NucNews May 7, 2006 -------- NUCLEAR -------- accidents and safety AZ: Fatal truck accident involves radioactive waste materials Kevin Curran 12 News May. 7, 2006 02:32 PM http://www.azcentral.com/12news/news/articles/seligmanupdate05072006-CR.html It could be quite some time before traffic flows smoothly along the only interstate highway that crosses northern Arizona. All eastbound traffic on I-40 has been diverted to Old Route 66 between Seligman and Ash Fork following a fatal accident involving a truck carrying radioactive materials. Arizona Dept. of Public Safety Officer Tim Mason says two tractor-trailer rigs collided near milepost 131 in Yavapai County just after 7:30 Sunday morning. One of the trucks was a flatbed carrying containers of tools and clothing that had been used in nuclear environments. The cargo was being taken to a radioactive waste disposal facility. The driver of the truck, 25 year-old Tim Harig, was flow to Kingman Regional Medical Center with serious injuries. His passenger, 55 year-old Jasper Brown, was in the sleeping compartment at the time of the crash and was pronounced dead on the scene. Mason did not know the men’s hometowns. A DPS hazardous materials team has established a 25-foot perimeter around the truck and is awaiting the arrival of a crew from the Arizona Radiation Agency. Mason says crews cannot move the truck or unload its cargo until experts assess the best ways to handle the nuclear waste products. Westbound traffic has been unaffected by the accident and clean-up. Mason says the eastbound roadway could remain closed until Monday morning. -------- britain Incinerator plans under attack By Rob Edwards, Environment Editor Sunday Herald - 07 May 2006 http://www.sundayherald.com/print55576 AS many as 10 large waste incinerators are being planned by local authorities across Scotland, the Sunday Herald can reveal. The plans, put out by the Scottish Executive alongside new recycling figures on Friday, include three plants in the Glasgow area. Another two waste-burners are destined for the north of Scotland, plus one each in Ayrshire, Lanarkshire, Tayside, Fife and Lothian. In the past, any move to build new incinerators has provoked fierce public opposition, raising concerns about toxic pollution. As a result, the new proposals are regarded within government as highly sensitive. Yesterday, the plans were attacked by environmentalists, who called on ministers to reject them. Under European law, Scotland must cut the amount of biodegradable municipal waste dumped in landfill sites from 1.6 million tonnes to 0.6m tonnes by 2020. To date, progress has been achieved by increasing the amount being recycled or composted. But in local authorities’ latest sub-missions to the Scottish Executive, made available under the Freedom of Information Act, they say they will need new furnaces in the next few years. Critics now claim incinerators have been renamed “gasification”, “energy from waste” or “combined heat and power” plants in a bid to make them more acceptable to the public. The most ambitious plans cover seven councils in the Glasgow area and Clyde Valley, proposing gasification plants to handle a total of 540,000 tonnes of waste a year at Polmadie, Linwood and Queen-slie, with a reserve site at Shieldhall. The siting of two energy from waste plants in the north of Scotland, covering four councils, is recognised as being “contentious”. A further two potential sites “in Moray” and two “near Aberdeen” have been shortlisted, though their exact whereabouts are not specified. The plan for Ayrshire, which covers three councils, does not specify a site for its combined heat and power (CHP) plant. Tayside, covering three councils, wants an energy from waste plant for Perth and Kinross . Fife says it will need “one or two” CHP plants “at sites to be determined”. No details of the plans for Lanarkshire and Lothian are available. Just one group of three local authorities in Forth Valley says it can manage to cut the amount of waste going to landfill without a new incinerator. It proposes to maximise recycling and build a “mechanical biological treatment plant” instead. Environmental groups say other authorities ought to follow this good example. Stuart Hay from Friends of the Earth Scotland said: “Local councillors and environment ministers need to be aware that a headlong rush to incineration will be bad not just for the environment but for their electoral fortunes. “This incineration shopping list demonstrates that most of Scotland’s local authorities are adopting a lazy and half-baked approach to waste management, naively believing there won’t be a public backlash.” And Dr Dan Barlow, head of policy with WWF Scotland, called for the plans to be “sent back to the drawing board”. Local authorities’ waste plans will now be assessed by the Scottish Executive. Nobody from the Cosla was available to comment yesterday. -------- depleted uranium Senate supports Vets' Right to know Act 5/7/2006 Eureka Reporter http://www.eurekareporter.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?ArticleID=10921 A bill expressing support for U.S. Rep. Mike Thompson’s Veterans Right to Know Act passed the state Senate unanimously last week. Senate Joint Resolution 23 urges the House of Representatives to pass HR 4259, which would form an investigative commission to look into U.S. veterans’ exposure to chemical and biological testing. It lists in particular Project 112 and the Shipboard Hazard and Defense Project, two Department of Defense programs that carried out tests at sea and on land between 1962 and 1974. Fifty of 134 planned tests were executed, involving both active and simulant agents. SJR 23 was authored by state Sen. Wes Chesbro and co-authored by Assemblymember Patty Berg. It now goes to the state Assembly for consideration. ---- Uranium’s Effect On DNA Established 7 April 2006 Source: Northern Arizona University http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20060307010324data_trunc_sys.shtml The use of depleted uranium in munitions and weaponry is likely to come under intense scrutiny now that new research that found that uranium can bind to human DNA. The finding will likely have far-reaching implications for returned soldiers, civilians living in what were once war-zones and people who might live near uranium mines or processing facilities. Uranium - when manifested as a radioactive metal - has profound and debilitating effects on human DNA. These radioactive effects have been well understood for decades, but there has been considerable debate and little agreement concerning the possible health risks associated with low-grade uranium ore (yellowcake) and depleted uranium. Now however, Northern Arizona University biochemist Diane Stearns has established that when cells are exposed to uranium, the uranium binds to DNA and the cells acquire mutations, triggering a whole slew of protein replication errors, some of which can lead to various cancers. Stearns' research, published in the journals Mutagenesis and Molecular Carcinogenesis, confirms what many have suspected for some time - that uranium can damage DNA as a heavy metal, independently of its radioactive properties. "Essentially, if you get a heavy metal stuck on DNA, you can get a mutation," Stearns explained. While other heavy metals are known to bind to DNA, Stearns and her team were the first to identify this characteristic with uranium. Depleted uranium - what is left over when the highly radioactive isotopes of uranium are removed - is widely used by the military. Anti-tank weapons, tank armor and ammunition rounds are just some of the applications. "The health effects of uranium really haven't been studied since the Manhattan Project (the development of the atomic bomb in the early 1940s). But now there is more interest in the health effects of depleted uranium. People are asking questions now," Stearns said. Her research may shed light on the possible connection between exposure to depleted uranium and Gulf War Syndrome, or to increased cancers and birth defects in the Middle East and Balkans. And closer to home, questions continue to be asked about environmental exposure to uranium from mine tailings; heavily concentrated around Native American communities. "When the uranium mining boom crashed in the '80s, there wasn't much cleanup," Stearns said. Estimates put the number of abandoned mines on the Navajo Nation in Arizona at more than 1,100. -------- iran Iran threatens not to recognize NPT if its rights not accepted Source: Xinhua May 07, 2006 http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200605/07/eng20060507_263641.html The nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) has "no validity" if Iran's rights to carry out peaceful nuclear research were not accepted, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Sunday. "If the signature of a treaty threatens the rights of a nation, it has no validity for that nation," Ahmadinejad told a gathering of members of Iran's Basij militia, local media reported. Top Iranian officials have expressed on several occasions that Iran would reconsider its nuclear policy if its rights to nuclear technology research were not accepted. The hardline president made the remarks shortly after Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Hamid-Reza Asefi said on Sunday that Tehran "will not halt" its uranium enrichment and would reject any resolution adopted by the UN Security Council on Iran's nuclear issue. Sunday's remarks by Iranian officials came as five permanent members of the UN Security Council are discussing a draft resolution presented by Britain and France, which would legally require Iran to freeze all uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities. Iran has been reiterating that its uranium enrichment is aimed at producing fuel for nuclear power plant, while the United States accuses the Islamic republic of trying to make nuclear weapons. ---- Raid on nuclear fuel market By Rudo de Ruijter Independent researcher 05/07/06 "ICH" http://informationclearinghouse.info/article12964.htm In the background of the political joust about Iran, a few countries are reshaping the world. They are taking possession of the global nuclear fuel market. New IAEA regulations should keep newcomers away. The US, UK, France, Germany, Russia, China and Japan will become world’s nuclear filling stations. Under the auspices of the IAEA these suppliers will dictate the rules, the prices and the currencies they want to get paid in. Iran has become the pretext and test case for their plans. The problems of tomorrow’s world economy are being shaped today. Contents: * Iran and the Non-Proliferation Treaty * Iran’s nuclear history * From shah Reza to Khomeini * The accusations against Iran: 130 Grams of uranium * US’ agenda: The oil, the dollar and the foreign debt… * Seeking allies * The strange European delegation * Russia and China * Is enrichment in non-nuclear-weapon states dangerous? * Birth of a new world order * Questionable elements * The UN theatre Iran and the Non-Proliferation Treaty US President Bush wants us to believe that Iran has plans for nuclear weapons. Well, we remember, that in 2002 he accused Iraq of having weapons of mass destruction. That turned out to be a lie, so let us look more closely at the facts. Iran is a member state of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) from the very first moment in 1968. [1] The NPT is a treaty not only to stop proliferation of nuclear arms, but also to help each other to develop civil nuclear energy. [2] In the treaty, the nuclear-weapon states (US, Russia, China, France and England) promised nuclear disarmament. (So far, they have not kept their promises.) The other members had to sign agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), NPT’s watchdog, for the implementation of controls. IAEA’s agreement with Iran entered into force on May 15 1974. [3] Iran’s nuclear history At that time shah Reza ruled Iran. Thanks to the Anglo-US’ operation Ajax in 1953 he was still on the throne. From 1957 Shah Reza wanted to develop nuclear energy in Iran. [4] The US offered all the help and stuff he wanted: a research reactor, enriched uranium and plutonium. The research reactor was started in 1967, but went critical soon after. Then the French became good friends too. They promised to repair the reactor. The shah made a $ 1 billion loan to the French for the construction of an enrichment plant in Tricastin in the South of France. From 1974 still more countries offered their services to the shah. Agreements followed for five reactors and fuel from France, two reactors and fuel from the US, regular purchases of uranium from Australia and two reactors from West Germany. Denmark delivered 10 kilo of highly enriched uranium and 25 kilo of natural uranium. Technical staff came in from Argentina and India, while Iranian students went to UK and West Germany. Discussions took place with Pakistan and Turkey for regional nuclear cooperation. The Iranian budget for the atomic energy rose from $ 30 million in 1975 to $ 1 billion the following year, and still more reactors were ordered from the US. By the end of 1978, with not a single reactor completed yet, the shah ran out of money. Meanwhile, popular opposition against the shah’s blood shedding oppression rose to a climax. From shah Reza to Khomeini The opposition against the shah had grown since 1953, when popular hero and Prime Minister Mossadeq had been overthrown by a joint coup of the CIA, the English and the shah. [5] Mossadeq had successfully strived to nationalize the Anglo Iranian Oil Company (BP). Sued by England, Mossadeq had won the case at the International Court in The Hague. [6] During the coup, the shah initially fled the country, but came back after the army had succeeded to beat down the protests of the population. In 1960, to please his American friends, he granted diplomatic immunity to all US’ personnel working in Iran. A young opponent, called Ruhollah Khomeini dared to criticize the shah publicly. The first time he was jailed and recidivist a few years later he was expelled. The shah’s oppression increased over time. In riots many hundreds of opponents were killed and thousands injured. By 1977 all opposition movements finally united and in January 1979 the shah definitely fled the country. Khomeini returned to Iran in triumph and on April 1st 1979 the Islamic Republic of Iran was established by referendum. In November 1979, when Iranian students heard that the shah had gone to the US, they stormed the US embassy in Tehran to claim the extradition of the shah in order to summon him to trial. A long hostages crisis followed. A US’ attempt to free them failed. President Saddam Hussein of Iraq, a good friend of the US at that time, invaded Iran, announcing he would be in Tehran within three days. However, the war between Iraq and Iran would last 10 years and cost hundreds of thousands of lifes. With the end of the Warschau Pact in 1989 and Saddam’s mistake to invade Kuwait, the US attitude toward Iraq made a 180-degree turn. Iraq and Iran were both US’ enemies now. But since these countries detain 10.5 and 10 percent of world’s oil reserves respectively and the US is world’s biggest consumer (with 25 percent of world’s oil production), it was foreseeable the US would not just ignore these countries. The US now has less than 2 percent of world’s oil reserves. Its dependency on foreign oil is rapidly increasing and, according to Bush, 60 percent today. [7] The accusations against Iran: 130 Grams of Uranium On June 16 2003 the International Atomic Energy Agency announced, that Iran had not reported a uranium import of 1991 and the subsequent stocking and processing. That is true. But from a confidential IAEA document of June 6 2003 we learn, that this import contained just 130 gram of uranium. [8] According to article 37 of the official agreement between the IAEA and Iran, in force since May 15 1974, nuclear materials containing less than 1 kilo of uranium are exempted from the IAEA safeguards. [9] The IAEA accusations made the world believe that Iran had transgressed the rules. Similar jousts are about the Additional Protocol. During the embargo against Iraq, when proof had to be found of weapons of mass destruction and Saddam was not willing to grant more rights to the UN inspectors, the IAEA had developed additional rules to make controls easier. The new rules also make it easier to discriminate among members: excessive rules for one country, friendly rules for others. In June 2003 only 33 of the 188 members of the Non-Proliferation Treaty had accepted to sign the Additional Protocol. Nevertheless the US and a delegation of the European Union formed by France, Germany and the United Kingdom, wanted to force Iran to sign the Additional Protocol. In exchange, the three European countries (E3) promised to come up with interesting commercial deals. Iran was willing to hear what they had to propose. This is not so surprising. 30 percent of Iran’s oil goes to Europe and 40 percent of its imports come from Europe. Spring 2003, Iran had even switched its oil sales from dollars to euros, which is good for Europe and bad for the US, since it weakens the dollar. During the talks about new commercial deals with the Europeans Iran voluntarily agreed to suspend its research program for uranium enrichment and to grant additional rights to the IAEA for extended checking of their nuclear facilities. After repeated Iranian requests it became clear, that the E3 countries did not intend to deliver the promised deals. They just wanted to keep the talks going on indefinitely, meantime preventing Iran from enriching uranium. Iran resumed its program and re-established the contractual conditions for the IAEA controls. This resulted in the attempt of the US and E3 to have the UN Security Council condemn Iran. US’ agenda: The oil, the dollar and the foreign debt… So, if the so-called proofs against Iran appear to be fabricated, what is the real issue? I think the general idea is clear to all. With its excessive energy consumption the US thinks, it is necessary to have pro-US governments in Iraq, Iran and, for the UNOCAL pipeline project, also in Afghanistan. During the Cold War Saddam Hussein in Iraq and shah Reza in Iran were useful US’ allies, but these days are over. Thanks to Bush we now have wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Iran is located in between. Considering the reputation the US has built up in Iran a spontaneous arising of a pro-US government is not likely to happen soon. The second thing that explains more immediately Bush aggressive stance against Iran is its part in the weakening dollar. A new Iranian oil bourse, if successful, may even trip up US’ hegemony. [10] In a glance, this is how it works. World’s oil and gas is traded in US-dollars. Since 1971 the US has had the advantage to be the petrodollar supplier of the world. Supplying dollars to foreign countries means, the US can print money and purchase goods, services and investments with it. Since the foreigners need these dollars to buy oil, and keep them also in use in the international trade outside the US, the US has never had to deliver anything in return. Merely supplying money means free shopping. This is how US’ foreign debt grew to 3,200,000,000,000 dollars today. And if some day the world gets tired of the abuse and does not want US-dollars anymore, their massive offers of dollars on the exchange markets would immediately push the exchange rate down, the dollar would become worth next to nothing and the foreign debt would vanish. So it is very advantageous to deliver currencies that are permanently needed and wanted abroad. But with today’s’ sky rocketing debt, the dollar has become vulnerable. When Saddam Hussein switched to the euro on November 6 2000 [11, 12], the exchange markets were temporarily overflowed by dollars. With Iran considering a similar switch since 1999 and maybe more OPEC countries to follow [13], speculations and decreasing trust set in motion a long and continuous descent of the dollar, which risked leading to its collapse. [14] By the end of 2002 the dollar rate had fallen 18 percent. [15] This probably explains, why the US could not wait and on March 20 2003 even overruled the UN Security Council to invade Iraq. The Iraqi oil trade has been switched back to dollars on June 6 2003. [16] From spring 2003, Iran also switched to the euro, and during the two years that followed the dollar rate lost another 12 percent. The US free shopping advantage only works insofar foreign countries need additional dollars. So, each time when oil prices rise on US controlled International Petroleum Exchange (IPE) of London and New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX), more dollars are needed in the world. [17] As 85 percent of the oil trade takes place outside the US, for each extra dollar needed inside the US, seven dollars are needed outside and result in free shopping. To increase the foreign dollar demand still further, the US Federal Reserve sells Treasury Bonds to foreigners, which reduces the amount of dollars abroad. This increases foreign demand for dollars and raises the exchange rate. To stop the exchange rate from rising continually, new dollars have to be “delivered” to the foreigners, resulting again in free shopping. If the US wants to lower the dollar rate it can just import more. In fact, as long as world demand for dollars keeps growing, the US can decide itself about the rate of their currency and enjoy free shopping. For the year 2004, the latter represented an advantage of 3,000 dollar per US’ inhabitant. Recently, foreigners are not so willing anymore to fuel US’ fairy credit carrousel. The US tries to seduce them with higher interests, but foreign demand for bonds stays insufficient. The only remaining way to obtain enough new credit is to increase world’s demand for dollars by making the oil prices rise on IPE and NYMEX. And that is what is happening since mid 2004. Here, once again, an Iranian initiative endangers US’ credit carrousel. Iran wants to establish an independent non-dollar oil bourse. Assuming it succeeds in creating enough trade to establish a recognized world oil price, and assuming they keep the price stable, oil prices on IPE and NYMEX cannot rise freely anymore. The credit carrousel may stop. The Iranian Oil Bourse will not only reduce the power of IPE and NYMEX, it will also have its influence on the exchange rate between dollars and euros. If oil gets cheaper in euros, there will be a rush on euros. And vice versa. The US and EU both see this bourse as a risk. The opening of the Iranian Oil Bourse had been scheduled for March 20 2006, the Iranian New Year. It is now announced for the first week of May 2006. [18] Seeking allies To take measures against Iran the US needs allies. Allies are useful for cost sharing of operations and to let them clean up the mess, as in Afghanistan and Iraq. The best way to gain allies is to have your enemies condemned by a UN Security Council resolution. That means the US has to convince the other veto-holding countries. Of course, that would not work, if the US disclosed its real reasons. The US had to come up with something better, which could unite and reward all of the veto-countries. Well, veto-countries are the victor states of the Second World War. They happen to have in common to be nuclear weapon states, all disposing of uranium enrichment facilities. So how about a project to reward them with the exclusive rights for uranium enrichment and for the supply of nuclear fuel to the non-nuclear-weapon states? [19] The strange European delegation Then, in the diplomatic stage-play about Iran, Bush is joint by the UK, France and Germany, the so-called E3. They would represent the European Union. This strange composition of an EU-delegation starts to make sense, when we notice that these countries are the European countries possessing enrichment facilities. Camouflaged under the flag of the European Union they have their own special interest in enrichment and reprocessing. How European are these E3 countries? In fact, as European representatives, France and Germany make a strange case in willing to get their trade partner Iran condemned by the UN Security Council. It indicates they are playing poker for high stakes. They deliberately risk disrupting an Iranian oil market priced in euros, either through a direct conflict against Iran or by allowing the US to obtain an embargo. Bush, if he does not obtain his embargo, would probably not even mind to see the Iranian power plants under construction bombed once again, to make Iran consume its oil, instead of selling it in euros. And what role does the UK play in this EU-delegation? Well, with its IPE oil market always playing in symbiosis with NYMEX, and its subsequent impossibility to adopt the euro, they serve as the messenger-boy of the White House. As usual. The tone of the E3 talks with Iran is not the one you would normally expect between trade partners who wish to improve their relations. The reports about the discussions are long litanies of obligations the E3 seeks to impose to Iran. Iran is treated like the naughty schoolboy, who will have to obey one way or the other. [20] In January 2006, French President Chirac even covertly threatened with a possible nuclear attack. Of course such an attitude can only be counter-productive. Russia and China To reach a Security Council resolution with sanctions against Iran the US, France, UK and Germany have to convince Russia and China not to use their right of veto. Since Russia and China are enrichment countries too, that seemed easy, but failed until now. Russia and China do not want any armed intervention against Iran. Russia still bears the scars of the Chernobyl catastrophe in 1986, with hundreds of thousands of irradiated citizens, new generations with genetic deformations, and unsolved plutonium radiation problems for hundreds of centuries to come. It has not build any new reactors since then. Russia has a more shaded view on world’s nuclear future. Besides, it still has fossil energy sources. China has good relations with Iran for the supply of oil and gas during the coming decades. If it wants to let Iran down, it would have to foresee alternatives for their high needs of energy. Besides, China does not seem to share the aggressive stance of the US and the E3. Is enrichment in non-nuclear-weapon states dangerous? Natural uranium contains 0.7 percent of U-235 atoms, against 99.3 percent of mostly U-238 atoms. To use it as nuclear fuel the proportion of U-235 atoms has to be increased to 3 to 5 percent. To do so, the uranium must first be purified and converted into a gas. In this form batteries of centrifuges can filter out a few of the heavier U-238 atoms in a long and energy swallowing process. Risks in the enrichment process are those of the chemical industries and not so much the low radiation. This uranium is not suitable to make bombs. For bombs you need a degree of enrichment of at least 90 percent. [21] If a country, as for instance Iran, decided to develop such highly enriched uranium, it could take 3 to 5 years to produce sufficiently for a bomb. Besides, according to scientists, for high enrichment much larger centrifuge facilities are used. The oft-repeated but mistaken belief, that one could fabricate unnoticed highly enriched uranium in a civil nuclear plant, now serves Bush’ contention that enrichment should remain in the hands of world’s nuclear-weapon states. Birth of a new world order The idea of limiting enrichment capability to the nations that already have it is not entirely new. The accusations against Iran, the successful misleading of journalists, politicians and diplomats had created the ideal circumstances to speed up its realization. The idea appeared in a UN brochure in 2004. [22] Then it was still in the form of a call for a voluntary and time-limited moratorium on the construction of new facilities for enrichment and reprocessing. In February 2005 the United Nations further elaborated the idea as the Multilateral Nuclear Approach (MNA) [23]. Already in April 2005 Ambassador Kenzo Oshima of Japan’s mission to the UN put the question, “if the MNA would not not unduly affect the peaceful use of nuclear energy by those non-nuclear-weapon states that carry out nuclear activities in faithful and transparent compliance with their NPT obligations.” On February 6 2006 the US’ Department of Energy announced its version of the idea in their plan for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). The following day, at the Oarai Conference in Japan, this GNEP is presented as an idea of IAEA’s head ElBaradei and a proposal of Bush. [24] And, of course, such a supreme idea should not lack of glamour. So, a few days later, DOE compliments itself as follows: “Finally, the partnership arrangement between fuel-cycle and reactor-only states envisioned by GNEP will help supply the world with clean electrical power by offering non-fuel-cycle nations commercially competitive and reliable access to nuclear fuel, in exchange for their commitment to forgo the development of enrichment and recycling technologies. “ Questionable elements The new world order comes in the form of new safeguards within the IAEA control system. Considering the spirit of the Additional Protocol we should not count on equal rights or fair relations. Within the Non-Proliferation Treaty countries, only the nuclear-weapon states, plus Germany, the Netherlands and Japan have enrichment facilities today. [25] The rest of the NPT countries would see their rights to enrich uranium taken away. In exchange, they will get the solemn promises of the nuclear-weapon states, that the latter will always deliver the nuclear fuel. Promises? Weren’t these the countries that promised in 1968 to strive for their nuclear disarmament? As we know, they did not keep their word up to now. Worse, France has even developed a new generation of nuclear weapons to make the step to nuclear war easier and progressive. This year, France and the US are still using their nuclear arsenal to threaten the world. Non-nuclear-weapon states should now give away more rights and become dependent of IAEA’s club of nuclear fuel suppliers? To seduce non-nuclear-weapon states, this new plan promises lower electricity prices. Today, on a global scale, enrichment facilities would have about twice the capacity the world needs. By preventing the construction of new enrichment facilities, a better use could be made of the existing capacities. This would enable lower prices for enriched uranium, and thus of electricity… Should we believe these words? The enrichment industries are not driven by the concern to lower world’s electricity prices. In spite of the world’s over-capacity the Europeans are considerably expanding their production in the UK, Netherlands and Germany. They strive for more market share and more profit! And if by new IAEA regulations no new competitors are allowed on the market, this can only result in excessive pricing of enriched uranium, and thus of electricity. The new plans foresee a highly regulated and closely monitored fuel supply distribution system. The IAEA would become the intermediate between fuel producing and fuel consuming members. At first glance this may look like a trustworthy construction, since the IAEA is a UN body. However, the IAEA is also the policeman in the system. I do not think it is wise to let policemen trade with the parties they should inspect. Besides, the UN is not some sort of democratic and integer government that would be able to guarantee their policemen’s impartiality. The plans for the distribution system recommend minimal national stocks and joint regional buffers in different host-countries. Strange, isn’t it? The purpose of minimal stocks inside the countries and regional stocks elsewhere is hardly to defend as a security issue. Even with enormous stocks of 3.5 percent enriched uranium you cannot produce any nuclear weapon. Why would the IAEA want countries to dispose of only small quantities of fuel at a time? I fear there is only one plausible answer: to keep the non-nuclear-weapon states in a firm grip. That is a lot of power for our NPT-watchdog. This power goes far beyond what is needed for their inspections. Even far beyond the needs of a safe nuclear fuel distribution system. This is pure power to overrule nations’ sovereignty. If a nation does anything that the watchdog or its masters do not want, the fuel tap can simply be closed to obtain its immediate submission. It smells like a dictatorship on world-level. Of course, the fuel supplying countries will never be affected. They produce their own fuel. In theory the master of the IAEA is the United Nations Organization. But does it work that way in reality? The IAEA has a difficult role, because it cannot ignore tensions and conflicts of interest between NPT members. The IAEA’s independence from parties’ national interests is constantly under strain. Its limited budget forces the IAEA to make choices, which are influenced by occurring conflicts. During the embargo against Iraq, we witnessed an IAEA driven crazy by Bush, who demanded each time more and more thorough controls. The dog was sent out over and over to make sure Iraq could be safely invaded. Although the IAEA has the obligation to keep all sensitive information from their investigations undisclosed, the US military constantly received sensitive information, with which they prepared the invasion in 2003. (And finally, to invade Iraq, Bush simply overruled the UN’s Security Council…) Today, we see the same US’ influences in the IAEA’s investigations in Iran. Bush shouts and the dog runs to search for the stick. The rules for the new world order are presented as “an idea of ElBaradei and a proposal of Bush.”. I presume that both plans, the IAEA’s Multi-National Approach (NMA) and Bush’ Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), will merge into a final version dictated by the US. Of course, getting a firm grip on all non-nuclear-weapon states as soon as they get addicted to nuclear energy is a major strategic coup. But there are far more advantages for the nuclear fuel suppliers. United under the umbrella of the IAEA, the market will be completely regulated. As all of them cooperate in the same organizations and all of them will be interested in the highest possible earnings, together they will set world’s nuclear fuel price. Just like today’s world’s oil prices are decided on the market places of IPE and NYMEX, nuclear fuel prices will be decided by the happy few. Now comes the tricky part. Nuclear fuel has to be paid for. The question is: in what currency (or currencies) will the customers have to pay? These currencies will become the most needed and wanted currencies in the world. You can compare it to today’s US-dollar. Apparently these currencies have not been decided yet. But, if each fuel supplier asks to be paid in its own currency, the world would widely accept Japanese yens, Chinese Yuan renminbi, Russian Rubles, euros, English pounds and US-dollars. There will probably be some preferential order due to each supplier’s capacity to deliver nuclear fuel. Each of these countries will know the advantages of the supply of their currencies to the rest of the world. Of course, in the long run, each of them will also experience the negative effects on their economies and, after decades, let their currency collapse to get rid of the built up debt. In short, this is what can happen with multiple world currencies. However, the fact that the plans mention, that the IAEA should become the intermediary between suppliers and customers, makes it reasonable to suppose that the IAEA will decide in which currency the customers will have to pay. Bush surely hopes that this will be the dollar. When nuclear fuel has to be paid exclusively in dollars, demand for US-dollars and therewith the US hegemony will be assured for many decades to come. The UN theatre With the project for a new world order prepared discretely in the background, we now have an anti-Iranian alliance of the US and E3. They smell the opportunity for a coup to seize world’s nuclear fuel market. To succeed, they would just need some legal sauce on the prohibition of uranium enrichment by non-nuclear-weapon states, with Iran as example. And a UN Security Council resolution would be enough, if it legalizes IAEA’s stand that it can forbid countries to enrich uranium. Of course, they would make it impossible for Iran to stay within the Non-Proliferation Treaty then. To succeed their coup, they will have to take care, that Iran does not leave the organization before a resolution is successfully voted. For if so, there would not be any ground for a resolution anymore. Countries outside the Non-Proliferation treaty, like Israel, India, Pakistan, Cuba and Brazil are free to enrich uranium and do what they want. The question is: will the US and E3 succeed in seducing Russia and China? In the event, that such a coup of the nuclear-weapon states would succeed, it would probably put the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the UNO under enormous strain. These organizations might loose all credibility and see many non-nuclear-weapon states leave. The result may be opposite to what these organizations were designed for. [1] NPT members: http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/Tracking_Ch02map.pdf [2] NPT text: http://disarmament2.un.org/wmd/npt/npttext.html (See article IV) [3] Agreement IAEA-Iran: http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/Others/infcirc214.pdf [4] Iran’s nuclear history: http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/1825_1826.html [5] Growing opposition against the shah: http://www.countriesquest.com/middle_east/iran/history/growing_opposition_to_the_shah.htm [6] Mossadeq: http://www.iranchamber.com/history/oil_nationalization/oil_nationalization.php [7] 60 percent dependency on oil imports: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=ar4D7HVGikXo&refer=top_world_news [8] 130 gram of uranium: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/iaea0603.html (last line) [9] article 37 of IAEA’s agreement with Iran: http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/Others/infcirc214.pdf [10] How can the dollar collapse in Iran? http://www.studien-von-zeitfragen.net/Zeitfragen/__Collapse_in_Iran/__collapse_in_iran.html [11] Fred Eckhard stating UN’s permission for Iraq’s switch to the euro: http://www.un.org/News/briefings/docs/2000/20001031.db103100.doc.html [12] Statistics of Iraqi oil exports in euros: http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/background/oilexports.html [13] Colin Nunan, Petrodollar or Petroeuro: http://www.feasta.org/documents/review2/nunan.htm [14] IMF warning over dollar collapse: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2097064.stm [15] dollar rates, historical data: http://fx.sauder.ubc.ca/data.html [16] Financial Times, June 5th 2003 [17] Oil markets, exemple: http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_leuffer/leuffer200410010726.asp Speculation and fear can, per definition, be influenced. [18] Iranian Oil Bourse May 2006: http://www.iribnews.ir/Full_en.asp?news_id=212013&n=32 [19] GNEP: http://www.gnep.energy.gov/ [20] E3 report: http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/2005/infcirc651.pdf [21] Uranium enrichment: http://www.uic.com.au/nip33.htm [22] UN brochure 2004: http://www.un.org/secureworld/brochure.pdf [23] NMA expert group February 2005: http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/ST/NE/NENP/NPTDS/Downloads/SMR_CRP1_SRWOSR/2005/RCM1/Add%20materials/mna-2005_web.pdf [24] ElBaradei’s idea and Bush’ proposal. February 7, 2006: http://www.jaea.go.jp/04/np/documents/sym05_01_endo_en.pdf [25] Map of world’s nuclear fuel stations: http://www.wise-uranium.org/umaps.html?set=enr LIST OF ARTICLES: Petrodollar Warfare: Dollars, Euros and the Upcoming Iranian Oil Bourse by William R. Clark (Friday August 05 2005) http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/17450 Killing the dollar in Iran, By Toni Straka, "With the world facing a daily bill of roughly $5.5 billion for crude oil at current price levels," http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/GH26Dj01.html America's Foreign Owners, Thursday, September 22, 2005 http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?page=article&id=1712 The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse, Krassimir Petrov, Ph. D., January 17, 2006 http://www.321gold.com/editorials/petrov/petrov011706.html Trading oil in euros - does it matter?, by Cóilín Nunan, Published on 30 Jan 2006 by Energy Bulletin. http://www.energybulletin.net/12463.html -------- treaties Iran threatens to pull out of nuclear treaty Updated 5/7/2006 (AP) http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-05-07-un-intervention_x.htm TEHRAN, Iran — Iran renewed its threats to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty on Sunday, with its president saying sanctions would be "meaningless" and its parliament seeking to put a final end to unannounced inspections of its nuclear facilities. The comments recalled the case of North Korea, which left the treaty in 2003. Last year Pyongyang declared it had nuclear weapons — unlike Tehran, which says its nuclear program is only for generating electricity. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said he would not hesitate to reconsider NPT membership, speaking as Washington and its allies pressed for a U.N. Security Council vote to suspend Tehran's uranium enrichment program. "If a signature on an international treaty causes the rights of a nation be violated, that nation will reconsider its decision and that treaty will be invalid," he told the official news agency IRNA. Iran's parliament made similar threats in a letter to United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan read on state-run radio, saying the dispute over Iran's nuclear program must be resolved "peacefully, (or) there will be no option for the parliament but to ask the government to withdraw its signature" from a protocol to the NPT allowing for intrusive inspections of its nuclear facilities. The Iranian letter also said parliament might order Ahmadinejad's government to review procedures for pulling out of the nuclear treaty, which signatories may do if they decide extraordinary events have jeopardized their "supreme interests." The U.S. is backing attempts by Britain and France to win Security Council approval for a U.N. resolution that would threaten possible further measures if Iran does not suspend uranium enrichment — a process that can produce fuel for nuclear reactors to generate electricity or, if sufficiently processed, to make atomic weapons. President Bush, in an interview with ARD German television, said "an armed Iran will be a threat to peace. It will be a threat to peace in the Middle East, it will create a sense of blackmail, it will encourage other nations to feel like they need to have a nuclear weapon. And so it's essential that we succeed diplomatically." The Western nations want to invoke Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter that would allow economic sanctions or military action, if necessary, to force Iran's compliance. Russia and China, the other two permanent Security Council members — all of whom have veto power — oppose such moves. The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, said Sunday he believed the resolution would move to a vote this week, with or without support from Moscow and Beijing. He dismissed the Iranian parliament's threat, saying it would not deter a U.N. resolution. "It shows they remain desperate to conceal that their nuclear program is in fact a weapons program," he said. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said Sunday that Washington should consider direct nuclear talks with Iran, but added that "there has to be some kind of glimmer of hope or optimism before we sit down and give them that kind of legitimacy." McCain, a possible presidential contender in 2008, told CBS' Face the Nation that Iran must renounce its call for the extinction of Israel. Direct talks, McCain said, are "a tough decision, because here's a country whose rhetoric daily continues to be the most insulting to the United States and to democracy and freedom." But, he said, "it's an option that you probably have to consider." North Korea agreed last September to give up its nuclear program in exchange for U.S. aid and security assurances, but negotiations have been stalled since November, mainly because of Pyongyang's anger over U.S. sanctions for alleged currency counterfeiting and money laundering. North Korea escaped punishment by the U.N. Security Council, but Iran's possible departure from the treaty is likely to bring a tougher response. Ahmadinejad restated his readiness to jettison treaty membership. "If a signature on an international treaty causes the rights of a nation be violated, that nation will reconsider its decision and that treaty will be invalid," he told the state news agency. He called threats of sanctions "meaningless" and vowed to "smash their (U.S.-backed) illegitimate resolutions against a wall." Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said any U.N. resolution would be "completely illegal" and driven by politics. "It's clear that any action by the U.N. Security Council will leave a negative impact on our cooperation with the IAEA," he said, adding that such action would "change the path of cooperation to confrontation." The IAEA declared in 2002 that Iran had been conducting secret nuclear activities for decades, though it has never said Tehran has a weapons program. Iran claims it has that right, including the privilege of enriching uranium, under its treaty membership, but its opponents claim it ceded that right by hiding parts of its nuclear program from the international community. In February, Iran barred intrusive inspections of its nuclear facilities by the IAEA after it was referred to the Security Council. Iran said it had been implementing the agreement since 2003 voluntarily but it had not won domestic approval, as necessary, from parliament and the Guardian Council, a powerful oversight body dominated by Islamic hard-liners. Iran declared yet again Sunday it would not give up uranium enrichment despite the building crisis. "We won't give up our rights and the issue of suspension (of enrichment) is not on our agenda," Asefi said at his weekly briefing. -------- u.s. nuc facilities -------- utah The Church Announces Opposition to Nuclear Waste Storage in Utah 5/7/2006 Mormon Wasp http://mormonwasp.blogspot.com/2006/05/church-announces-opposition-to-nuclear.html The recent release of a First Presidency statement opposing the storage of nuclear waste in Utah is a significant event in several respects. Here's the text of the three-sentence statement: The transportation and storage of high-level nuclear waste create substantial and legitimate public health, safety, and environmental concerns. It is not reasonable to suggest that any one area bear a disproportionate burden of the transportation and concentration of nuclear waste. We ask the federal government to harness the technological and creative power of the country to develop options for the disposal of nuclear waste. The Deseret News has noted that the church announced its opposition last September to a plan for an entity called Private Fuel Storage to construct a storage site for 40,000 tons of highly radioactive nuclear-fuel rods on Goshute Indian land in Skull Valley, which is 50 miles from Salt Lake City. Apparently the site would be large enough to hold waste ever produced by the nation's 103 nuclear plants. As the Salt Lake Tribune observes, however, last week's statement came directly from the First Presidency, rather than from a spokesman (as was the case last fall). A Tribune story last week made the point that a statement of this type is unusual: "Not since the statement opposing the MX nuclear missile deployment in Utah 25 years ago has the First Presidency spoken out so directly and forcefully on a public policy issue not involving the church's usual moral targets, such as gay rights or gambling." Richard Davis, a political scientist at BYU, remembers the First Presidency only issuing statements on a few other public policy issues, including communism, reapportionment, and the John Birch Society. As to the reason for the statement, Davis referenced the MX missile statement in saying that the First Presidency has "been very protective of Utah as a home for LDS people...And I think they realize they have an enormous power to affect the community, the home base for the LDS community. I think they would probably see this as being a good citizen, good for the neighborhood." The new nuclear waste statement dispenses with the MX missile statement's declarations of moral concern and discussion of safety, health, environmental, and economic issues, collapsing them into a single, terse declaration: "The transportation and storage of high-level nuclear waste create substantial and legitimate public health, safety, and environmental concerns." Still, the statement could have a significant impact on the proposal's viability. As the Salt Tribune editorializes today, "If anyone had doubts about where Utah stands on storing high-level nuclear waste in the state, they won't have them now. That is because many in Washington and elsewhere believe, rightly or wrongly, that when The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints speaks on matters of public policy, Utah has spoken....One need only recall how the church's strongly worded opposition a generation ago played a decisive role in killing a plan that would have based the MX intercontinental ballistic missile on rail cars hidden in the vast Great Basin desert of Utah and Nevada." Interestingly, the new statement alludes to the 1981 statement, stating that "[i]t is not reasonable to suggest that any one area bear a disproportionate burden of the transportation and concentration of nuclear waste." Compare this to the 1981 statement's expression of concern: "With such concentration, one segment of the population would bear a highly disproportionate share of the burden, in lives lost and property destroyed, in case of an attack, particularly if such were to be a saturation attack." The new statement also ends with a plea somewhat similar to the 1981 statement's: "We ask the federal government to harness the technological and creative power of the country to develop options for the disposal of nuclear waste." Compare this to the 1981 statement's plea: "With the most serious concern over the pressing moral question of possible nuclear conflict, we plead with our national leaders to marshal the genius of the nation to find viable alternatives which will secure at an earlier date and with fewer hazards the protection from possible enemy aggression, which is our common concern." In his recently published biography of his father, Edward Kimball discusses the circumstances leading up to the release of the MX missile statement on May 5, 1981, demonstrating that the First Presidency bided its time before announcing its opposition, engaging in extended behind-the-scenes discussion and allowing others, including Utah government and religious leaders, to speak first. Similarly, opposition to the Skull Valley plan has been building in recent weeks in Utah. Utah Governor Jon Huntsman recently announced his opposition to the Skull Valley proposal, as did the Salt Lake County council and Salt Lake City mayor Rocky Anderson and the Salt Lake City council. And a diverse group of Utahn politicians, environmentalists, business leaders, and citizens, from the right and the left, has been vocal in recent weeks in campaigning against the plan. The church has now added its own voice to the debate. posted by Justin B. at 5/07/2006 07:29:00 PM -------- MILITARY -------- arms U.S. general in Iraq warns Iran on bomb smuggling 07 May 2006 REUTERS/FALEH KHEIBER By Ibon Villelabeitia http://www.alertnet.org/redir/righsection_rel_art__thefacts_countryprofiles_middleeast_htm/thenews/newsdesk/IBO759250.htm FORT TARIK, Iraq, May 7 (Reuters) - A senior U.S. general flew to Iraq's vast desert frontier with Iran on Sunday and vowed to stop what he said was the smuggling of bomb materials from Iran that is wreaking havoc among American troops. Landing by helicopter under the gun sights of Iranian border guards perched on a watchtower across the frontier, Lieutenant General Peter Chiarelli, the No. 2 U.S. general in Iraq, said U.S. and Iraqi forces securing the border will do "all we can" to stop roadside bombs. Known as improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, the home-made bombs are the largest cause of U.S. casualties in Iraq, where more than 2,400 American troops have been killed since the U.S.-led invasion to topple Saddam Hussein in 2003. Washington and London say there is evidence components of sophisticated IEDs behind attacks on British forces in southern Iraq were produced in Iran, a charge denied by Tehran. "We will do all we can to stop IEDs from coming into Iraq," Chiarelli told reporters in the border post of Fort Tarik, a spartan building surrounded by wastes of sun-drenched desert, once trodden by the caravans of the ancient Silk Route. "We are very concerned about this border because of IEDs. The capabilities of the IEDs we are facing today are much more than what I saw in March 2004. We feel an urgency to stop components of IEDs that are coming from the borders." Seeking to combat foreign fighters joining the anti-U.S. struggle in Iraq and the smuggling of weapons, the U.S. military has built and equipped 258 border forts around Iraq's porous borders with Iran, Syria, Turkey, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Trained by U.S. and other foreign troops, there are more than 20,000 members of the Iraqi National Border Forces. The United States says the overwhelming majority of foreign fighters are coming across the Syrian border. TENSION WITH IRAN Chiarelli said a dispute between Western powers and Iran over Tehran's nuclear ambitions has prompted U.S. and Iraqi forces to be more vigilant along the Iranian border. U.S. Major Vic Lindemeyer, a border patrol adviser, said smugglers were using the area to transport explosive projectiles and AK-47s into Iraq. "Rising tension with Iran has cautioned us to be concerned about illegal weapons and equipment in all borders," Chiarelli said, adding U.S. border agents who patrol the U.S.-Mexican border have been sent to Iraq to train the Iraqis. The Iraqis at Fort Tarik said they had intercepted 1,972 illegals trying to cross from Iran, mostly Iranian pilgrims heading for the holy Shi'ite cities of Najaf and Kerbala. The 60 Iraqis posted at Fort Tarik, where temperatures climb well above 50 degrees Celsius during the long Iraqi summer, share the building with a contingent of Ukrainian and Polish soldiers, who sweat profusely in their combat uniforms. Chiarelli and his military entourage were treated to a Bedouin-style lunch of mounds of rice with pieces of sheep, which is eaten with the fingers and standing up. In one of the turrets of the fort, an Iraqi border policeman fixed his binoculars on a watchtower just across the border manned by Iranian border guards. He said the Iranians on the tower are normally quiet but today seemed nervous with the arrival of Chiarelli and the media in half a dozen Black Hawk helicopters. "My job is too keep an eye on the border and defend my country," he said. -------- iraq Iraq Struggles With Rise of Guns-For-Hire May 7, 2006 By ALEXANDRA ZAVIS The Associated Press http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/93-05072006-652825.html BAGHDAD, Iraq - A half-dozen armored sport utility vehicles with guns pointed out the windows careen onto Baghdad's busy airport highway, bringing traffic to a screeching halt. Iraqis have learned to keep a wary distance from the convoys of foreign guns-for-hire in mirrored sunglasses and bulletproof vests, who have a reputation of firing at any vehicle that gets too close because of the ever-present danger of suicide bombers. Iraqi officials accuse many of the companies providing protection in violence-plagued Iraq of being a law unto themselves, prompting a flurry of attempts to better regulate an industry that is expanding rapidly around the world. South Africa and Britain are proposing tough new laws governing the participation of their nationals in foreign conflicts. Humanitarian groups are trying to identify gaps in international law. And the industry itself is pushing greater self-regulation. Iraqi Interior Minister Bayan Jabr, who oversees the activities of private security companies, accuses them of being "militias." Some companies counter that Jabr, who has himself been linked to a private Shiite force accused of widespread abuses against Sunni Muslims, is contributing to the problem by refusing to register security contractors. Since militaries were slashed at the end of the Cold War, private companies have been a growing presence on the world's battlefields, performing jobs conventional forces can no longer handle. It is a hugely competitive, multibillion-dollar industry, with clients ranging from governments and blue-chip corporations to warlords, drug cartels and terror groups. In Iraq, at least 20,000 contractors - local and foreign - are guarding coalition bases, protecting U.S. officials, training Iraqi security forces and interrogating detainees. They also protect businessmen, journalists and humanitarian workers, among others. Doug Brooks, head of a U.S.-based association of military contractors, says reports of abuse in the industry are exaggerated. "In general, companies are using people who are middle-aged ex-military, so they know what they are doing, and they don't make as many mistakes" as the armed forces, he said. The companies say they recognize the need for regulation in a dangerous industry: "We would prefer a high level of professionalism across the board. It makes it easier and safer for everybody," said Greg Lagana, spokesman for U.S.-based DynCorp International. Many top firms have joined associations like Brooks' International Peace Operations Association, which impose stringent human rights standards on their members. Firms say they also are subject to volumes of legislation in the countries where they are based, recruit and operate, including arms-trafficking and anti-corruption laws. Their employees are bound by international conventions on war crimes, just like their uniformed counterparts. Those working for the U.S. government can also be prosecuted in an American criminal court for offenses committed abroad. And there is the pressure of the marketplace: "Failure in this industry comes soonest to those who openly violate sound business principles and disregard the moral, ethical and legal high ground," said Chris Taylor, Blackwater USA's vice president for strategic initiatives. Abuses happen nonetheless. In Iraq, civilians mistaken for car bombers have been shot and killed. There also has been gunfire exchanged between contractors and Iraqi security forces. "Normally, it would be that state in which the companies operate that is responsible for policing this, but these companies typically operate in failed states," said P.W. Singer, an expert on private military companies at the Brookings Institution in Washington. And he said human rights violations are rarely prosecuted outside the country where they happened because of the logistic difficulties. Two military reports have implicated contractors working as interrogators and translators in the abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison, but unlike their military counterparts, they have not been tried. Their employers deny the allegations. The United Nations, African Union and International Committee of the Red Cross, among others, are working on proposals to tighten the regulatory framework. South Africa is proposing the most sweeping reform. It is embarrassed by the participation of apartheid-era defense force members in African conflicts, including a foiled 2004 plot to overthrow Equatorial Guinea's dictator in exchange for oil concessions. A bill before the South African Parliament would bar virtually any activity in a conflict zone without government authorization - even humanitarian work. U.S. officials in Iraq have expressed alarm. South Africa's former soldiers are among the most sought-after there, due to their professionalism and experience in African wars. "Combat experience counts," said Lt. Col. Wallace Dillon, deputy commander of the Reconstruction Operations Center, or ROC, which uses contractors to escort personnel to building sites and guard convoys of material. "Would you want a doctor operating on you who has never performed surgery before?" Britain, where some of the biggest companies in Iraq are headquartered, is considering less drastic measures. A parliamentary Green Paper outlines options including licensing the companies and approving their contracts. Andy Bearpark, head of the British Association of Private Security Companies, welcomed this approach but worried about the length of the process and criteria to be used. "The British industry doesn't want to lose out to the American industry because it takes too long to get a contract licensed," he said. In Iraq, the former U.S. authorities started registering security companies and issuing weapons permits. But the process stopped after sovereignty was returned to a transitional Iraqi government in 2004. Jabr says there are already too many companies, many of them recruiting from Saddam Hussein's feared former forces. He is refusing to license more firms without vetting their employees. But the ministry's mostly Shiite security forces are accused of torturing and killing members of the Sunni Arab minority that dominated under Saddam, making companies reluctant to give out information about whom they hire. Meanwhile, lawlessness reigns. More firms are entering the market, and no one knows who they are. For their own safety, many companies have started reporting to the ROC: the military operations center offers daily security briefings, a vehicle tracking system and panic buttons. The system has improved coordination between the military and civilian contractors, Dillon, its deputy commander, said. But participation is not a requirement of most U.S. contracts. The Department of Defense insists its contractors abide by the same rules of engagement as coalition forces, but that is not a requirement of other U.S. departments operating in Iraq, Dillon said. "Governments have to be smarter about this," said Singer, arguing they can use their buying power to shape the industry. "Support those that have good oversight. If they find out their contractors did anything wrong, hammer them." -------- nato US backs Albania, Croatia, Macedonia NATO bid DUBROVNIK, Croatia (AFP) May 07, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/2006/060507123403.ia38kys9.html US Vice President Dick Cheney on Sunday voiced his country's support for Albania, Croatia and Macedonia in their bid to join NATO, saying they would "help rejuvenate" the 57-year-old Alliance. "The Adriatic Charter countries have expressed the desire for joining the transatlantic community and we support that," Cheney said before meeting the premiers of the three countries in the southern Adriatic town of Dubrovnik. "We understand the desire to join NATO and the European community. We also believe that it's very important for both NATO and the EU to take in the new members," Cheney said. He spoke before meeting his Croatian host Prime Minister Ivo Sanader and his Albanian and Macedonian counterparts Sali Berisha and Vlado Buckovski. "You who aspire to join these organisations help rejuvenate (them) and help us re-dedicate ourselves to the basic and fundamental values of freedom and democracy," he stressed. Cheney also praised the three countries for their cooperation alongside NATO and US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. He left Dubrovnik for the United States shortly after 14:00 pm (1200 GMT). Croatia, Macedonia and Albania signed an "Adriatic Charter" with the United States in May 2003 designed to facilitate their integration into the North Atlantic Alliance. The three countries hope to join by 2008. The three premiers stressed that NATO membership figured among the top priorities for their countries. "Membership in NATO is a strategic goal of my nation. Croatia is aware that peace and security can not be achieved in isolation," Sanader said before the meeting. Berisha echoed Sanader's view, stressing that NATO membership was his country's "top priority." After the talks with Cheney Sanader labelled his visit as "important support to Croatia, but also Albania and Macedonia, on our path towards the EU and NATO." Sanader also voiced hope that during a NATO summit, to be held in Riga in November, the three countries would be given a more precise timetable for their membership in the Alliance. "We voiced our expectations that during the November summit in Riga a clear signal would be sent ... to our countries that in some time, rather soon and better sooner than later, we will become full-fledged NATO members," Sanader told journalists after the meeting. The three Balkan countries also voiced their readiness to take part in the global fight against terrorism. On Saturday Cheney met Croatian President Stipe Mesic and Sanader. Cheney's talks with Mesic focused on Zagreb's bid to join NATO and the fight against terrorism. Croatia, like other Balkan states, is anxious to demonstrate to NATO and the European Union that it meets their standards. Cheney was due originally to leave on Monday at the end of a trip which has taken him to Lithuania and Kazakhstan. But his press spokeswoman said Saturday his return to Washington had been moved forward to Sunday. The change did not curtail the talks foreseen here. Croatia, Albania and Macedonia are members of NATO's Partnership for Peace programme. The programme was set up after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of communism in central and eastern Europe, to establish military cooperation between the former Soviet bloc states and NATO countries, together with European neutrals. But public support in Croatia for NATO membership is very low, with only 29 percent in favour, according to a recent opinion poll. ---- Cheney endorses 3 nations' NATO ambitions 5/7/2006 Associated Press http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-05-07-nato-nations_x.htm DUBROVNIK, Croatia (AP) — Vice President Dick Cheney on Sunday endorsed the NATO membership aspirations of Croatia, Albania and Macedonia, and said they and other countries like them can "help us rededicate ourselves to the basic and fundamental values of freedom and democracy." "The Adriatic Charter countries have expressed a desire to fully join the trans-Atlantic community, and we support that," the vice president said as he sat down for talks with leaders of the three nations. Seated at a diamond-shaped table with Croatian Prime Minister Ivo Sanader, Albanian Prime Minister Sali Berisha and Macedonian Prime Minister Vlado Buckovski, Cheney thanked all three for their help in the war on terror. "We deeply appreciate the fact that all of you are already engaged alongside NATO and U.S. forces in places like Afghanistan and Iraq," he said. Albania and Macedonia have small contingents in Iraq. Cheney spoke as he neared the end of a three-nation trip that placed heavy emphasis on democratic reform in areas that either were part of the Soviet Union during the Cold War or lay in the Kremlin's long shadow. The vice president and his wife were to fly back to Washington during the day after deciding to return home ahead of schedule. Aides attributed the change in plans to purely personal reasons. The United States has long encouraged NATO aspirations for Croatia, Albania and Macedonia, and former Secretary of State Colin Powell traveled two years ago to Tirana for the signing of the Adriatic Charter. "It's very important both for NATO and the EU to take in new members," Cheney said. "You who aspire to these organizations help rejuvenate it and rededicate ourselves to the basic and fundamental values of freedom and security." In his public remarks, Cheney made no mention of any of the controversies on the path toward full membership by later this decade. Albania and Macedonia have both agreed to demands from the Bush administration to exempt U.S. citizens from the jurisdiction of the United Nations' International Criminal Court. Croatia, however, has not. The three leaders with whom Cheney met said they were eager to join NATO and the European Union, international organizations that stand as symbols of democratic strength and stability. Berisha said Albania stands ready to "pay any price" to achieve membership, which he said was necessary to "leave behind the difficult recent past" in his formerly Communist country. Cheney's meeting capped a trip in which he met with leaders of more than a dozen countries, most of them in Europe. He sparked controversy at his first stop, when he said at a conference in Lithuania that Russia had recently cracked down on democratic rights and had used its energy reserves as a former of blackmail over other countries in Europe. That drew sharply negative reaction, although Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on Saturday also said it won't derail Russia's cooperation with the West. "We have heard comments like this from the mouths of politicians of a lower rank, but the vice president of the United States probably should have information that in the last 40 years our country has not once — neither the Soviet Union nor Russia — violated a single contract for the supply of oil and gas abroad," Lavrov said in an acerbic statement on the ministry's website. "Obviously this information somehow hasn't been brought to the vice president's attention." Even so, he said the criticism won't undermine Russia's intention to cooperate with the United States in solving global crises. Cheney also visited Kazakhstan, an oil rich former Soviet republic, and met privately for far longer than expected with President Nursultan Nazarbayev. -------- prisoners of war Bush would like end to Guantanamo Some inmates have been at the detention camp since 2002 Sunday, 7 May 2006 BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/2/hi/americas/4983314.stm US President George W Bush has said he would like to "end" the detention centre in Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. But in an interview on German TV he says he must wait for a Supreme Court ruling on whether inmates could be tried by military or civilian courts. Around 490 detainees are in Guantanamo Bay, which opened in January 2002. There has been international criticism of conditions at the US camp and the length of time detainees have been held there without trial. Rights groups have said the detainees, held on suspicion of involvement in terrorism, are mistreated through cruel interrogation methods - a charge the US denies. Detainee list "We're at war with an enemy. And obviously we've got to protect ourselves," said Mr Bush. "I would very much like to end Guanatanamo," he went on. "I would very much like to get people to a court." The Supreme Court is expected to decide in June whether military tribunals can hear the cases of the detainees. White House National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones said Mr Bush was repeating a long-held policy that the US "has no intention of permanently detaining individuals". "We want to see all these individuals brought to justice," Mr Jones said. The US last month released its most comprehensive list yet of those held in Guantanamo Bay. Many of those named had been held at the camp for more than four years. -------- spies New Chief Will Find C.I.A. Is Hobbled on Iran By SCOTT SHANE May 7, 2006 New York Times http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/nws/nytimes48.htm WASHINGTON, May 6 — As the Central Intelligence Agency undergoes its latest round of turmoil, legislators and former intelligence officials say that serious gaps in the United States' knowledge of Iran are among the most critical problems facing a new director of the spy agency. A year after a presidential commission gave a scathing assessment of intelligence on Iran, they say, American spy agencies remain severely handicapped in their efforts to assess its weapons programs and its leaders' intentions. Whoever takes the helm of the C.I.A. after the resignation on Friday of Porter J. Goss will confront a critical target with few, if any, American spies on the ground, sketchy communications intercepts and ambiguous satellite images, the experts say. When he took the job 19 months ago, part of Mr. Goss's mandate was to make certain that the wildly mistaken prewar assessments about Iraq's weapons would not repeated. But as Mr. Goss leaves the agency, the intelligence watchers say that huge uncertainty remains in estimates of Iran's weapons, complicating the task of persuading the United Nations Security Council to impose sanctions or take other measures. "How many years are they away from having a nuclear weapon?" asked Senator Pat Roberts, Republican of Kansas, chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, in an interview this week. "We don't know, and the people providing the answers don't know." Administration officials say Mr. Goss's successor, expected to be named Monday by President Bush, will probably be Gen. Michael V. Hayden of the Air Force, the principal deputy director of national intelligence. A senior intelligence official said on Saturday that General Hayden recently gave the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board a highly critical account of Mr. Goss's performance at the C.I.A. that may have been one catalyst for the director's ouster. If General Hayden is the president's choice and is confirmed — a process likely to involve a public review of his prior role in domestic electronic surveillance as director of the National Security Agency — he will inherit an agency in considerable disarray. He would bring political clout that might be welcomed by the agency's battered managers, but some officers might resent him as an outsider, a military man and a representative of the director of national intelligence, John D Negroponte, former agency officials said. General Hayden would face the aftermath of a long list of seemingly unrelated problems that marked Mr. Goss's brief tenure. Mr. Goss's team of brash former Congressional staff members stirred resentment and an exodus of experienced officers, and months after Mr. Goss's arrival he found himself cast as second fiddle to Mr. Negroponte. The Valerie Wilson leak investigation strained relations with the White House. The agency's role in the secret detention and interrogation of terrorism suspects led to accusations of misconduct. Leaks prompted Mr. Goss to conduct a campaign of polygraph examinations that led to the dismissal of a senior official. The doubts about intelligence on Iran persist despite some successes, including revealing data from a laptop computer provided by an Iranian exile that American officials say casts new light on Iran's nuclear program. American officials shared the data last year with the International Atomic Energy Agency, whose inspectors remain the major source of the United States' knowledge of the Iranian program. Also, in January, Mr. Negroponte sought to focus multiple agencies' efforts by appointing a veteran C.I.A. analyst, S. Leslie Ireland, as the first "mission manager" for Iran. With input from General Hayden, Ms. Ireland has created an Iran strategy board, with 20 analysts from various agencies who meet monthly and talk daily about how to get better information. But if the administration and the atomic energy agency have emphasized what they have learned about Iran's quest for nuclear weapons, skeptical members of Congress stress the larger universe of the unknown. They are not convinced much has changed since last year's presidential commission on weapons intelligence, led by Laurence H. Silberman, a federal judge, and Charles S. Robb, the former Virginia senator and governor, found a lack of solid evidence on Iranian programs. Representative Jane Harman, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said a classified briefing in early March on Iran's missiles and their ability to carry warheads "raised as many questions as it answered." She and other representatives sent a classified letter posing additional questions on March 9 to Mr. Negroponte, but they have received no reply, she said. "I continue to believe that our sources are stale and our case is thin" on the weapons programs and internal politics of Iran, Ms. Harman of California, said. Some experts say they have confidence in official American estimates that Iran is unlikely to have a nuclear weapon until the next decade. "I think the 5 to 10 year estimate is very solid," said Gary S. Samore, vice president of the MacArthur Foundation and a former government expert on nuclear proliferation. But an array of former intelligence officials said the holes in American knowledge are numerous. "Whenever the C.I.A. says 5 to 10 years, that means they don't know," said Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former Iran specialist in the clandestine service of the C.I.A. He said French and Israeli experts believe an Iranian bomb may be as little as one to three years off. Flynt L. Leverett, a former C.I.A. analyst now at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, said American military planners clearly lack the detailed data needed to be able to cripple the Iranian nuclear program with air strikes should such a step be ordered. "It's likely there are facilities we don't know about," Mr. Leverett said. "And if we knocked out the facilities we do know about, we wouldn't really know how much we'd set back their nuclear program." Jon Wolfsthal, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said American uncertainty extends to the relationship of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the firebrand president since August, and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader, and their respective goals. "We not only don't know who makes the decisions," said Mr. Wolfsthal, who traveled to Iran last month. "We don't even know who's in the room when decisions are made." A senior American intelligence official, authorized to speak only on condition of anonymity, did not quarrel with that bleak assessment but said the government's Iran specialists were working to improve the situation. "It is a hard target, but we are not complacent," the official said. "On a daily basis we're trying to recruit new sources." Such intelligence shortcomings date at least to the period before the Islamist revolution that overthrew the shah in 1979. With no American embassy in Tehran, C.I.A. officers cannot operate under diplomatic cover inside Iran. And because American sanctions ban most business and academic ties, infiltrating spies under what is known as nonofficial cover is difficult. "I can't think of many people who'd go in under nonofficial cover and pitch senior officers of the I.R.G.C.," the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, said a former veteran C.I.A. operations officer with experience in Iran. Without diplomatic immunity, an unmasked spy could be imprisoned or worse, said the former officer, who was granted anonymity to discuss intelligence methods. Operating in the 1980's from a C.I.A. base in Frankfurt, called Tefran, for Tehran-Frankfurt, C.I.A. officers managed to build a network of agents inside Iran. But Iranian counterintelligence broke up the ring in 1989, former intelligence officers say. In the early 1990's the Frankfurt base was disbanded, and since then, operations have been directed from C.I.A. headquarters in Langley, Va., focusing on areas where there are large numbers of Iranian immigrants, including Los Angeles, the officers said. But by all accounts, the results have been modest. Mr. Leverett said, "it seems likely that the United States does not have a significant human intelligence capability inside Iran." The National Security Agency's efforts to intercept Iranian government communications were hampered in the last two years because Iran learned that the United States had broken its codes and changed them. Satellite photography has provided detailed images of suspected nuclear facilities, but such photographs leave many unanswered questions. Unmanned aerial vehicles are flown into Iran to sniff for gases that would provide clues to nuclear processing, former intelligence officials said. But such technology cannot remedy Americans' ignorance of Persian language and Iranian culture, said Ahmad Karimi-Hakkak, director of the Center for Persian Studies at the University of Maryland, where some intelligence officers will begin immersion language classes this summer. Just 300 to 400 university students nationwide are studying Persian, he estimated, and most of those will drop out before becoming fluent. "The problem of the failure to understand Persian culture has been with us since before the revolution in 1979," Mr. Karimi-Hakkak said. "But its consequences have never been more serious than today." Mark Mazzetti contributed reporting for this article. -------- un Peace deal to allow UN force to enter Darfur Sun 7 May 2006 MOHAMED OSMAN IN KHARTOUM http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=685222006 SUDAN yesterday said that United Nations peacekeepers would now be welcome in Darfur after a peace agreement between Khartoum and one of the rebel groups in the region. Bakri Mulah, secretary-general for external affairs in the Information Ministry, issued the invitation on behalf of the Khartoum government after the agreement was reached on Friday in Abuja, Nigeria. The Sudanese government initially rejected calls for UN peacekeepers to replace the thousands of African Union peacekeepers now in Darfur. "We heard the appeal of the UN Secretary General [for UN peacekeepers to join those of the African Union]... Now there is no problem," he said. Two rebel groups, though, have rejected the accord backed by the African Union, United States, Britain, the European Union and the Arab League, and skipped the signing ceremony in a hall at a Nigerian presidential villa. Optimism was muted by that and a history of failure to live up to agreements struck over two years of negotiations in the Nigerian capital. At the UN, American Ambassador John Bolton welcomed the agreement but said UN peacekeepers would become essential if the agreement were to hold. "Recognising that this is a very positive development in Abuja, we now would like the government in Khartoum to follow through and give the necessary visas and other arrangements to allow the UN planners to go in," Bolton said. That would lead to the strengthening of the African Union force during the transition, he added. -------- us Pentagon takes recruiting to new heights Posted 5/7/2006 (AP) http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-07-air-recruiting_x.htm CHICAGO — Hit by one of its most difficult recruiting periods in decades, the Defense Department is paying United Airlines to show passengers a Pentagon-produced video touting military jobs. The 13-minute video Today's Military is played between standard in-flight programming, such as NBC sitcoms or Discovery Channel productions, the Chicago Tribune reported. It profiles five military jobs, none in dangerous regions such as Iraq or Afghanistan. The video shows only one soldier beyond U.S. borders: an Army animal-care specialist on a humanitarian mission in Thailand. The Defense Department is paying United about $36,000 to run the video from April 17 through May 17, said Lt. Bradley Terrill, project officer for the video. By the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30, the Army closed out one of its most difficult recruiting periods in decades, falling more than 6,600 recruits short of its annual goal of 80,000. It was the first shortfall since 1999, and the largest in 26 years. It was unclear whether the military has contracts to show the video on other commercial airlines. Lt. Col. Todd Vician, a Pentagon spokesman, told The Associated Press on Sunday that he could not immediately provide more information on the video. United said it's not unusual for companies to pay for promotional spots on flights. Tom Bivins, a professor of media ethics at the University of Oregon, said the military's omission of production credits on the video is questionable. "People need to realize they are being advertised to," Bivins said. -------- ACTIVISTS UK: Can anti-war protestor continue five-year vigil? Publisher: Jon Land Published: 07/05/2006 http://www.24dash.com/content/news/viewNews.php?navID=57&newsID=5485 Anti-war protester Brian Haw - who has been demonstrating outside Parliament for almost five years - will learn tomorrow if he can continue his vigil. Court of Appeal judges will announce their decision in a challenge brought by the Government to an earlier legal ruling which allowed him to carry on demonstrating. Last July Mr Haw won a High Court action against new laws threatening his round-the-clock demonstration, which he began in Parliament Square in June 2001. The court then ruled that legislation aimed at controlling demonstrations around the Houses of Parliament did not apply to 56-year-old Mr Haw. But three senior judges in London have been urged to overturn that decision. David Pannick QC, for the Government, told the Master of the Rolls, Sir Anthony Clarke, sitting with Lord Justice Laws and Lady Justice Hallett at a recent hearing: "The appeal raises a short but important, and indeed interesting, question of statutory construction." He said: "The question for the court is whether the provisions in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, which now require authorisation for a demonstration in the designated area of Parliament Square, apply to a demonstration which began before the relevant provisions of the Act came into effect." The High Court had upheld Mr Haw's submission. He added the answer "is in the negative" and it is that decision that is the subject of the appeal. New rules state that anyone wanting to demonstrate in the area must have authorisation from the police "when the demonstration starts". During the High Court action, lawyers for Mr Haw, who is from Worcestershire, pointed out that his demonstration had actually "started" four years previously. He, therefore, did not have to apply for authorisation, even though the law was targeted at him. Allowing his application for judicial review, Lady Justice Smith, sitting with Mr Justice McCombe and Mr Justice Simon, said the new law did not catch Mr Haw because of a drafting error. She said: "If Parliament wishes to criminalise any particular activity, it must do so in clear terms. If it wishes to do so, Parliament can amend this Act." Mr Haw, who won in the High Court by a 2-1 majority, initially demonstrated against Western sanctions on Iraq and later against the UK's involvement in the US-led war and its aftermath. Described by his QC, Richard Drabble, as a committed Christian with a passion for peace and human rights, he sleeps in the square and has built up a large display of anti-war banners, placards and flags, many presented by well-wishers. In 2002, Westminster Council failed to evict him after High Court judge Mr Justice Gray refused to grant an injunction preventing him obstructing the pavements.