NucNews March 13, 2006 -------- NUCLEAR -------- britain British Rail's nuclear flying saucer Monday, March 13, 2006 New Scientist http://www.newscientist.com/blog/technology/2006/03/british-rails-nuclear-flying-saucer.html Long-suffering rail commuters may be perplexed to learn that British Rail once patented a design for a bizarre and apparently impractical nuclear flying saucer. The spacecraft, "powered by laser-controlled thermonuclear fusion", would have provided a much more interesting commute. Unfortunately the fusion process that was to provide the craft's power did not exist at the time of filing, and remains experimental even today. But that didn't deter inventor Charles Osmond Frederick from filing the patent on behalf of British Rail in 1973. It was apparently discovered by an "unnamed student", although further details are revealed on found on this UFO-spotting site. According to The Register, the patent probably remained hidden for so long because it concerned nuclear technology and was filed during the Cold War. --- The next saucer to Shoeburyness leaves from platform 5 ... Alok Jha Monday March 13, 2006 The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1729579,00.html The following correction was printed in the Guardian's Corrections and clarifications column, Wednesday March 15 2006 "Discovery" was perhaps not the word to apply to our noticing on the website of the European Patent Office plans for the development of a nuclear-powered flying saucer in the article below. The story first appeared in the Guardian on May 31 1978, courtesy of Adrian Hope of New Scientist who had shown the patent to a conference in aid of British inventors the previous day. "We're getting there." That was the motto of British Rail in its 1980s heyday. But how they thought they might get there will come as a surprise to even diehard trainspotters: a decade earlier engineers had patented plans to transport passengers by nuclear-powered flying saucer, writes Alok Jha The plans for the space vehicle were discovered on the website of the European Patent Office by a student. "I thought it must be a joke at first," he said, electing to stay anonymous. "It's the sort of thing you only read about in science fiction books." His discovery shows that in 1973 an inventor, Charles Osmond Frederick, patented the design for a craft powered by laser-controlled thermonuclear fusion. Designed to reach high speeds in space, it was meant to move us around the globe and even to other planets. Its "lifting platform" was designed for the British Railways Board and the patent was filed under the name of Jensen and Son. The disc would have had a flat, slightly concave underside, the patent said. "A controlled thermonuclear fusion reaction is ignited by one or more pulsed laser beams produced by lasers and reflected or focused on to a central reaction zone on the underside of the platform." Unsurprisingly, space scientists have thrown cold water on the designs. Michel van Baal, of the European Space Agency, said the craft would need an "unbelievable amount of energy" to fly. "I have had a look at the plans, and they don't look very serious to me at all." Patents can be taken out for any type of invention without the need for a working example. Inventors can even patent designs for machines that are physically impossible to build. The patent described a power source that "would enable very high velocities to be attained in a space vehicle, and in fact the prolonged acceleration of the vehicle may in some circumstances be used to simulate gravity". Papers filed with the patent also show detailed cross-sections of the proposed space vehicle and a view of the underside. Dr Van Baal said Mr Frederick's design was based on a fusion process that did not yet exist. Thermonuclear fusion is seen as a potentially near limitless supply of energy and governments around the world have invested billions in developing it. The latest effort is a joint international experimental nuclear reactor, called Iter, which will fuse a form of heavy water to release energy. Theoretically at least. Unfortunately, any commercial application of the technology is still at least 50 years away, even according to the scientists who believe it could work one day. Colin Pillinger, the space scientist who led the doomed Beagle 2 mission to Mars, said: "I think the plans are fascinating; it really looks like a flying saucer. Quite what British Rail had in mind I have no idea. It is very unusual ... if I hadn't seen the documents I wouldn't have believed it." The student said: "The flying saucer looks just like something out of a science fiction comic. It's amazing that British Rail actually developed these plans. They obviously believed people would be transported around space to different planets in the future. Who knows, maybe in the next 50 years they will be proved right." Unfortunately for Mr Frederick, the flying saucer idea never took off, and the patent has now lapsed. -------- depleted uranium Government must take responsibility for ordnance Navy left at Salton Sea Cleanup of test base is not new landowners’ charge The Desert Sun March 13, 2006 http://www.thedesertsun.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060313/OPINION01/603130326/1004 Apparently U.S. government officials didn't learn a key kindergarten lesson: If you make a mess, you've got to clean it up. That doesn't mean some of the toys, but all of them. While a Navy subcontractor plans to search the defunct Salton Sea Test Base for ordnance and other hazardous material this summer, workers won't look deep enough underground to clear the land for homes. The work is a follow-up sweep to a past cleaning of the site, which was once used for training and high-altitude drop tests of inert bombs. When established during the 1940s, the several thousand acres at the Salton Sea's southwest edge marked a logical place for a test range. Among the site's redeeming values was its distance from civilization. Since the Second World War, urbanization has crept outward and is about to surround the sea, however. The La Quinta-based Salton Sea Authority now is eyeing the property, owned by the U.S. Department of the Interior, as a centerpiece in its proposal to revive the troubled sea. The land would host thousands of homes, with tax revenue from them supporting the plan to shrink the smelly sea into a cleaner lake. The Navy hasn't used the range in a decade and has no plans to reopen it. Responsibility of the government If the U.S. government is going to sell the site, it has an obligation to clean up the mess. Conducting a partial cleanup during the past decade and warning off people from entering the area has been adequate enough while the site remained remote. But those days are rapidly coming to an end. Even if homes aren't built on the test base, erecting anything nearby places at risk young children and Salton Sea visitors who might accidentally wander into the area. Past efforts to clean the site hardly are sufficient for new housing. The Navy cleared the site as far as two feet below the surface of the ground, which sounds impressive, but that makes it safe only for open space and wildlife. Dummy warheads once used there could have contained lead or depleted uranium, the Navy acknowledges, and conventional ordnance still could be buried on the site. For housing to be placed there, at least a more thorough assessment is needed. If ordnance is found, it then needs to be removed. The California Department of Toxic Substances Control even has urged the Navy to take a more thorough look at the site. The Navy, however, intends to only meet open space requirements. Its position is that anyone interested in changing the land to accommodate housing is responsible for deeper surveys and cleaning up. It's the old, "I may have spilled radioactive potato chips all over the sofa, but it's the responsibility of the next one who sits there to look between the cushions" argument. Being a good neighbor The U.S. government's failure to take responsibility doesn't end there, however. The Navy won't review any parts of the test site that are underwater, even though the lake is expected to shrink and expose the sea floor. The Navy's position: It only cleans up to the current shoreline. That's the old "Anything I dropped on the floor but kicked under the end table isn't my responsibility either" argument. The U.S. government needs to clean up after itself before the Department of the Interior sells the land. But even if no sale occurs, it has to do a more thorough assessment and make the area safe as development occurs around the sea. That's called being a good neighbor. SALTON SEA TEST BASE # Established during 1940s as Navy test base. # Bureau of Land Management and other agencies took over land from Navy in 2000. # Dummy warheads containing lead or depleted uranium and conventional ordnance still could be buried on the site. # Past cleanups only made the site suitable for open space or habitat. Read about plans to revitalize and develop land around the sea: www.thedesertsun.com/saltonsea THE ISSUE The U.S. government will conduct a follow-up removal of ordnance from the Salton Sea Test Base this summer. WE SUGGEST A more thorough assessment and cleanup is needed as development begins to encircle the sea. WHAT DO YOU THINK? Is the government or the new landowner responsible for the test base's cleanup? Send comments via the Web: www.thedesertsun.com/letters -------- india Emasculating Nuclear India By M D NALAPAT Oustside View Commentator March 13, 2006 (UPI) http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20060313-113430-7917r NEW DELHI -- There is zero doubt that India and the U.S. are natural partners. Steady migration to the U.S., the ever-denser interlinking of the hi-tech industry in both countries, and common threats from religious fundamentalism and political authoritarianism mandate that Washington and New Delhi forge an alliance that is as close as that between the U.S. and the UK. However, the caveat to this is that such a partnership can only be on terms that are the same as what the U.S. accords to the U.K. In brief, the U.S. has first to accept India as a nuclear weapons state that deserves permanent membership in the U.N. Security Council. Unfortunately, almost all the formulae trotted out by the "South Asia" brigade in U.S. think tanks and other centers of influence such as the State Department implicitly or otherwise seek to "engage" India on terms that would, if accepted, result in an emasculation of the world's most populous democracy. The proposed Nuclear Deal falls squarely in this category, and will, if sought to be implemented, push official U.S.-India relations back to the frost of the Cold War period. Indians love flattery, and often surrender substance in exchange for a verbal pat on the head. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, by education as well as by his experience in international institutions, is predisposed to uncritical acceptance of the standard Western worldview, which implicitly sees India as a juvenile power needing mother-henning, and definitely not mature enough to be trusted with grown-up implements such as nuclear weapons and their associated delivery systems. This mistrust of the country's maturity -- despite New Delhi's impeccable non-proliferation record to date -- infuses the terms of the deal that has been agreed to by the Sonia Gandhi-led coalition government, hungry as always for formal acknowledgment of its improving status. Were the agreement to be implemented, India would almost immediately lose its chance to switch to the thorium cycle, and within 12 years would find its tiny arsenal of nuclear weapons depleted to irrelevance. This would place India not in the category of Germany and Japan, both of whom have a muscular nuclear power capability, but that inhabited by the likes of Burundi and Laos, a supplicant state dependent on technology handouts from "advanced" states. That Manmohan Singh has in effect written his political epitaph by agreeing to this deal speaks for the capacity of the Bush team to bully and cajole enough to get their way, even when -- as in Iraq -- such immediate "victories" lay the seeds for future disaster. The Indian prime minister's obsessive eagerness to conclude a deal -- almost any deal -- with President Bush is not born out of circumstances. Granted, India faces a shortage of uranium, caused partly by the tardiness of successive governments in overcoming "environmentalist" resistance to the opening of new mines. However, India depends on nuclear power for less than 3 percent of its total electricity generation, and given the costs of nuclear power sourced from expensive Western reactors, it would be more prudent to (a) raise funds by selling India-developed technologies for nuclear power generation, to buyers in Southeast Asia and South America (b) use such funds and other grants for fast-tracking the indigenous nuclear energy program, especially the conversion to thorium in place of uranium as the feedstock, as India has ,at over 500,000 tons, more than half the world's proven reserves of this radioactive material and (c) intensify efforts to exploit India's own uranium reserves. In order to meet a temporary shortfall of uranium, the Sonia Gandhi-led coalition government at New Delhi has agreed to effectively destroy India's robust nuclear program. Now, the basics. India has at present only 15 operational reactors, of which 12 are in the list of 14 that has been offered to be placed under international safeguards. Thus, while Manmohan Singh has claimed that only 65 percent of India's nuclear capacity will enter the safeguards regime, in fact around 85 percent of present operational capacity would go under safeguards. The Bush administration has repeatedly made it explicit that India would not be treated as a Nuclear Weapons State as a consequence of the nuclear deal. This means that the safeguards applied on the "civilian" nuclear capability of India would be of the intrusive kind applied to non-nuclear weapons states. This goes against the Government of India's oft-stated stand that it would not accept any outcome that does not, de facto if not de jure, accept India as a Nuclear Weapons State Such a safeguards regime would effectively cripple India's indigenous nuclear program. The scientists of the Department of Atomic Energy would need IAEA permission even to shift lab equipment from one location to the other. Even more deadly, under "pursuit" clauses, IAEA inspectors can adopt the same harsh measures on entities that they subjectively believe have collaborated in any conceivable way with the "civilian" entities. An email from a scientist working in an unsafeguarded military facility to a friend working in a "civilian" location can be used as the basis for such inspections. Worryingly, any company that is, or is to the subjective satisfaction of the international inspectors, "guilty" of supplying services or products to both a civilian as well as a military facility would be open to inspections that could -- for the benefit of competitors located in countries such as the U.S., France and China, known to access privileged information from the IAEA -- leak to other entities, thus destroying the ability to compete in the marketplace. In effect, these restrictions would ensure that few Indian companies would take the risk of supplying services and materiel to the country's nuclear sector, thus ensuring dependence on outside sources as well as a drastic slowing-down of the military program. This program would already have been hit by the removal from production of the CIRUS reactor located at Mumbai, which has been estimated to produce 35 percent of the highly-enriched uranium and plutonium needed for the cores of India's nuclear weapons. This is on top of the removal of over 80 percent of capacity by the transfer of 14 reactors to the "civilian" list. Initial estimates are that India would need to spend US$ 16 billion over the next five years simply to compensate for this disruption in fuel supply for the military program. This figure would, at a conservative estimate, rise to US$ 40 billion over the next 10 years. Given the huge outlays that would be needed to purchase foreign reactors and fuel, as well as the billions of dollars that would need to be spent on U.S. armaments to keep friends of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney in good humor, this would mean that the Indian military program would get capped, rolled back and finally eliminated over the next 12 years, as the weapon cores degrade and fail to get replaced. Not coincidentally, Prime Minister Singh has stopped talking of a "Credible Minimum Deterrent." It is now a "Minimum Credible Deterrent." Unfortunately, the nuclear deal will ensure that this "minimum" soon ceases to be "credible." This is in a context where China would be free to continue its assistance to Pakistan, North Korea and now Bangladesh, so as to checkmate regional rivals India and Japan. Not merely has the "India-friendly" George W. Bush effectively capped the Indian military program, he has managed to get the Indians to agree to the unprecedented condition of safeguards in perpetuity. Thus, Manmohan Singh has bound all his successor regimes into accepting this emasculating nuclear deal, or facing the risk of sanctions. Under the deal, India would not have the right to move safeguarded entities from the civilian to the military sector even in the case of a military emergency such as a nuclear attack. Of course, the capping and rollback of India's supply of nuclear weapons would make such an attack more rather than less likely. Unlike those vociferous critics of Nuclear India, the Scandinavians, the world's most populous democracy has threats other than otters and seals to contend with. India abuts China, a country whose ruling structure is authoritarian and unpredictable. There are the failing states of Pakistan and Nepal on other borders, as well as the Wahabbizing nation of Bangladesh and the splintered island of Sri Lanka. Close by is Central Asia, where rival kleptocracies joust and a well-funded Wahabbi movement spreads its influence. Next door is Indonesia, not the most stable of republics, and a little away are Iran and the Middle East, not to mention the African coast. Clearly, those who say that India's 1.1 billion people do not need a nuclear umbrella have yet to look at an accurate map. Volleys of opinions generated by the well-funded international non-proliferation lobby (which since the 1970s has ignored China, North Korea and Pakistan in its obsession with India) have painted a picture of economic desolation were the nuclear deal not to be signed. The reality is that the worst-case scenario -- should the Nuclar Suppliers Group continue its blockade of India -- would be the shutdown of one of the Tarapur nuclear power plants in 18 months. For at least the same cost of buying reactors from France, the U.S. and other countries, and high-priced uranium from Australia, India's own thorium-based Fast Breeder Reactor program can be fast-tracked so as to become operational within eight to nine years, ie: the same length of time it would take to make operational imported reactors. Decades ago, India's scientists began work on a three-stage program of nuclear self-sufficiency. First would come the development of pressurized heavy water reactors. Next, the Fast Breeder reactors. Finally, thorium would replace uranium as reactor fuel. Scientists at atomic research establishments in India privately claim that the country is at the cusp of proceeding to Stage II of this three-stage program for generation of adequate volumes of nuclear power. The significance of this is that, once this milestone gets crossed, additional uranium will no longer be needed, as the new processes would "breed" more fuel than it takes in. According to a top scientist, "even at present, India has more than enough known deposits of natural uranium to meet the planned Stage I level of 10,000MW of nuclear power." He and other scientists smell not simply a rat but a giant bandicoot in the tearing hurry of the Bush administration to lock India into a regime of safeguards that would gut the indigenous program and make the country reliant on outside fuel and technology. In his recent Asia Society U.S. President Bush has made it clear that his administration classes India with the 130-plus countries that would be denied the indigenous capability of processing fuel. These would have to depend on "advanced nuclear powers such as "Germany and Japan" to meet their needs. Unlike India, neither of the two is a nuclear weapons power. Clearly, Bush would like to travel the road taken by South Africa and Brazil, who have folded up their indigenous capabilities in exchange for (largely unfulfilled) promises of technological assistance. It must be said to the credit of the Bush administration that they have been transparent about their intention to convert India into a non-nuclear power. It is Prime Minister Manmohan Singh who has repeatedly obscured the truth from his own people, by pretending that the twin elephants of perpetuity and intrusive inspections do not exist. And once India's nukes are dealt with, can there be any doubt that its rockets will follow? Already there are essays on how India's ICBM program "is targeted at the U.S.", something that has thus far remained a secret to the entire Indian military establishment, which is focusing on a Great Power much closer to home. Like the nuclear weapons program, which has piggybacked on the civilian nuclear energy program, the Indian missile program has been powered by the development of rockets designed to launch satellites into space. Although Bush began to make noises about participating in the Indian space program three years ago, as yet there has been zero contribution from the U.S. side. Once the anti-nuclear lobby has its way, can the anti-rocket enthusiasts be far behind? Manmohan Singh can be relied on to somberly inform Parliament that India "desperately needs foreign assistance" in launching an adequate number of satellites, and so he has decided to scrap the Indian program in favor of exclusive reliance on foreign-built launch vehicles. As a sop, perhaps an Indian national would join the team aboard a future space shuttle, taking a call from President Bush and Prime Minister Singh as he surveys the end of the Indian space program. If, despite the one-sided nature of the deal, the non-proliferation lobbies in the U.S., China and Europe are vociferating against the July 18, 2005 Singh-Bush nuclear agreement, the reason lies in their desire to force the Indians to publicly eat crow rather than, as now, pretend that the country's indigenous nuclear ( and subsequently missile) program has not been terminally affected Like China, India is a country with a high degree of immunity to international sanctions. Once the nuclear deal begins to be implemented, the effects it will have on India's nuclear establishment will generate a political firestorm that will kill the deal and -- almost certainly -- the political career of Manmohan Singh. Ties between India and the U.S. are multiplying exponentially, but this is despite rather than because of the two governments. People-to-people, business-to-business and university-to-university contact is growing at an accelerating clip. The nuclear deal, far from giving a boost to this process, has the potential for igniting within India the same suspicion of U.S. intentions that resulted in a mud wall being built within India against U.S. contacts during the 1970s and well into the 80s, a development that harmed the interests of both countries. By seeking to force through a nuclear deal that is scientifically and politically unimplementable on the Indian side, George W. Bush may do for U.S.-India official relations what Nixon and Kissinger succeeded in doing in 1971, when they ordered the nuke-armed USS Enterprise to enter the Bay of Bengal in an effort at blackmailing New Delhi from preventing the slaughter of Bengalis by the Pakistan army. As Iraq has shown, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Professor M D Nalapat is Director of the School of Geopolitics at the Manipal Academy of Higher education, India -------- iran Defiant Iran Threatens To Quit Nuclear Treaty Iran Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki by Staff Writers Tehran (AFP) Mar 13, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Defiant_Iran_Threatens_To_Quit_Nuclear_Treaty.html Iran on Sunday threatened to walk out of an international atomic treaty, as it continued to insist on its right to conduct sensitive nuclear activities ahead of a key meeting of the UN Security Council. The foreign ministry also said that a compromise proposal from Russia to end the nuclear standoff was now "off the agenda" but subsequently clarified its position to say that the plan was still negotiable. Iran's nuclear programme, which Tehran says is a drive for peaceful energy but is alleged by the United States to be a cover for weapons production, is due to be discussed on the UN Security Council next week amid the looming threat of sanctions. Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki threatened that Iran could quit the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which governs the peaceful use of nuclear energy, if its atomic rights were not acknowledged. "If we reach a point where the existing mechanisms do not provide for the right of the Iranian people, then the policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran would be possibly revised and reconsidered," Mottaki told reporters, in response to a question over whether Iran would consider leaving the NPT. "At the moment we believe that there is a chance for different sides to continue the negotiations," he added on the sidelines of an international conference on energy and security in Asia. Meanwhile there was confusion over the future of a Russian compromise proposal under which Iran would conduct its sensitive uranium enrichment activities -- the key sticking point -- on Russian soil. Foreign ministry spokesman Hamid-Reza Asefi told reporters that the suggestion was off the table now that the case was in the hands of the Security Council. However Asefi later told public television that the Russian compromise proposal on its nuclear programme can still be negotiated, as long as it acknowledges Iran's right to enrich uranium on home soil. "As for the Russian proposal, if it considers Iran's right to conduct (nuclear) research on its soil, it can be a topic of negotiation, because the right to conduct research in Iran is the Islamic republic's right that we neither want to give up nor will do," he said. Asefi also went on to say that Iran would never comply with any UN Security Council resolution ordering it to suspend uranium enrichment. When asked what the Islamic republic would do if any UN Security Council resolution ordered it to suspend uranium enrichment, Asefi said: "Never." He did not elaborate. Although Tehran has proposed suspending industrial-scale enrichment, it is refusing to halt enrichment research -- but Western powers argue that even this would allow the clerical regime to acquire nuclear weapons know-how. The International Atomic Energy Agency has sent an assessment report on Iran's programme to the Security Council after a failed three-year-old probe to confirm the true nature of Iran's activities. On Friday, the five veto-wielding members of the UN Security Council held another round of private talks on how to respond to Iran's nuclear defiance ahead of an expected meeting by the full 15-member council next week. The Council, which unlike the IAEA has the power to impose sanctions and can even authorize military action, is first expected to endorse demands that Tehran halt uranium enrichment -- a reactor fuel-making process that can be extended to weapons development. Iran -- OPEC's second biggest oil producer -- has been sending mixed messages over whether it would use its oil exports as a weapon in the case of action from the UN Security Council. Mottaki insisted Iran would remain a reliable energy supplier, a day after the interior minister issued a new warning on Iranian oil exports. "The Islamic republic of Iran is determined to be a reliable and effective energy supplier for Asian countries and not to use oil to implement its foreign policy," Mottaki said. However, Iranian media reported apparently contradictory reMarks from Interior Minister Mostafa Pour-Mohammadi that suggested Iran could use oil as a weapon if it was hit by economic sanctions over its nuclear programme. "We have energy, we have both our big consumer Market and that of the region, and we have control over the biggest and the most sensitive energy route in the world," said Pour-Mohammadi Saturday. Source: Agence France-Presse related report Ex-Weapons Inspector Says It May Be Too Late To Stop Iran Washington (AFP) Mar 13 - A former top UN and US arms inspector on Iraq said Sunday it may be too late to stop a nuclear-weapons determined Iran, noting that there is no consensus on taking military action against Tehran. "I'm afraid that we probably are past the point where there is any meaningful alternative other than military action to stop the Iranians if they are determined to go ahead. And I don't see that as a possibility," said David Kay, who led the US search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq following the 2003 invasion. "My great fear is indeed we will have to learn to live with Iran, and all its terrorist connections, with the bomb," Kay told NBC television's "Today Show" on Sunday, while declining to say for certain that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. Kay ran the Iraq Survey Group that concluded that Iraq had no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, even as the White House continued to insist that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had been a growing threat at the time of the US invasion. Calling the Tehran regime "toxic," Kay said on Sunday that the tensions over Iran's nuclear power program -- which the US believes masks an intention to develop atomic weapons -- differ from those which preceded the US attack on Iraq. "This time we have a far more united multilateral coalition against Iran and we actually have the International Atomic Energy Agency condemning Iran for 18 years of cheating on its nonproliferation obligations," he said. However, Kay said, the coalition is far from agreed on the actions to take against an Iraq that has rejected pressures to shut down its uranium enrichment program, which it claims is for peaceful purposes. Kay said Europeans in the coalition were particularly bothered by aggressive statements from US leaders threatening tough UN sanctions or worse against Iran. "When you've got in Tehran a regime that is toxic in the extreme, you really don't need to make the point that there are serious consequences. Everyone knows where we are moving," he said. Kay, who was the chief UN weapons inspector from 1983 to 1992, would not say for certain that Iran was seeking to build nuclear weapons. "Intentions -- that's always the weakest link in intelligence, and it certainly is in this case," he said. "What you can say right now is Iran has taken a number of steps that are preparatory to having a nuclear weapon. You cannot say that in fact they definitively made that decision to go ahead with that weapons program." Source: Agence France-Presse ---- Iran loses Russian backing after rejecting nuclear deal By Anne Penketh, Diplomatic Editor Published: 13 March 2006 UK Independent http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article350960.ece Iran has lost crucial support from its powerful ally Russia after the Iranian foreign ministry said Tehran is no longer considering a Russian compromise aimed at resolving the dispute over Iran's nuclear threat. A foreign ministry spokesman, Hamid Reza Asefi, flatly told reporters in Tehran that "the Russian proposal is not on our agenda any more". Russia's offer of a joint venture to enrich uranium outside Iran had been seen as Iran's last chance to avoid UN Security Council action. The West, concerned that Iran may be working to build a nuclear weapon under cover of a civilian programme, wants to prevent Iran from enriching uranium as the process can lead to production of weapons-grade fuel. Iran continues to insist on its right to uranium enrichment for peaceful purposes. Russia warned that Iran's tough position could "radicalise the nature of the UN Security Council debate". The five permanent members - Britain, the US, France, Russia and China - have been struggling to agree on a unified position before talks widen to include the full 15-member council later this week. The dispute was referred to the UN by the International Atomic Energy Agency last week after Tehran refused to comply with demands made by the IAEA. Konstantin Kosachev, the head of the international affairs committee of Russia's lower house of parliament, said Iran's move had destroyed the only chance for a compromise. Mr Asefi said: "Circumstances have changed. We have to wait and see how things go with the five veto-holding countries" on the Security Council. ---- Russia accuses Iran of blocking nuclear diplomacy By Parisa Hafezi Mon Mar 13, 2006 (Reuters) http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060313/ts_nm/nuclear_iran_dc_4 TEHRAN - Russia on Monday accused Iran of obstructing its diplomatic efforts to settle Tehran's nuclear dispute with the West, but the Iranians said they were still interested in a Russian compromise. "We are extremely disappointed with the way Iran is behaving in the course of these talks," Russia's RIA news agency quoted Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov as saying. "Iran is absolutely no help to those who want to find peaceful ways to solve this problem." A senior Iranian official earlier insisted Tehran wanted a diplomatic way out of the nuclear standoff and was still considering the Russian proposal, apparently retracting remarks by the Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman a day earlier. Tehran has sent mixed signals on Russia's offer to enrich uranium for Iran on Russian soil to supply Iranian nuclear power reactors and ensure no fuel is diverted to bomb-making. Lavrov said bilateral Iran-Russia talks would take place shortly at Tehran's request, but gave no details. An unidentified official was later quoted by Iran's semi-official ISNA students' news agency as saying the talks would take place on Wednesday and Thursday, probably in Moscow. The U.N. Security Council, which can impose sanctions, is due to consider Iran's nuclear dossier this week after the Islamic Republic failed to persuade the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that its atomic work was purely peaceful. "The Russian proposal should be reviewed with respect to the new developments," Hossein Entezami, spokesman for the Supreme National Security Council, told the state news agency IRNA. 'SITUATION HAS CHANGED' "Tehran has repeatedly said that it welcomes any solution which could help to resolve Iran's nuclear issue." Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said on Sunday: "Now the situation has changed. The Russian proposal is not on the agenda." Russia's Interfax news agency also reported that Tehran had made it clear that it was still considering the compromise and that, as far Moscow was concerned, the offer still stood. So far the sticking point has been Iran's refusal to abandon at least some uranium enrichment on its own soil for "research." The West fears that even small-scale enrichment would unlock the know-how Iran would need to make nuclear weapons. The Iranians have so far stood firm in their quest for such technology, saying they want it only to generate electricity. U.S. officials and European diplomats have said they believe Iran is simply toying with the Russian plan to avoid any sanctions and gain time in which to accelerate enrichment work. Iran argues that it is being unjustly singled out, compared with nuclear proliferators such as India, Pakistan and Israel. "We will not abandon our right (to nuclear technology) because of the cruel and unfair demands of some countries," state television quoted President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as saying. Ahmadinejad provoked international outrage last year when he called for Israel's destruction, deepening fears that an Iran armed with nuclear weapons would destabilize the Middle East. The dispute could set Iran on a collision course with the Security Council, where Washington may seek sanctions against Tehran if it does not heed IAEA demands for full cooperation with agency probes and a freeze on all nuclear fuel activities. FRESH REPORT However, a punitive crackdown remains some way off. The council is expected to start with a statement repeating IAEA resolutions to lend them weight. IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei is likely to be asked to provide a fresh report on Iran to the council within 2-4 weeks of a statement, an IAEA diplomat said. The five veto-holding members of the Security Council struggled to clear the way for a council statement, but agreement appeared elusive. "Consultations are going on. We will meet again tomorrow (Tuesday)," said U.S. ambassador John Bolton, who chaired Monday's meetings. Washington has said all options are on the table to prevent Iran developing nuclear weapons. However, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said military action against Iran was not on the U.S. agenda in practice. Speaking in London, Straw said: "Action taken by the Security Council should be incremental...and it should also be reversible so that we can respond to Iranian actions and reactions. "We should leave the door open for negotiations with Iran to resume at any stage, so they can come into compliance." He continued: "Iran should be under no doubt that, if it continues to defy the wishes of the international community, the Security Council will respond." Lavrov, in a separate newspaper interview, urged the United States and its European allies not to turn their backs on the IAEA as a tool to resolve the dispute, saying there was no agreed strategy for action in the Security Council. Russia and China strongly oppose sanctions against Iran. (Additional reporting by Meg Clothier in Moscow, David Clarke in London and Mark Heinrich in Vienna) ---- China, Russia Reject Iran Nuke Statement By NICK WADHAMS, Associated Press Writer Monday, March 13, 2006 http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2006/03/13/international/i164856S93.DTL (03-13) 17:54 PST UNITED NATIONS, (AP) -- Russia and China have rejected proposals from the United States and other veto-wielding members of the U.N. Security Council for a statement demanding that Iran clear up suspicions about its nuclear program, diplomats said Monday. The dispute raises the threat of an impasse in the Security Council and means that the U.S., Britain and France may not get their wish for strong action by the powerful U.N. body. They believe such a text could further isolate Iran and help compel it to abandon uranium enrichment, a process that can produce fuel for a civilian nuclear reactor or fissile material for an atomic bomb. But British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said Monday that Britain also wants the Security Council to go one step at a time, leaving the door open to restart negotiations with Tehran if it reverses course and expresses a willingness to suspend its uranium enrichment program. "If the Iranian regime chooses not to heed the concerns of the international community, it's going to damage the interests of the Iranian people," he said, speaking at the International Institute for Strategic Studies think tank. Iran, meanwhile, sent more mixed signals about its intentions. Its president said Iran's very existence depended on nuclear development, but Russia reported that Iranian diplomats had asked for more consultations. Only a day earlier, talks on Russia's Western-backed offer to host Iran's uranium enrichment program collapsed when Tehran rejected Moscow's demand to suspend enrichment activities at home. "Contradictory signals are coming from Tehran," Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told reporters Monday of Iran's response to the proposal. "One day they reject it, the other day they don't." The board of the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, voted last month to report Iran to the Security Council, saying it lacked confidence in Tehran's nuclear intentions and accusing Iran of violating the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Iran responded by ending voluntary cooperation with the IAEA and announcing it would start uranium enrichment and bar surprise inspections of its facilities. IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei accused Iran of withholding information about its nuclear program, possessing plans linked to nuclear weapons, and refusing to freeze uranium enrichment. In the last week, council diplomats have weighed how to respond. Ambassadors from the five veto-wielding nations all said publicly that discussions continued on several proposals, including one from the British and French that would urge Iran to stop enriching uranium. But a U.N. diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the secrecy of the discussions, said Russia and China want the council to do one thing only: acknowledge the primary role of the IAEA in handling the Iran issue. The diplomat said that after three meetings, the Russians and Chinese showed little indication they would change their positions. At the heart of the dispute is a difference in approach toward Iran, which insists its nuclear program is meant only for peaceful purposes such as energy. Russia and China, allies of Iran, believe council action — such as a challenging statement or economic sanctions — risks angering Tehran further, possibly causing the regime to withdraw from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and kick out IAEA inspectors. "I think that we want a constructive statement," China's Ambassador Wang Guangya told The Associated Press on Monday morning. "I think they want to be too tough." Britain also wants Israel to rid itself of nuclear weapons, but it is far more urgent that Iran shut down its enrichment activities since it poses the greater threat, Straw said in London. "If you want a nuclear-free Middle East, the next stop is Iran," he said. "Nothing would set back the goal of a nuclear-weapons-free Middle East and a non-nuclear Israel further than if Iran were to flout its international commitments and acquire a nuclear weapons capability." In Iran, Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi indicated that his government would wait for the outcome of the Security Council meeting to decide whether to start enrichment on the scale required to provide fuel for its first nuclear reactor at Bushehr, to go online later this year. "It shouldn't come as any surprise to anybody that the Iranians would love to talk further," U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said. "They've loved talking for the last four years and they'll talk for as long as they can as they master the technical difficulties they've encountered in the uranium enrichment process." Finance Minister Davood Danesh-Jafari told reporters Monday that Iran could survive any U.N. penalties. "If sanctions are imposed, we are capable of managing the country according to our past experiences. We could run the country with no dollars in oil revenue as we did in the 1990s." The United States and its allies could opt to bypass the Security Council entirely in confronting Iran. Last week, U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said a coalition of countries supporting tough action might consider targeted sanctions if the council was not firm enough. ---- Iran Nuke Talks Center At UN by William M. Reilly UPI U.N. Correspondent United Nations (UPI) Mar 13, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Iran_Nuke_Talks_Center_At_UN.html The debate over Iran and its nuclear ambitions has moved to U.N. World Headquarters in New York from the International Atomic Energy Agency's Vienna base and the United States sees negotiations continuing indefinitely before action in the Security Council, which will be only "a matter of time." "The question of Iran's nuclear weapons program is a test for the Security Council, The ability of the council and the ability to deal with the threat of proliferation of nuclear weapons that Iran poses is something that is going to be very important for us to track closely and that's why the President (George W. Bush) has said repeatedly no options are off the table," U.S. Ambassador John Bolton told reporters Thursday at a hastily called news conference Thursday. "He said nuclear weapons in the hands of the Iranian government are unacceptable," added Bolton, referring to Bush. "Our preference and the course we are trying to deal with it is through the Security Council. We'll see if we are successful." Washington's envoy explained the nature of the test begun Wednesday evening within minutes of the panel of 15 officially receiving the IAEA's 11-page report from Vienna. Since it was written two weeks ago and governments presumably had access to it either through their own ambassadors in Vienna or from other, friendly, countries, it contained no surprises. The permanent five veto-wielding members of the Security Council, Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States, are often referred to as the P5 or Perm Five in U.N.-speak. Bolton said the five met late Wednesday, deciding to give their respective capitals nearly two full days to officially review the report before meeting again Friday and continuing discussion in the council next week. "The first step will be to see how others in the Perm-Five react to the elements that are being considered and see where we go from there," Bolton said Thursday. "But I think it is a matter of time before the full council takes it up. But we don't see any reason not to make that available. I think we all feel a sense of urgency and that's certainly been communicated, but we are going to proceed in an orderly fashion as well." After that initial meeting Wednesday, Bolton said the P5 talked about the role and reaction of the council to "the continuing Iranian violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and their safeguards agreement and the steps the council might take." The Iranian file should have been in the council three-and-a-half years ago, he said. "We are facing continued defiance by Iran in the face of over three years of IAEA scrutiny, a continued program of denial and deception and it is important to build international pressure on Iran to adhere to its NPT obligations." Stepping aside from details, the top U.S. envoy at the United Nations said, "Our intention is to proceed in a careful and deliberate manner ... by giving everybody a chance to consult further with their respective capitals among the P5 and then we will talk again on Friday and see where we go." Britain's Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry told reporters Wednesday, "The United Kingdom and France indicated how we thought we now ought to respond. Colleagues will reflect on what we said and we will have other sessions to see what capitals think about it." French Ambassador Jean-Marc de la Sabliere said the panel of 15's action "should be gradual. We will follow a gradual approach because what we want is Iran to go back to (uranium enrichment) suspension. The action will therefore be gradual and reversible if Iran goes back to suspension." Russia's Ambassador Andrei Denisov said, "We discussed a possible reaction" from the council on the outcome of the Vienna meeting. But, Moscow's envoy said, he did not like the idea of giving Iran 14 days to halt its nuclear activities before the IAEA reports to the council, saying "it's a short time." He said 18 months would be a better length of time. Denisov was reacting to a British proposed text to have the IAEA report to the council two weeks after Iran is ordered to halt its uranium enrichment. "A consensus among the P5 would be welcome," he said. "We must stick to one common position, otherwise it doesn't fly. Hopefully we will reach agreement." Thursday, Bolton said he saw the situation with Iran as a challenge to the panel of 15: "The test is quite straight forward. The Iranian nuclear weapons program constitutes a threat to international peace and security. It is the Security Council's responsibility under the charter of the United Nations to deal with threats to international peace and security and to make sure the threat doesn't become a reality," Bolton said. "We're confronted with a threat here as Iran pursues not only nuclear weapons but increasing capability to longer range and more accurate ballistic missiles to develop those on targets in the region and the broader world that is obviously very, very dangerous," he said. "So we have a responsibility in the council to try and deal with that threat and that's my definition of the test." Western nuclear experts have said Iran has produced its Sahab3 ballistic missile, which can deliver a payload over 900 miles away to cover the Persian Gulf region, is working on Sahab4 with an even greater distance and payload and is developing Sahab5, which can deliver a 1,700 pound payload to China, Russia and Western Europe. One such expert earlier this week told United Press International, "There is absolutely no rational to develop ballistic missiles without a nuclear potential." ---- U.S. Campaign Is Aimed at Iran's Leaders Uneasy About Tehran's Nuclear Plans, Bush Administration Tries to Build Opposition to Theocracy By Peter Baker and Glenn Kessler Washington Post Staff Writers Monday, March 13, 2006; A01 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/12/AR2006031201016_pf.html As the dispute over its nuclear program arrives at the U.N. Security Council today, Iran has vaulted to the front of the U.S. national security agenda amid Bush administration plans for a sustained campaign against the ayatollahs of Tehran. President Bush and his team have been huddling in closed-door meetings on Iran, summoning scholars for advice, investing in opposition activities, creating an Iran office in Washington and opening listening posts abroad dedicated to the efforts against Tehran. The internal administration debate that raged in the first term between those who advocated more engagement with Iran and those who preferred more confrontation appears in the second term to be largely settled in favor of the latter. Although administration officials do not use the term "regime change" in public, that in effect is the goal they outline as they aim to build resistance to the theocracy. "We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in Senate testimony last week. "We do not have a problem with the Iranian people. We want the Iranian people to be free. Our problem is with the Iranian regime." In private meetings, Bush and his advisers have been more explicit. Members of the Hoover Institution's board of overseers who met with Bush, Vice President Cheney and national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley two weeks ago emerged with the impression that the administration has shifted to a more robust policy aimed at the Iranian government. "The message that we received is that they are in favor of separating the Iranian people from the regime," said Esmail Amid-Hozour, an Iranian American businessman who serves on the Hoover board. "The upper hand is with those who are pushing regime change rather than those who are advocating more diplomacy," said Richard N. Haass, who as State Department policy planning director in Bush's first term was among those pushing for engagement. But as the administration gears up, the struggle with Iran remains shadowed by Iraq. The botched intelligence on Saddam Hussein's weapons has left a credibility challenge in convincing the public and the world that the administration is right this time about Iran. After alienating European allies in the rush to war in Iraq, the administration is following a slower, multilateral approach. And with U.S. forces stretched, analysts wonder how feasible a military option would be if it came to that. The focus on Iran inside the administration lately has been striking. Bush, according to aides, has been spending more time on the issue, and advisers have invited 30 to 40 specialists for consultations in recent months. In the past week, the State Department created an Iran desk. Last year, only two people in the department worked full time on Iran; now there will be 10. The department is launching more training in the Farsi language and is planning an Iranian career track, which has been difficult without an embassy there. Undersecretary of State R. Nicholas Burns said in an interview that the department will also add staff in Dubai, which is part of the United Arab Emirates, as well as at other embassies in the vicinity of Iran, all assigned to watch Tehran. He called the new Dubai outpost the "21st century equivalent" of the Riga station in Latvia that monitored the Soviet Union in the 1930s when the United States had no embassy in Moscow. The administration also has launched a $75 million program to advance democracy in Iran by expanding broadcasting into the country, funding nongovernmental organizations and promoting cultural exchanges. Voice of America broadcasts one hour a day into Iran; by April, that will grow to four hours a day, and the administration plans to go to 24 hours a day. But the administration suffered a setback last week when lawmakers slashed $19 million, mainly from broadcast operations. The administration got to this point after a year of deliberately staying on the sidelines. After the United States took the lead on Iraq, the British told Bush administration officials that Washington should let the Europeans go first on dealing with Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program. During her first trip to Europe as secretary of state, in February 2005, Rice was surprised that most questions from European officials concerned Iran, not Iraq, and was sobered by the realization that they viewed Washington as the problem, not Tehran. When Bush went to Europe a few weeks later, French President Jacques Chirac and then-Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder of Germany pushed him to support a British-French-German diplomatic effort dubbed the EU-3. Bush agreed, and Rice announced the decision a year ago last weekend. With the Europeans in the lead, it became easier to persuade Russia and China as well to take a tougher line with Iran. "We have taken the position from the get-go that we believed it was important to work with as many countries as possible," Burns said. "We wanted to have the entire international community on our side in order to pressure Iran." The biggest help bringing the international community together, though, came from Iran. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad proved so incendiary -- in dismissing the Holocaust and talking about wiping Israel off the map -- that the prospect of a negotiated solution faded. The statements underscored the danger posed by Tehran and, according to Burns, led Rice "to say we need to fire on all pistons on Iran." Ultimately, the Europeans, Russia and China agreed to send Iran to the Security Council. Bush decided to push more overtly for a democratic Iran. "Tonight," he said in his State of the Union address on Jan. 31, "let me speak directly to the citizens of Iran: America respects you, and we respect your country. We respect your right to choose your own future and win your own freedom. And our nation hopes one day to be the closest of friends with a free and democratic Iran." Now that the nuclear issue is at the Security Council, the U.S. strategy is to escalate gradually rather than force an immediate climax. The first step would be a statement by the council president declaring Iran in violation of nuclear treaty obligations and demanding it suspend uranium enrichment. If that fails, the council could be asked to impose economic sanctions or pass a resolution allowing military force to enforce compliance. Russia and China, which have veto power, seem unlikely to support either move. "There's a clear desire to have a broad coalition," a senior U.S. official said. "The question is, how do you get any action out of it?" Some analysts believe this year will lead to a decision point for Bush whether to use a military option. For now, Bush and his aides say all options are on the table, but as a practical matter no armed strike is likely until diplomacy has been exhausted. Many military specialists doubt a strike would be effective because Iran's nuclear facilities are scattered in dozens of locations, and would require hundreds of sorties first to disrupt Iranian air defenses. Such an attack, they say, could inflame the Muslim world and alienate reformers within Iran. Haass, now president of the Council on Foreign Relations, said Washington should instead try direct negotiations with Tehran: "The United States ought to make a major diplomatic push in part because it might succeed, in part because none of the other options are attractive and in part because if you're going to escalate you want to demonstrate that you tried." The current policy, he said, "looks to me more like a hope than a strategy." Some Republicans, though, say a military attack may be required if only to set back Iran's nuclear program a few years. "Every year that we wait, the risk increases," said former House speaker Newt Gingrich, a member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board. "I would hope that the administration would decide to do something decisive. . . . We have the military power in the region if we need it. It's a question of whether we have the will." Such a decision could prompt deep skepticism after the Iraq intelligence failure. "As far as Congress, they're certainly going to do their homework more this time and demand more from the intelligence community before they go along with this," said a Senate Republican leadership aide who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The way things are going now, the aide said, "It's hard to see this getting resolved under the Bush administration." RELATED SUBJECT – http://deshcalling.blogspot.com/2006/03/us-takes-steps-towards-military-action.html US considers military action against Iran an option http://in.rediff.com/news/2006/mar/13iran.htm Bush makes 2nd "axis of evil" remark http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200603/13/eng20060313_250198.html Dealing with Iran's nuclear ambitions: four approaches http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0313/p09s01-coop.html Iranian tango http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20060312-101234-5738r.htm Our Opportunity With India http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/12/AR2006031200978.html Straw speech to focus on Iranians http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4800276.stm Iran at the N-crossroads http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/mar2006-daily/13-03-2006/oped/o3.htm CONSPIRACY THEORIES – Secret Societies, Trilateralism and the New World Order http://deshcalling.blogspot.com/2006/03/secret-societies-trilateralism-and-new.html -------- iraq / inspections Tapes reveal WMD plans by Saddam By Rowan Scarborough THE WASHINGTON TIMES March 13, 2006 http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060313-123146-7380r.htm Audiotapes of Saddam Hussein and his aides underscore the Bush administration's argument that Baghdad was determined to rebuild its arsenal of weapons of mass destruction once the international community had tired of inspections and left the Iraqi dictator alone. In addition to the captured tapes, U.S. officials are analyzing thousands of pages of newly translated Iraqi documents that tell of Saddam seeking uranium from Africa in the mid-1990s. The documents also speak of burying prohibited missiles, according to a government official familiar with the declassification process. But it is not clear whether Baghdad did what the documents indicate, said the U.S. official, who asked not to be named. "The factories are present," an Iraqi aide tells Saddam on one of the tapes, made by the dictator in the mid-1990s while U.N. weapons inspectors were searching for Baghdad's remaining stocks of weapons of mass destruction. "The factories remain, in the mind they remain. Our spirit is with us, based solely on the time period," the aide says, according to the documents. "And [inspectors] take note of the time period, they can't account for our will." The quote is from roughly 12 hours of taped conversations that unexpectedly landed in the lap of Bill Tierney, a former Army warrant officer and Arabic speaker who was translating for the FBI tapes unearthed in Iraq after the invasion. Mr. Tierney made a copy, which he provided to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The committee in turn gave a copy to intelligence analysts who authenticated the voice as that of Saddam. Mr. Tierney said that the quote from the Saddam aide, and scores of others, show Saddam was rebuilding his once-ample weapons stocks. "The tapes show that Saddam rebuilt his program and successfully prevented the U.N. from finding out about it," he said. There also exists a quote from the dictator himself, who ordered the tapings to keep a record of his inner-sanctum discussions, that Mr. Tierney thinks shows Saddam planned to use a proxy to attack the United States. "Terrorism is coming ... with the Americans," Saddam said. "With the Americans, two years ago, not a long while ago, with the English I believe, there was a campaign ... with one of them, that in the future there would be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction." -------- korea South Korea US Alliance At Risk South Korea has heavily relied on U.S protection for its national security, while focusing its resources on rebuilding the war-torn economy, which now stands as the world's 11th biggest. by Jong-Heon Lee Seoul (UPI) Mar 13, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/reports/South_Korea_US_Alliance_At_Risk.html Concerns are growing in South Korea over further troubles in its decades-long security alliance with the United States as Washington seeks to reshape its military presence in the Asian country. Some analysts warn Washington's move toward a new role of U.S. forces in South Korea and disputes over financial burden sharing would further damage bilateral security ties already strained by differences over how to deal with a North Korea accused of developing nuclear weapons and counterfeiting U.S. currency. Some observers say the longtime partners are getting close to divorce. The concern was sparked earlier this week when a senior U.S. military official floated the idea of transforming the U.S.-led U.N. forces in South Korea into a multinational coalition command. At a Senate Armed Forces Committee hearing Tuesday, Gen. B.B. Bell, commander of U.S. Forces Korea, said the United States would seek to increase the function of participant nations in the United Nations Command in South Korea. "It is the (U.N.) command's intent to create a truly multinational staff by expanding the roles of the member nations and integrating them more fully into our contingency and operational planning and operations," Bell said. Seoul's defense officials on Friday downplayed Bell's comment as his personal opinion. But Bell's reMark was largely considered as a move to enhance the role of the U.N. Command that oversees the Korean armistice that ended the 1950-53 Korean War, while scaling down the South Korea-U.S. Combined Forces Command that has played a key role in deterring another armed conflict on the Korean peninsula. Bell heads the U.N. Command, comprised of 16 nations, which joined forces to rescue a South Korea that was almost occupied just days after North Korea, backed by China and the Soviet Union, launched a surprise invasion on June 25, 1950. Bell is also leading the South Korea-U.S. Combined Forces Command that controls South Korea's 690,000 troops and 32,500 U.S. troops. Under a mutual defense treaty reached at the end of the Korean War, the United States has stationed more than 30,000 troops in the South to deter another attack by the communist North. Since then, South Korea has heavily relied on U.S protection for its national security, while focusing its resources on rebuilding the war-torn economy, which now stands as the world's 11th biggest. In a departure from his pro-U.S. predecessors, President Roh Moo-hyun, elected in late 2002 on a strong wave of anti-U.S. sentiment, has declared that his country would emerge from the decades-long U.S. security umbrella within the early 2010s. Roh has said his nation would no longer be locked into the U.S.-led alliance, a decades-long security framework in Northeast Asia counterbalancing the communist alliance led by China. He has pledged to lay the groundwork for a self-defense system independent of the United States within 10 years during his five-year term that ends in early 2008. Roh's government has also pushed to regain wartime operational control of South Korean troops. South Korea got back the peacetime operational control of its forces from the United States in 1994, but its wartime operational control still remains in the hands of a four-star U.S. army general who concurrently heads the South Korea-U.S. Combined Forces Command. Some defense analysts express concerns that the smaller role of the U.S. military in South Korea may weaken their joint deterrence against North Korea, which has a 1.2 million-strong army. Washington has already unveiled a plan to reshape American troops in South Korea as "rapid deployment forces" to interfere in military conflicts in Northeast Asia, under the posture of "strategic flexibility." Under the plan, the United States would slash one-third of its 37,500 troop level by 2008. It currently keeps 32,500 troops in South Korea after having withdrawn about 5,000 soldiers in 2004. Fueling security jitters in South Korea, Adm. William Fallon, chief of the U.S. Pacific Command, said Thursday he anticipates a further cut in the U.S. troop size in South Korea if it assumes a greater role in defending itself "If that's the case, then I would expect that there will be additional negotiation regarding what role the U.S. forces play," Fallon said in an interview with South Korea's Yonhap news agency after testifying before the House Armed Services Committee. The U.S. military also said it is looking for stronger trilateral military cooperation with South Korea and Japan as it seeks to adjust to changing security environments targeting China. This is likely to trigger frictions with Seoul, which has made clear that it would not join U.S.-led military cooperation against Beijing. The U.S. military has also called for Seoul to pay more to maintain American forces in South Korea, saying any shortfall would compromise their combat readiness. Bell called for "a balanced defense burden sharing arrangement... fundamental to the strength of the alliance," pointing to South Korea's growing economic improvement. South Korea and the United State remain differed over U.S. base relocation costs, estimated at about $5.5-6.8 billion. Kim Seung-hwan, a professor at Myongji University in Seoul, said a weakened Seoul-Washington security alliance would hurt much-needed policy coordination to curb North Korea's nuclear aspirations. "Further troubles in the South Korea-U.S. alliance would fuel uncertainties in the security conditions on the Korean peninsula," said Kim, who is now advising for the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. -------- missile defense Outside View Flawed Missile War Game by Philip E. Coyle UPI Outside View Commentator Washington (UPI) Mar 13, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Outside_View_Flawed_Missile_War_Game.html The addled thinking of the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency was on full display in late January when MDA officials conducted a missile defense war game on Capitol Hill. In this war game, Midland, a fictional island nation located in the Sea of Japan, decides to attack its neighbors, South Korea and Japan. According to the formal briefing presented to participants and observers, this is because: "Tensions between Midland and Japan and South Korea have increased over oil reserves and fishing rights." In this war game, Midland is not allowed to also attack North Korea because, well, Midland is North Korea. To be politically correct, MDA just doesn't say so. Midland also attacks the United States, launching seven long-range missiles to "preclude U.S. involvement," according to the briefing. To preclude U.S. involvement? MDA forgot to "Remember Pearl Harbor." I promise you, if someone fires seven intercontinental ballistic missiles at the United States, we are going to get involved. Yet MDA postulates that without missile defenses, this action by North Korea, excuse me, Midland, will "constrain U.S. engagement." This is the kind of fuzzy thinking that has affected so much of the U.S. planning in missile defense. MDA postulates a goofy threat -- that attacking the United States will keep us from getting involved -- and then justifies tens of billions of taxpayer dollars to counter the goofy threat. A recent Pentagon briefing claims the threat from enemy missiles is growing and shows missiles in 20 countries. But all but two of those 20 countries -- Iran and North Korea -- are either friends, allies, or countries from which we have no missile threat, e.g. Israel, India, Pakistan, Vietnam, South Korea, Moldova, Ukraine, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc. Moldova? Yes, Moldova. And, with the exception of Russia and China, none of those 20 countries -- including Iran and North Korea -- have missiles that can reach the United States anyway. The most futuristic missile defenses we can imagine will not be effective against the ICBMs in Russia and China, so we'd better get down to business to be sure we avoid war with -- or even accidental or unauthorized launches from -- Russia or China. Or even Midland. The purpose of the recent war game -- conducted just as President George W. Bush's new defense budget was headed for Capitol Hill -- was for members of Congress, their staffs and the press to see a missile defense fantasy, and then support that fantasy with billions of new taxpayer dollars. To get support for missile defense, the Pentagon needs a better story. But after 20 years trying, they still don't have one. It would be astonishing if Midland, or any other country real or imaginary, didn't know that it would guarantee our involvement by firing scores of missiles at our friends and allies, and seven more at the U.S. homeland. What's more astonishing is that the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency doesn't know it. Philip E. Coyle is a senior advisor at the Center for Defense Information, a Washington think tank. United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited. --- related report BMD Focus: MDA War Game Taught Key Lessons http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Outside_View_Flawed_Missile_War_Game.html Washington (UPI) Mar 13 - It is easy to ridicule war games. For playing at war is obviously a very different thing from actually waging it. Nevertheless, the series of war games that the U.S. Missile Defense Agency carried out with members of Congress and invited journalists to in late January dramatized and clarified many fundamental issues of life or death significance for tens of millions of people. The war game hypothesized a mass intercontinental ballistic missile launching by a supposedly imaginary or hypothetical "rogue" state that was an island in Northeast Asia threatening both South Korea and Japan named "Midland." It was not hard to re-imagine "Midland" as North Korea. In the war game, "Midland" launched seven intercontinental ballistic missiles at the United States and the players in the game held what would be real positions in the U.S. command structure, forcing them to make decisions as to which of their limited number of anti-ballistic missile interceptors they should launch to protect threatened U.S. cities and military targets. In the Jan. 24 war game this correspondent participated in, all the U.S. interceptors that were launched worked perfectly. Skeptics pointed out that in two major tests over the previous eighteen months the U.S. interceptors being tested never even took off from their silos. War games, it is true, tend to assume that everything will work perfectly, whereas in reality, as the great Prussian military theorist Carl von Clauswitz pointed out in the early 19th century, war generates complexity and chaos. There is no human activity or experience more redolent of Lord Kelvin's Second Law of Thermodynamics. All things in war tend towards entropy -- a state of chaos and confusion. And they do so very fast. Nevertheless, the MDA war game was far from being as unrealistic as its detractors have claimed. First, under the driving leadership of MDA chief Air Force Lt. Gen. Henry "Trey" Obering III, major progress has been made in correcting the very basic problems that caused the failures of the interceptors to ignite in those two tests. The main problem had been rushed construction and deployment of the interceptors without adequate testing. But most of the senior civilian Pentagon officials who had pushed breakneck deployment without sufficient testing and quality control of key components, or sufficient inspection of the missile silos, have been removed. And, as happened with the legendary Apollo Moon program in the late 1960s after the fire that killed three astronauts on their launch pad in early 1967, the MDA has been going over the immediate reasons for the failures and flawed leadership culture that generated them with a fine toothcomb. Given the striking record of test successes that the U.S. ballistic missile defense program has racked up over the past nine months, it is not unreasonable to assume that of the relatively small number of interceptors already deployed, almost all, if not all of them, will indeed work as they are supposed to. Second, the MDA war game highlighted a crucial lesson of modern human history. Until now, nuclear-armed missiles are about the only infernal, new weapon of war that has not yet been used in anger. Machine-guns, poison gas, and even atomic bombs have all been used to kill millions of people. As long ago as the Civil War, there were discussions among Confederate officials about trying to use biological weapons -- specifically trying to spread smallpox in the cities of the Union. It was never done. But some 85 years earlier, Gen. George Washington seriously believed that the British Empire was trying to spread smallpox among the small military forces and cities of infant America. In other words, when a new destructive weapons capability exists -- however apparently diabolical or unprecedented it is -- the historical record overwhelmingly documents that it will eventually be used. Therefore, given the increasingly rapid and widespread proliferation of ballistic missile and nuclear technology, sooner or later, nuclear-armed ICBMs will almost certainly fly -- to one target or another. And it is far from inconceivable that some "rogue" state leadership, if not now, then, in the future, might decide to press its button and send one or several missiles against American, Northeast Asian or European targets. If that ever happens, other very clear lessons of the Jan. 24 war game will quickly become clear. However many ABM missiles seemed sufficient to defense planners before the crisis, once the missile starts flying they will always seem like far too few. Also, decisions of life or death for tens of millions of people will be made by young officers and servicemen and women over split seconds. Decisions in the war games about which interceptors to fire at missiles threatening different cities had to be made in time envelopes of only a few minutes. Only 10 ground-based interceptors were available in the war game to intercept those seven ICBMS. Not very good odds. However, the current rapid deployment program being conducted will very significantly improve them over the coming months. My old friend and colleague Bill Gertz, the legendary intelligence correspondent of The Washington Times, had to decide to let a target in the Aleutian Islands get hit in order to have sufficient interceptor resources to defend and save the huge, densely populated cities of California. Good call, Bill. A message to old friends out in the Aleutians: Sorry, folks. Nor will any commander have all or perhaps even most of the ideal information he will require to make a certainly correct decision. Retired U.S. Navy Vice Adm. Dave Frost put it very well: "No operational commander can be sure he knows what he needs to know." A picture, it is often said, is worth a thousand words. Participation in a war game against incoming ballistic missiles with nuclear war heads dramatizes and clarifies the issues and the stakes more than a hundred congressional hearing or 10,000 op-ed articles. More than half a century ago, a despairing Albert Einstein famously said, "There is no defense against the weapons that can destroy civilization." The BMD systems we and other nations are now feverishly developing do not yet offer by any means the prospect of any sure and secure shield. But they are a lot better than nothing and a vast amount of genuine commitment and effort is going into making them a lot better than they already are. The future of this country and of civilized life around the world depends on proving Einstein wrong. -------- pakistan US wants to help Pakistan on energy, but not nuclear By Simon Cameron-Moore Mon Mar 13, 2006 (Reuters) http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060313/ts_nm/energy_pakistan_usa_dc_2 ISLAMABAD - Barring nuclear power, or a gas pipeline from Iran, the United States wants to help its ally Pakistan develop potential energy sources, U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman said on Monday. Sent to Pakistan by President George W. Bush to discuss what can be done to cover its future needs, Bodman listed everything from coal, and gas pipelines -- except from Iran -- to renewable sources such as cellulose-based ethanol and wind or solar energy. "I've just listed a long list of potential sources of energy that this country would have an interest in, should have, apparently does have an interest in, and that's what I came prepared to talk about," Bodman told journalists. "And the field of cooperation with respect to civil nuclear work is not on the list." When he was in Islamabad on March 4, Bush told President Pervez Musharraf it was too soon to talk of Pakistan getting a similar deal to one given India, granting access to U.S. know-how for its civilian nuclear program. The United States harbors reservations about Pakistan's record on proliferation, as its top scientist, Abdul Qadeer Khan, has admitted selling nuclear parts to, among others, Iran. Pakistan has not let U.S. investigators question Khan, who has been under house arrest for over two years. Bodman's visit to Islamabad came as Indian and Pakistani energy officials gathered in Tehran to discuss a $7 billion gas pipeline project from Iran to India, via Pakistan. The White House last week poured cold water on the project due to concerns about Iran's nuclear ambitions, and Bodman said there was no way the United States would encourage any country seeking a contractual agreement with Iran. Instead he said Pakistan should quickly pursue alternative potential gas pipeline projects with Turkmenistan and Qatar. Bodman met Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz and Foreign Minister Khursheed Mehmood Kasuri at the start of a week-long trip that will also take him to Russia, Hungary and Kazakhstan. He described his visit as an example of the priority the United States gave to its strategic relationship with Pakistan. The keystone of the U.S.-Pakistani relationship remains a common war on terrorism, including against militant groups once covertly supported by the Pakistani military. DEPENDS ON PRIVATE SECTOR Bodman said he discussed what needed to be done to improve Pakistan as a destination for investment in its infrastructure, while adding that his department had no budget to help Pakistan. "This is an effort that will have to be led by the private sector, the private sector here in Pakistan as well as the private sector in our country," Bodman said. Bodman declined to comment on China's involvement in Pakistan's civil nuclear program. China, a traditional ally of Pakistan, is building Pakistan's third nuclear plant. Based on expectations that the economy will average annual growth of seven percent, Pakistan's Petroleum Ministry has projected major shortages of oil and gas, amounting to 20 million tonnes or oil equivalent by 2010, and 100 million by 2025. To add to Pakistan's problems, the military has been struggling to contain is an insurgency by provincial separatists in Baluchistan, home to the bulk of the country's gas reserves. The bill for oil imports is expected to cross $6 billion this fiscal year to June 30, against $4.4 billion in fiscal 2004/2005. -------- security Call For Nuclear Safety Regs Review By Kitty Merrill March 13, 2006 East Hampton Independent http://www.indyeastend.com/cgi-bin/indep/news.cgi?action=article&category=News&id=9288 Are nuclear power stations adequately protected against potential terrorist attacks? The Committee to Bridge the Gap, a nuclear watchdog group, thinks not. Recently East End state reps Assemblyman Fred Thiele and Senator Ken LaValle joined with the group to ask the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission to update safety regulations for nuclear facilities. Design basis threat regulations estimate the types of threats a nuclear power station must be capable of defending against, as well as other aspects of protecting public safety and health. Recently the Global Resource Action Center For the Environment joined with Committee to ask the NRC to upgrade its DBT regulations. Currently DBT law fails to reflect the type and intensity of attacks similar to the 9/11 disaster. The regs don’t reflect plans to defend against airborne attacks, and although most facilities are situated near bodies of water, the regs don’t reference potential waterborne attacks. Thiele said he was concerned about the NRC’s “less than aggressive approach” to ensuring safety at power stations.“ He’s calling for “visible and impenetrable protection against attacks by land, water, and air.” LaValle noted Long Island’s proximity to the Millstone Nuclear Power Plant, and emphasized the need to “make the facility secure and less vulnerable to attack.” Last month Millstone II was shut down for several days due to an equipment malfunction. -------- MILITARY -------- afghanistan U.S. to Hand Over Afghan Mission to NATO By JIM KRANE, Associated Press Writer Mon Mar 13, 2006 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060313/ap_on_re_as/afghanistan_us_nato KABUL, Afghanistan - The American mission to bring order to this unruly country is being handed to a multinational force led by the NATO alliance, a move that will subordinate U.S. troops under foreign command in a combat situation for the first time since World War II. NATO's ambitious mission could inject the flagging European-North American alliance with a sense of purpose and also might take the heat off Washington, seen in this region as too eager to fight Muslims. But there are questions whether NATO will engage in the type of offensive operations the U.S.-led coalition has. "NATO needs to grab hold of this mission for NATO's sake," U.S. Central Command chief Gen. John Abizaid said in a recent interview with The Associated Press. Jumping outside European boundaries is "where the alliance needs to go to stay relevant for the future." Abizaid and others have said the Afghanistan mission marks a historic expansion for NATO that could see the alliance taking further missions in Africa or elsewhere. Even after the takeover, however, the U.S. is expected to maintain a separate counterinsurgency force in Afghanistan to hunt Taliban and al-Qaida holdouts. British Army Lt. Gen. David Richards is to take command in Afghanistan this summer, the first time U.S. ground troops at war would be placed under foreign leadership in more than 50 years. "That's a first — since World War II," U.S. Brig. Gen. Douglas Raaberg told the AP on Sunday. Americans won't be far from the top, however. Richards' deputy will be Maj. Gen. Benjamin Freakley, now commander of the U.S. Army's 10th Mountain Division. "It has always been a contentious issue. Americans don't like to be under command of other nations," said Amyas Godfrey, a military analyst with the Royal United Services Institute for Defense and Security Studies in London. But in this case, he added: "I don't think it'll be a problem. Brits and Americans have been working hand in hand for over three years." U.S. troops have been under foreign command before — in a U.N. force in Macedonia in the 1990s and under NATO in Kosovo, where they continue to serve since 1999. But both missions were peacekeeping operations after hostilities had largely ended. U.S. troops haven't been under foreign command in a theater where fighting continues — like Afghanistan — since serving with British Field Marshall Bernard Law Montgomery in some campaigns of World War II. Some 5,000 to 6,000 Americans will join the NATO force in Afghanistan, which will more than double in size by November, from its current 10,000 troops to around 21,000 troops. NATO is already moving into Afghanistan's rebellious southern provinces with 6,000 troops, mainly from Britain, Canada and the Netherlands. That deployment is expected to be completed in the summer and will quickly be followed by the alliance moving into the east, considered Afghanistan's most dangerous sector. "NATO is going from the north and west that were relatively quiet to areas where there's going to be challenges," Abizaid told the AP. "Tackling these things is going to be important for the alliance." Yet questions remain over the NATO forces' mandate as they start moving into the south amid rising militant attacks and suicide bombings. One Western diplomat based in Islamabad said it remains unclear whether NATO will be willing to take and inflict casualties. NATO's limits are likely to be quickly tested by militants, the diplomat said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak to journalists on the record. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has said the 19,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan will be reduced to about 16,000 by the summer. About 5,000 to 6,000 of them will go under the NATO command, aimed at maintaining stability and security. The rest will be in the separate U.S. counterinsurgency force to hunt Taliban and al-Qaida holdouts, which will remain under U.S. military command, in close liaison with NATO. U.S. B-52 bombers and A-10 ground-attack jets will remain in Afghanistan to back up both NATO and the separate U.S. force, said Raaberg, Centcom's deputy chief of operations. Whether U.S. military control of Afghanistan's airspace gets transferred to NATO has yet to be decided, he said. Not all NATO forces will be as "robustly engaged" as others, Abizaid said. Some are restricted by national rules, or caveats, from engaging in combat, crowd control and other confrontations. "There will be a whole range of national capabilities displayed here and willingness to engage in tasks," Abizaid said. "We look to minimize as many of those caveats as possible." In contrast to Afghanistan, NATO has refused to take a large role in Iraq, agreeing only to handle limited training of Iraqi troops in a U.S.-led war unpopular in most NATO countries. U.S. intervention in Afghanistan is viewed as a more justified conflict. Godfrey, a former British intelligence officer in Iraq, said the "internationalization" of the Afghan counterinsurgency duties takes the heat off Washington's stretched troops and battered image. "America needs NATO in this situation," Godfrey said. "It will take pressure off America and the idea that America is perpetuating a war against Muslim nations, and that it's always America on the front lines." Major contributors to the NATO forces include more than 3,000 British troops, more than 2,000 Canadians, as well as around 1,000 Italians, Germans, French, Spanish, Dutch and others. Non-NATO members include Australia, New Zealand and Albania. On the Net: http://www.nato.int Associated Press reporter Matthew Pennington contributed to this report from Islamabad, Pakistan. -------- business The War Dividend: The British companies making a fortune out of conflict-riven Iraq By Robert Verkaik Published: 13 March 2006 UK Independent http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article350959.ece British businesses have profited by at least £1.1bn since coalition forces toppled Saddam Hussein three years ago, the first comprehensive investigation into UK corporate investment in Iraq has found. The company roll-call of post-war profiteers includes some of the best known names in Britain's boardrooms as well many who would prefer to remain anonymous. They come from private security services, banks, PR consultancies, urban planning consortiums, oil companies, architects offices and energy advisory bodies. Among the top earners is the construction firm Amec, which has made an estimated £500m from a series of contracts restoring electrical systems and maintaining power generation facilities during the past two years. Aegis, which provides private security has earned more than £246m from a three-year contract with the Pentagon to co-ordinate military and security companies in Iraq. Erinys, which specialises in the same area, has made more than £86m, a substantial portion from the protection of oilfields. The evidence of massive investments and the promise of more multimillion-pound profits to come was discovered in a joint investigation by Corporate Watch, an independent watchdog, and The Independent. The findings show how much is stake if Britain were to withdraw military protection from Iraq. British company involvement at the top of Iraq's new political and economic structures means Iraq will be forced to rely on British business for many years to come. A total of 61 British companies are identified as benefiting from at least £1.1bn of contracts and investment in the new Iraq. But that figure is just the tip of the iceberg; Corporate Watch believes it could be as much as five times higher, because many companies prefer to keep their relationship secret. The waters are further muddied by the Government's refusal to release the names of companies it has helped to win contracts in Iraq. Many of the companies enjoy long-standing relationships with Labour and now have a financial stake in the reconstruction of Iraq in Britain's image. Of the total profits published in the report, the British taxpayer has had to meet a bill for £78m while the US taxpayer's contribution to UK corporate earnings in Iraq is nearly nine times that. Iraqis themselves have paid British company directors £150m. The report acknowledges that British business still lags behind the huge profits paid to American companies. But, in two fields, Britain is playing a critical and leading role. The threat from the Iraqi insurgency means British private security companies are in great demand. Corporate Watch estimates there are between 20,000 and 30,000 security personnel working in Iraq, half of whom are employed by companies run by retired senior British officers and at least two former defence ministers. The biggest British player, Aegis - run by Tim Spicer, the former British army lieutenant colonel who founded the security company Sandline - has a workforce the size of a military division and may rank as the largest corporate military group ever assembled, according to the report. Other private security companies have sprung up overnight to protect British and American civilians. Britain is also playing a leading role in advising on the creation of state institutions and the business of government. PA Consulting, which has also received a contract for advising on the Government's ID cards scheme, worth around £19m, is now a key adviser in Iraq. Adam Smith International, a body closely linked to the right-wing think-tank used by Margaret Thatcher, has been heavily involved in the foundation of the Iraqi government and continues to influence its newly formed ministries. According to the Tory MP Quentin Davies, who visited Iraq, the advisers are "reordering Iraqi government operations at the most basic level, to help restructure some of the Iraqi ministries, in fact physically restructure them, even suggesting how the minister's office should be laid out". Another favourite of the Thatcher governments, now involved in Iraq, is Tim Bell, who ran the Tories' election campaigns in 1979, 1983 and 1987. His PR firm Bell-Pottinger has been involved in advising on the 2004 elections and a strategic campaign to promote bigger concepts such as the return of sovereignty, reconstruction, support for the army and police, minority rights and public probity. Loukas Christodoulou, of Corporate Watch, has been monitoring British business relations with Iraq since the invasion. He says in his conclusion to our joint report: "The presence of these consultants in Iraq is arguably a part of the UK government's policy to push British firms as lead providers of privatisation support. The Department for International Development has positioned itself as a champion of privatisation in developing countries. The central part UK firms are playing in reshaping Iraq's economy and society lays the ground for a shift towards a corporate-dominated economy. This will have repercussions lasting decades." In five years, the £1.1bn of contracts identified in the report will be dwarfed by what Britain and the US hope to reap from investments. Highly lucrative oil contracts have yet to be handed out. --- Top 10 UK firms profiting from Iraq Published: 13 March 2006 UK Independent http://news.independent.co.uk/business/analysis_and_features/article350930.ece 1. AMEC £500m It is a global project management company specialising in the oil and gas and engineering sectors. In Iraq, it is or has been: subcontractor on the $154m (£89m) Fluor contract to restore electrical power systems (February 2004); a joint contract with Fluor to "provide design-build services for construction, rehabilitation, operation, and maintenance of power generation facilities" worth $500m from Usaid (March 2004); a joint contract with Fluor to "provide design-build construction services for water resource projects" worth $500m and $600m from Usaid (March 2004); an unknown sum from a Centcom contract. 2. Aegis £246.5m+ It is perhaps the biggest UK success story in Iraq, having won the $430m Pentagon contract to oversee all private security operations. Yet Aegis has been rejected once for membership of the International Peace Operations Association, a trade association that prefers to style its sector the "peace and stability industry". 3. Erinys £86m+ Based in London, Erinys specialises in security for the petroleum, construction and mining industries. In Iraq, it has been responsible for the creation of an oil protection force. Between August 2003 and December 2004, Erinys Iraq trained, equipped and mobilised a 16,000-strong Iraqi guard force to protect the pipelines. 4. Petrel Resources (Anglo-Irish) £56.6m It is a London and Dublin listed oil and gas exploration company, with current operations focused on Iraq where it is seeking licences to run three existing oil wells. 5. HSBC £36.88m HSBC is the third biggest financial institution in the world. Has bought 70 per cent of a recently established Iraqi bank, Dar es Salaam Investment Bank, which has assets of $91.1m. HSBC's share is therefore £36,881,225. Its profit from Middle East business rose 25 per cent in 2004. 6. Cummins UK £25.8m+ The world's largest manufacturer of diesel engines has been awarded contracts worth $45m from sales to power stations in Iraq. 7. PB Power £24.88m The global engineering and construction firm won a $43.4m contract to provide programme management office support for the electrical services sector. 8. Control Risks £23.5m+ The risk consultancy business helps companies with everything from capital raising to crisis management. It provides governmental and corporate clients with security management, discreet armed protection, and information support. Its contracts included: an unknown proportion of $500m; subcontractor for Parsons Usaid buildings contract (March 2004); £23.5m from UK Government for protection squads; figure disputed by CR (March 2004). More than 250 personnel in Iraq (June 2005). 9. MerchantBridge £22.07m It is is an investment banking group focusing on telecommunications, real estate, construction, financial services, information technology and hotels in Iraq. "Lead adviser" to Iraq's Ministry of Industry and Minerals for factory lease programme (January 2004); launched Mansour Bank (September 2005), capitalised at $38.5m; 90 per cent from Iraqi investors. 10. Global Risk Strategies £15.4m (at least) Risk management company, which advises on all aspects of corporate security, including counter-terrorism strategies. It has its headquarters in Hampton, Middlesex. It assists with humanitarian aid and reconstruction projects in the aviation, oil, banking and infrastructure sectors. Has 2,000 staff in Iraq. Received $27m contract to distribute new dinar (May 2004); guarded part of Baghdad airport (May 2004). The high-profile players LT-COL TIM SPICER (RETIRED) OBE Former Scots Guards, former SAS, Spicer is chief executive of Aegis, a private security firm. He founded Sandline, along with Simon Mann (who is now jailed for plotting a coup in Equatorial Guinea) NICHOLAS SOAMES The former Defence minister (from 1994-97), is a non-executive director of Aegis MAJ-GEN JEREMY PHIPPS (RETIRED) Former SAS, former head of British special forces 1989-1993. Previously linked to the consultancy group Control Risks, Phipps is now the head of Aegis operations in Iraq SIR MALCOLM RIFKIND The Tory former defence secretary is a non-executive director and chairman of Armor Group, which has been awarded £11.4m of public contracts in Iraq HARRY LEGGE-BOURKE FORMER CAPTAIN IN WELSH GUARDS Friend of Prince Charles and brother of Prince William's nanny. Former aide-de-camp to chief of defence staff. Operations chief for Olive Security - turnover almost doubled in 2004. GENERAL SIR MICHAEL ROSE Commander of the 22nd SAS regiment, 1979-82. Commandant of school of infantry, of staff college, Camberley, and first Director special forces, 1988-89; non-executive director of Control Risks Group TIM BELL His firm Bell-Pottinger was awarded a £3m by the British Government to promote democracy in the run-up to the 2004 elections. His company is closely involved in campaign to promote concepts such as return of sovereignty SIR JEREMY GREENSTOCK One of Britain's foremost diplomats, he is a non-executive director of De la Rue, a financial services company which has won one of the biggest contracts in Iraq for printing the new Iraqi dinar BARONESS BLACKSTONE Former minister of state, appointed a non-executive director of the Mott MacDonald Group in 2005. The engineering consultancy was given a £1.2m contract from DfID for infrastructure work in Iraq. GEORGE ROBERTSON Former secretary general of Nato and former Labour defence secretary, is a non-executive director of Weir, the engineering company, which was involved in contract doing oil assessments. Has been in Iraq since May 2003 The other UK interests in Iraq Adam Smith International, Consultants, £4,1m; AD Consultancy,security; Aggreko, power supply; AKE Group, security; Alstom, power; Armor Group, security, £11.4m; Baker Wilkins, construction; Bell-Pottinger, consultants, £3m; Birks Sinclair & Associates, "socio-economic development"; B-Plan Information Systems, computers, £4.5m; BP Global, petroleum, £2.8m; British Council, teaching, £3.1m; Chiltern Broadcast Management, media, £1.3m; Conren, materials, £20,000; Costain, construction, £15m; Crown Agents for Overseas Government, procurement, consultants, £8m; Datasat, telecomms; De La Rue, financial; DfID: anonymous contractors, £1,1m; Dynamic Processing Solutions, petroleum £12m+ (approx); Eaton Electric Europe, power; Enterplan Ltd, consultants, £4.5m; Eris, consultants, £61,012 ; European Land Solutions, security, Exploration Consultants, petroleum; Foster Wheeler UK, construction, power, £4.87m; Halcrow, construction, £6.8m; Hart Group, security; Hedra Consortium, consultants, £245,540; HTS Development (now HTSPE), consultants; Inclarity Plcc telecomms, most of its £18m revenue from Iraq; Janusian, security; Kroll Associates, security; Llewelyn Davies Yeang, architects, unknown proportion of £1.6m development; Maxwell Stamp consultants, £3.2m; Minimum Risk, security; Mott MacDonald, power and water, £1.2m; Mowlem, construction, £3m; Olive Security, security; PA Consulting Group, consultants £427,548; Powertecnique, power; Schneider Electric UK, power; Scott Wilson, engineering, unknown share of a $160m contract; Serco, services, £7.5m; Shell (Anglo-Dutch) petroleum; Siemens, power; Solace Enterprises, consulting; Standard Chartered, financial services; TQ Education & Training, education, £5.73m; United Mesopotamia, security; Weir, petroleum -------- europe US bases in Bulgaria: an update Mon 13 Mar 2006 - Polina Slavcheva http://www.sofiaecho.com/article/us-bases-in-bulgaria-an-update/id_13983/catid_5 A total of 3500 US troops will be deployed in Bulgaria in 2007 as part of the Pentagon’s plan to establish new mobile bases in Eastern Europe. About 2300 US servicemen are expected to go to Romania in 2006 as part of the same Pentagon restructuring plan. The general command of the Bulgarian and Romanian troops will be in Romania. Sofia and Washington are currently discussing the details of the deployment. Negotiations about US-Bulgaria joint installations started on October 6 2005, although Bulgaria had agreed in 2003 to host bases. Bezmer airport, near Yambol, and the manoeuvering training ground Novo Selo, near Sliven, both in south-eastern Bulgaria, are the two locations confirmed so far. A second air base at Graf Ignatievo, near Plovdiv in south-central Bulgaria, is still being negotiated. In an interview with The Sofia Echo, US embassy deputy chief of mission Jeffrey Levine said that “(US) interest remains (in) Novo Selo and Bezmer for our primary training activities, although the final agreement may include additional facilities that could be used in support of this training or as appropriate for other activities.” The troops will be deployed on a rotational principle, US ambassador John Beyrle said on March 7. Both Bezmer and Novo Selo were chosen because they had quick links to the seaport of Bourgas and the border with Turkey, Levine told Bulgarian media last year. The joint military facilities would be Bulgarian - the Bulgarian national colours would be raised over the bases and the soldiers will be commanded by Bulgarian generals, Beyrle said. “We are well aware of your apprehensions but, we hope, we will be good neighbors and guests,” he said. Beyrle was speaking to Kiril Todorov, mayor of Yambol, and Georgi Georgiev, mayor of Tundja, which is next to Yambol. Apart from deploying troops, the US will use the port of Bourgas for the transportation of military equipment. At the start of negotiations last year, the two parties agreed that the US would not be allowed to use its military bases in Bulgaria to attack other countries, unless Bulgaria gives its permission. The US will maintain relatively small contingents and training facilities, mainly for hosting bilateral and international drills, Interior Minister Roumen Petkov said in February this year. US troops would also not remain permanently in Bulgaria. Various arguments - such as economic benefits, higher security for Bulgaria, investments in the infrastructure and improvement of the interoperability with the US partners - were also mentioned by public officials last year. Military commemorationThe negotiations were not finalised by the end of 2005 and were postponed till spring 2006. On March 3, Foreign Minister Ivailo Kalfin said that the status of the US armed forces is a priority in this year’s discussions. Next came locations and installations. “Although various alternatives are being discussed, nothing is final yet,” Kalfin said when asked about the Graf Ignatievo air base. The deal would probably be finalised in April, Petkov said.US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice is expected to arrive in Bulgaria for the signing of the bilateral agreement. On April 27 and 28 2006, Kalfin will host an informal meeting of 26 foreign ministers of NATO member countries under the chairmanship of NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer. A total of about 800 people are expected to participate. In November, more than a month after the negotiations started, the National Council for Peace (NCP, also known as the Bulgarian ?nti-Fascist ?lliance) and the Bulgarian Social Forum organised a protest in Sofia against the US bases. Both organisations are part of the rather fuzzy Bulgarian anti-global and anti neo-liberal movement. About 500 people took part in it, according to unofficial sources. The event received almost no media coverage, nor did its peaceful procession from the National Palace of Culture to the Ivan Vazov National Theatre on January 24 2006. A national anti-US forum on February 25 followed the demonstration. Renowned international scholars, like Ramsey Clarke, US attorney general under past president Lyndon B. Johnson, attended the forum. Participants signed a declaration that was sent to the President, the Cabinet, and Parliament. Again, it got little or no media coverage, although unofficial websites said that hundreds of people had been present at the forum and the demonstration. Most of them, however, were in their 50s and older. Among reasons for this is the presence of ultra-right nationalist party Ataka MPs in the ranks of the NCP and at the February 25 forum. Notable among them is former Ataka MP Mincho Hristov, who proposed an anti-US force deployment bill in February 2006, along with two other Ataka MPs. Hristov was later expelled from Ataka for systematic violation of the rules of the party, insults to Ataka members and inconsistencies between his views and the views of other Ataka MPs. The bill itself was rejected almost unanimously with 18 ayes, 120 nays and two abstentions. The text of the February 25 declaration was identical to the reasoning for the anti-US force motion from the beginning of February. It said that “the deployment of US military bases directly violates the sovereignty of Bulgaria”; that such bases “can be used to strike against third countries”; that “their presence increases the risk of terrorist acts against Bulgarian citizens and civilian and military facilities”; and that “possibilities exist to test and use new types of armament and ammunition, which may include depleted uranium”. Ataka MPs also claimed that the vast majority of Bulgarian citizens did not want US military bases in Bulgaria, and the refusal to hold a referendum on the matter was an instance of ignoring public opinion. Despite these comments, support for US deployment, both in Parliament and among the Bulgarian populace, appears to be much stronger than the protest against them. Bulgaria was the first non-NATO country to create an Atlantic Club, which later became an echelon in the whole of Europe, as the then-foreign minister Solomon Pasi said in an interview with Kapital weekly in 2004. It was again Bulgaria, Passi said, that created the idea of multinational military forces in South East Europe in 1994. Bulgaria joined NATO in March 2004. Ideas to host US bases were first heard in 2003. The unpopularity of US bases, where there is such, is largely due to poor information on the status of negotiations between Sofia and Washington, Georgi Georgiev, mayor of Tundja, said in an earlier interview with The Sofia Echo. All areas around the Bezmer and Novo Selo bases share one certainty - that US bases will improve infrastructure and generate jobs and investment. The US would invest 30 million euro in the improvement of the infrastructure of the Bulgarian military bases, Beyrle said on March 7. A reconstruction of the Bezmer base is scheduled for March 2008-October 2009. “The environment protection requirements will be strictly observed in both bases,” said Beyrle. Concerns about the environment, however, were largely put aside, as earlier interviews The Sofia Echo conducted showed. So was the question of Bulgaria’s eventual reduced sovereignty. People were mostly interested in the economic benefits a US presence would bring to their towns. In January 2006, the mayor of a village close to Novo Selo, Emil Enchev, told Bulgarian newspaper Standart that “the Government should hurry up with the negotiations. I think we are very slow and the Romanians have already taken the lead”. He said that an opinion poll he conducted in the village showed that over 70 per cent of its people wanted a US military base. Only some elderly people did not. The reluctance of older people was explained by Georgi Dedov, mayor of Kotel, which hosts the Novo Selo base. He said that “some old people are not ready to accept foreign troops” because they were used to training there with Warsaw Pact countries 20 years ago. “They want it to be used by the Bulgarian army only,” he said. -------- venezuela Iranian pact with Venezuela stokes fears of uranium sales By Kelly Hearn THE WASHINGTON TIMES Published March 13, 2006 http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20060313-121547-4071r BUENOS AIRES -- A recent deal between Iran and Venezuela provides for the exploitation of Venezuela's strategic minerals, prompting opposition figures to warn that President Hugo Chavez's government could be planning to provide Tehran with uranium for its nuclear program. The deal was part of a package of agreements, most of which were announced during a visit last month to Caracas and Cuba by Iranian parliament Speaker Gholam Ali Haddad-Adel. The two countries also established a joint $200 million development fund and signed bilateral deals to build homes and factories, and exploit petroleum. Public details are vague, but Venezuelan opposition figures and press reports have said the deal on minerals could involve the production and transfer to Iran have said the deal on minerals could involve the production and transfer to Iran of Venezuelan uranium taken from known deposits located in the dense jungle states of Amazonas and Bolivar. Mr. Chavez last week ridiculed such speculation as being part of an "imperialist plan" propagated by international news media. "Now they say I am sending uranium to make atomic bombs from here, from the Venezuelan Amazon to send directly to the Persian Gulf," Mr. Chavez said during a meeting at a military club on Tuesday. "This shows they have no limit in their capacity to invent lies." The speculation comes at a time of rising tension between the world community and Iran, which yesterday declared it had ruled out a proposed compromise under which it would process uranium for a peaceful nuclear program in Russia. The five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council -- the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France -- are to meet this week to discuss a draft statement aimed at increasing the pressure on Iran to abandon its nuclear plans. Retired Venezuelan Vice Adm. Jose Rafael Huizi-Clavier said the mining arrangements negotiated last month with Iran are broad and unspecific and could easily include uranium. Other critics of Mr. Chavez point out that Venezuela recently voted against reporting Tehran to the U.N. Security Council for its uranium-enrichment program and that Mr. Chavez in recent months has attempted to purchase his own civilian-use nuclear technology from Argentina. Adm. Huizi-Clavier, who heads the Venezuela-based Institutional Military Front, a group of ex-military officials opposed to Mr. Chavez, said his group is "alarmed by a confluence of facts." He cited construction work at a small military base and the widening of a military airstrip near the Brazilian border, where uranium deposits are said to exist. He also noted that Mr. Chavez expelled U.S. missionaries from areas known to have uranium in February. At the time, Mr. Chavez accused New Tribes Mission, a Florida-based group, of working for the CIA and foreign mining interests. A Florida-based spokesman for the group said none of the missionaries knew anything about uranium-mining activities. Venezuelan Minister of Science and Technology Yadira Cordova said on Thursday that the airfield belonged to the New Tribes Mission. She also denied uranium was being mined or processed in the area, saying such technologically demanding processes "would be detected easily." In Washington, a State Department official said, "We are aware of reports of possible Iranian exploitation of Venezuelan uranium, but we see no commercial uranium activities in Venezuela." Adm. Huizi-Clavier said Mr. Chavez was playing a "dangerous game" by backing Iran at the United Nations in defiance of overwhelming world opinion. Former Venezuelan Defense Minister Raul Salazar said the country's support of Iran's nuclear program was pushing relations with Washington past "the point of no return." Mr. Chavez's support for Iran's nuclear plan has thus far been purely political, he said, but "that is not to say [uranium transfers to Tehran] couldn't happen in the future." -------- war crimes Slobodan Milosevic Found Dead in Hague Prison Cell: A Look at the Serbian Leader's War Crimes and the U.S. Role in the Balkans Monday, March 13th, 2006 Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/13/1429239 Former Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic was found dead Saturday in his prison cell near The Hague. He had been charged with genocide and crimes against humanity in a number of indictments spanning from the wars in Croatia and Bosnia to the fighting in Kosovo. We host a roundtable discussion on Milosevic with a Yugoslav dissident from Belgrade, and two journalists who covered the war in the Balkans: Jeremy Scahill and Chris Hedges. [includes rush transcript] Former Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic was found dead in his prison cell Saturday at the Hague. The cause of death was reported as a heart attack. * Alexandra Milenov, spokesperson for the International Criminal Tribunal For The Former Yugoslavia. Milosevic had been charged with genocide and crimes against humanity in a number of indictments spanning from the wars in Croatia and Bosnia to the fighting in Kosovo. His trial was in its fourth year. Prosecutors called nearly 300 witnesses. The former Serbian leader chose to represent himself at the trial. His death comes just weeks after had had called on former President Bill Clinton to testify. Clinton, who with British Prime Minister Tony Blair led the NATO bombings of Kosovo and Yugoslavia, declined to appear. As news of Milosevic's death spread across the world, some of his victims said the jailed ex-Serbian leader had escaped justice. * Hatidza Mehmedovic, lost two sons, husband and brother in 1995 Srebrenica massacre. Meanwhile, some of Milosevic's supporters are claiming he was poisoned. Zdenko Tomanovic, Milosevic's attorney, cited a letter he said the former Serbian leader wrote just one day before his death. * Zdenko Tomanovic, Slobodan Milosevic's attorney. Milosevic supporters also cited a medical reports that found traces in his sytem of drugs that would have off-set pills he has been taking for high-blood pressure. The UN dismissed speculation Milosevic had been deliberately poisoned. Hague officials involved in his prosecution said Milosevic had a history of manipulating his own health and taking unprescribed medication. We speak with three guests who know the Balkan region well: * Andrej Grubacic, a Yugoslav dissident, originally from Belgrade. He's a historian currently researching at SUNY-Binghamton. * Jeremy Scahill, independent journalist and currently a Puffin Writing Fellow at the Nation Institute. He covered the NATO bombings of Kosovo and Yugoslavia for Democracy Now in 1999. His latest article, available on AntiWar.Com, is "Rest Easy, Bill Clinton: Milosevic Can't Talk Anymore." Speaking to us from Sacramento, where he will be appearing with Dahr Jamail at the First Methodist Church on Tuesday night. They will be discussing "Iraq -- The Story Corporate Media Won't Tell." For more information on the event go to WeTheMedia.TV * Chris Hedges, journalist and author. He was a foreign correspondent for The New York Times and is currently a senior fellow at the Nation Institute. He covered the Balkan region for several years, including the NATO bombings in 1999. He is author of "War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning" and "Losing Moses on the Freeway." RUSH TRANSCRIPT AMY GOODMAN: This is Alexandra Milenov, a spokesperson for the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. ALEXANDRA MILENOV: The tribunal has received a brief summary of the autopsy results. According to the pathologists, Slobodan Milosevic's cause of death was a myocardial infarction. Further, the pathologists identified two heart conditions that Slobodan Milosevic suffered from, which they said would explain the myocardial infarction. The prosecution service of the Hague informs the registrar that a toxicological examination will still be carried out. The tribunal has been informed that the final report will be issued as soon as possible. Slobodan Milosevic's remains will be released to the family tomorrow. AMY GOODMAN: Slobodan Milosevic had been charged with genocide and crimes against humanity, a number of indictments spanning from the wars in Croatia and Bosnia to the fighting in Kosovo. His trial was in its fourth year. Prosecutors called nearly 300 witnesses. The former Serbian leader chose to represent himself at the trial. His death comes just weeks after he called on former President Bill Clinton to testify. Clinton, who with British Prime Minister Tony Blair led the NATO bombings of Kosovo and Yugoslavia, declined to appear. As news of Milosevic’s death spread across the world, some of his victims said the jailed ex-Serbian leader had escaped justice. This is a survivor of the 1995 Srebrenica massacre. HATIDZA MEHMEDOVIC: We are interested only in justice. We know the truth. All those responsible for the crimes should go to the Hague, even if they never come back. Slobodan Milosevic didn't deserve to die so easily. We are sorry that he died so easily. AMY GOODMAN: A survivor of the 1995 Srebrenica massacre. Meanwhile, some of Milosevic’s supporters are claiming he was poisoned. Zdenko Tomanovic, Milosevic's attorney, cited a letter he said the former Serbian leader wrote just one day before his death. ZDENKO TOMANOVIC: Received a new document only a few days ago, which it could be clear, be seen that on January 12 this year, there had been found a strong drug in his bloodstream, which as it was stated in the report, is used only for the treatment of leprosy and tuberculosis. Mr. Milosevic pointed out also in his letter that they, as he mentioned, they would like to pardon me, and he was seriously concerned and he was seriously worried that he was being poisoned. AMY GOODMAN: Milosevic's attorney. His supporters also cited a medical report that found traces in a system of drugs that would have offset pills he has been taking for high blood pressure. The U.N. dismissed speculation Milosevic had been deliberately poisoned. Hague officials involved in his prosecution said Milosevic had a history of manipulating his own health and taking un-prescribed medication. After break, we go to our three guests who know the Balkan region well. We'll be joined by Andrej Grubacic, who is formerly from Belgrade, now a historian currently studying at SUNY-Binghamton. We'll also be joined by Chris Hedges, foreign correspondent for The New York Times until recently, now a Senior Fellow at the Nation Institute, covered the Balkans for a number of years, including the NATO bombings in 1999, and wrote the book, War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning and Losing Moses on the Freeway, talking to us from Princeton. And we'll be joined by Jeremy Scahill, Democracy Now! correspondent, independent journalist, currently the Puffin Writing Fellow at the Nation Institute, also covered the NATO bombings of Kosovo and Yugoslavia for Democracy Now! in 1999. His current article is available at AntiWar.com, “Rest Easy, Bill Clinton: Milosevic Can't Talk Anymore.” He’s going to speak to us from Sacramento. [break] AMY GOODMAN: We're going to begin on the death of Slobodan Milosevic with Andrej Grubacic, originally from Belgrade, now here in the United States. It’s good to have you with us. ANDREJ GRUBACIC: Good to be here. AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about the death of Milosevic and his incomplete trial? ANDREJ GRUBACIC: Unfortunately, I don't know enough. I would say I will be a little bit more careful with what really happened, with poisoning. We don’t know anything about this, as yet. To be certain, I would be careful. But I do think this was a case of gradual poisoning of Milosevic -- not gradual poisoning, but gradual attempts to get rid of Milosevic. He obviously didn't have proper medicine and proper medical care. AMY GOODMAN: And the fact that his trial was not complete, moving into the last, perhaps, 40 hours of the trial. ANDREJ GRUBACIC: That was a blessing that was, as your colleague Jeremy Scahill wrote, that's a blessing for Bill Clinton, first and foremost. It's not a victory of justice to have Milosevic die that day in the Hague. I think things are extremely complicated. We need to speak about them in context, and Milosevic has to be understood in the context of his own reign, in his own rule in Yugoslavia. And we can talk a little bit more about this. I think that, as for the Hague tribunal, I think this was an ideal situation. Milosevic became too expensive and he became too damaging for the image of the tribunal. AMY GOODMAN: And his history as the leader of Serbia? ANDREJ GRUBACIC: His history of leadership -- I would be more careful; he was never a leader of Serbia. He was a leader of a certain fraction of Serbian population, of 20% of the electorate of Serbia who voted him. He was never really authoritarian dictator, as he was presented, but he was not a leader of Serbia. AMY GOODMAN: Chris Hedges, you covered the NATO bombings, have written extensively about the Balkans. Your response to the death of Slobodan Milosevic. CHRIS HEDGES: Well, it does rob us of a process of exposing the whole complicated mess of the war and the complicity, of course, of -- or the tacit complicity of the European Union and the United States, which failed to respond for three-and-a-half years to these crimes against humanity and this campaign of ethnic cleansing or genocide that was carried out largely, primarily against the Bosnian Muslims. And, yeah, it is a tragedy that he is gone. He did have serious health problems, and it is true that he not only tried to be his own lawyer, but tried to be his own doctor, so I wouldn’t jump to hasty conclusions about how he died yet. I mean, we’ll have to wait for the toxicology report. I think the other thing is that I feel that Milosevic, certainly at the beginning of his reign, did have very wide support, not only within Serbia, but within ethnic Serb populations in Croatia and within Bosnia. I mean, this may have soured over time, but I would be a little hesitant not to call him a leader of Serbia. I think that this sort of nationalism and euphoria over a greater Serbia was very real, and certainly many elements of Serbian society, including much of the Serbian press, got right behind him and served as, you know, a form of -- essentially served as propaganda for this nationalist Serb movement. This was part of the problem, that Milosevic was able through his Serbian allies to take over the airwaves and pump forth this sort of vitriol and hate propaganda against other ethnic groups. It took him four years, by the way, of spewing out this hatred before he got one Serb, which happened to be Arkon, to cross the border and begin the campaign of killing. But there was complicity in this project by many elements of Serb society. AMY GOODMAN: Jeremy Scahill, you wrote the piece this weekend, "Rest Easy, Bill Clinton: Milosevic Can't Talk Anymore." Explain. JEREMY SCAHILL: I think that there are sort of two lenses through which we have to look at Milosevic. On the one hand, we have the war in Bosnia that Chris Hedges was just talking about. And I think Milosevic has an extraordinarily interesting history, particularly with the United States, because, as Chris could well tell you, there were points, sustained points during the 1990s when the White House viewed Slobodan Milosevic as the key to peace. You know, he comes to the United States, his wife goes out and goes shopping with U.S. officials as they're in the midst of these negotiations. He was very much embraced as sort of “one of our kind of guys,” so to speak, you know, an investment banker, he had worked in the United States. He speaks English, and so the U.S. viewed Milosevic in a very favorable way. It's a classic story that’s repeated itself through the history of the United States, where they embrace these guys that later then they vilify and make out to be the, you know, the equivalent of Hitler, which Milosevic, like Saddam Hussein, was compared to Hitler many times by the United States. And so, you have this Slobodan Milosevic during the 1990s who is a friend of the United States and then very quickly turns into the sort of chief villain in the war, and once they had declared Milosevic the chief villain in the war, the plight of the Serbs became almost a non-story. The single greatest ethnic cleansing of the war, according to the New York Times, was in August of 1995, Operation Storm and Lightning, where upwards of a quarter of a million Serbs were expelled by the Croatian military in a matter of days from the Krajina region, and so that, though, largely went – fell on deaf ears, and I'll forever remember that long massive column of tens of thousands of Serbs having to flee their homes at the hands of the Croatian military. And so, there's really an unfortunate reality that’s happened. As soon as Milosevic became Hitler, that then meant that the Serb victims became somehow less important than the others in the war. The other story that's very important. I mean, I think you can get the “Slobodan Milosevic, Butcher of the Balkans” story by reading any of his obituaries, by reading any of the coverage, so what I want to try to do is to paint a picture that gets into some of what hasn’t been discussed and isn’t going to be discussed. It wasn't discussed in Milosevic's life, and it’s not going to be discussed in his death. The fact of the matter is that an incredible number of Serbs suffered as a result of that war and of Milosevic's policies, as well, and so you had a situation where Milosevic had been discredited, and so when he started to talk to the world about the fact that you had al-Qaeda and mujahideen turning their sights on Bosnia after the defeat of the Soviets in Afghanistan and that you had scores of these mujahideen setting up camp in Bosnia to fight the Orthodox Serbs and the Catholic Croatians, no one was really listening to Milosevic, and the fact of the matter was that the United States was on the same side as those same forces in Bosnia that it was on in Afghanistan, as well. They were organizing funding conferences for the Bosnian Muslims and working hand in hand with the very forces that would go on to attack the United States allegedly on 9/11, and Slobodan Milosevic was consistently trying to bring that to the attention of the United States to the point where you had over a thousand mujahideen who were given honorary Bosnian citizenship, following the disintegration war of Yugoslavia in the 1990s. Well, then fast forward a bit to 1998. Richard Holbrooke, Bill Clinton's envoy and eventual United Nations ambassador goes and meets with senior officials in Belgrade. He likes to boast that he was the U.S. official -- the western official that met the most with Slobodan Milosevic. Well, Slobodan Milosevic and other Serb officials told Richard Holbrooke and presented him with the evidence that they had that Osama bin Laden was influencing the Kosovo Liberation Army, and in fact, senior U.S. officials had already determined the Kosovo Liberation Army to be a terrorist organization, and so Milosevic was very consistent with what U.S. information was at the time, but Richard Holbrooke and others were very key in this decision for the United States to really fund and arm the Kosovo Liberation Army. And Milosevic, by the time his trial came around, and he was talking about this, he sounded as though he was just sort of a political opportunist talking about 9/11,