hundred thousand? More than enough, I would have thought. Therefore it is just that Bush and Blair be arraigned before the International Criminal Court of Justice. But Bush has been clever. He has not ratified the International Criminal Court of Justice. Therefore if any American soldier or for that matter politician finds himself in the dock Bush has warned that he will send in the marines. But Tony Blair has ratified the Court and is therefore available for prosecution. We can let the Court have his address if they're interested. It is Number 10, Downing Street, London. Death in this context is irrelevant. Both Bush and Blair place death well away on the back burner. At least 100,000 Iraqis were killed by American bombs and missiles before the Iraq insurgency began. These people are of no moment. Their deaths don't exist. They are blank. They are not even recorded as being dead. 'We don't do body counts,' said the American general Tommy Franks. Early in the invasion there was a photograph published on the front page of British newspapers of Tony Blair kissing the cheek of a little Iraqi boy. 'A grateful child,' said the caption. A few days later there was a story and photograph, on an inside page, of another four-year-old boy with no arms. His family had been blown up by a missile. He was the only survivor. 'When do I get my arms back?' he asked. The story was dropped. Well, Tony Blair wasn't holding him in his arms, nor the body of any other mutilated child, nor the body of any bloody corpse. Blood is dirty. It dirties your shirt and tie when you're making a sincere speech on television. The 2,000 American dead are an embarrassment. They are transported to their graves in the dark. Funerals are unobtrusive, out of harm's way. The mutilated rot in their beds, some for the rest of their lives. So the dead and the mutilated both rot, in different kinds of graves. Here is an extract from a poem by Pablo Neruda, 'I'm Explaining a Few Things': And one morning all that was burning, one morning the bonfires leapt out of the earth devouring human beings and from then on fire, gunpowder from then on, and from then on blood. Bandits with planes and Moors, bandits with finger-rings and duchesses, bandits with black friars spattering blessings came through the sky to kill children and the blood of children ran through the streets without fuss, like children's blood. Jackals that the jackals would despise stones that the dry thistle would bite on and spit out, vipers that the vipers would abominate. Face to face with you I have seen the blood of Spain tower like a tide to drown you in one wave of pride and knives. Treacherous generals: see my dead house, look at broken Spain: from every house burning metal flows instead of flowers from every socket of Spain Spain emerges and from every dead child a rifle with eyes and from every crime bullets are born which will one day find the bull's eye of your hearts. And you will ask: why doesn't his poetry speak of dreams and leaves and the great volcanoes of his native land. Come and see the blood in the streets. Come and see the blood in the streets. Come and see the blood in the streets! [*] Let me make it quite clear that in quoting from Neruda's poem I am in no way comparing Republican Spain to Saddam Hussein's Iraq. I quote Neruda because nowhere in contemporary poetry have I read such a powerful visceral description of the bombing of civilians. I have said earlier that the United States is now totally frank about putting its cards on the table. That is the case. Its official declared policy is now defined as 'full spectrum dominance'. That is not my term, it is theirs. 'Full spectrum dominance' means control of land, sea, air and space and all attendant resources. The United States now occupies 702 military installations throughout the world in 132 countries, with the honourable exception of Sweden, of course. We don't quite know how they got there but they are there all right. The United States possesses 8,000 active and operational nuclear warheads. Two thousand are on hair trigger alert, ready to be launched with 15 minutes warning. It is developing new systems of nuclear force, known as bunker busters. The British, ever cooperative, are intending to replace their own nuclear missile, Trident. Who, I wonder, are they aiming at? Osama bin Laden? You? Me? Joe Dokes? China? Paris? Who knows? What we do know is that this infantile insanity – the possession and threatened use of nuclear weapons – is at the heart of present American political philosophy. We must remind ourselves that the United States is on a permanent military footing and shows no sign of relaxing it. Many thousands, if not millions, of people in the United States itself are demonstrably sickened, shamed and angered by their government's actions, but as things stand they are not a coherent political force – yet. But the anxiety, uncertainty and fear which we can see growing daily in the United States is unlikely to diminish. I know that President Bush has many extremely competent speech writers but I would like to volunteer for the job myself. I propose the following short address which he can make on television to the nation. I see him grave, hair carefully combed, serious, winning, sincere, often beguiling, sometimes employing a wry smile, curiously attractive, a man's man. 'God is good. God is great. God is good. My God is good. Bin Laden's God is bad. His is a bad God. Saddam's God was bad, except he didn't have one. He was a barbarian. We are not barbarians. We don't chop people's heads off. We believe in freedom. So does God. I am not a barbarian. I am the democratically elected leader of a freedom-loving democracy. We are a compassionate society. We give compassionate electrocution and compassionate lethal injection. We are a great nation. I am not a dictator. He is. I am not a barbarian. He is. And he is. They all are. I possess moral authority. You see this fist? This is my moral authority. And don't you forget it.' A writer's life is a highly vulnerable, almost naked activity. We don't have to weep about that. The writer makes his choice and is stuck with it. But it is true to say that you are open to all the winds, some of them icy indeed. You are out on your own, out on a limb. You find no shelter, no protection – unless you lie – in which case of course you have constructed your own protection and, it could be argued, become a politician. I have referred to death quite a few times this evening. I shall now quote a poem of my own called 'Death'. Where was the dead body found? Who found the dead body? Was the dead body dead when found? How was the dead body found? Who was the dead body? Who was the father or daughter or brother Or uncle or sister or mother or son Of the dead and abandoned body? Was the body dead when abandoned? Was the body abandoned? By whom had it been abandoned? Was the dead body naked or dressed for a journey? What made you declare the dead body dead? Did you declare the dead body dead? How well did you know the dead body? How did you know the dead body was dead? Did you wash the dead body Did you close both its eyes Did you bury the body Did you leave it abandoned Did you kiss the dead body When we look into a mirror we think the image that confronts us is accurate. But move a millimetre and the image changes. We are actually looking at a never-ending range of reflections. But sometimes a writer has to smash the mirror – for it is on the other side of that mirror that the truth stares at us. I believe that despite the enormous odds which exist, unflinching, unswerving, fierce intellectual determination, as citizens, to define the real truth of our lives and our societies is a crucial obligation which devolves upon us all. It is in fact mandatory. If such a determination is not embodied in our political vision we have no hope of restoring what is so nearly lost to us – the dignity of man. * Extract from "I'm Explaining a Few Things" translated by Nathaniel Tarn, from Pablo Neruda: Selected Poems, published by Jonathan Cape, London 1970. Used by permission of The Random House Group Limited. NOBEL FOUNDATION