NucNews July 15, 2006 -------- NUCLEAR -------- britain Britain shares nuclear plant concerns, envoy insists Saturday, July 15, 2006 Ireland Online http://www.online.ie/Home/News.aspx?newsId=403654 The British Ambassador tonight attempted to allay fears about future British nuclear energy policy. As Opposition parties expressed fears about a new generation of nuclear plants like Sellafield located across the Irish Sea, Ambassador Stewart Eldon said Britain also shared these concerns. The British government's long-awaited Energy Review said today that nuclear power stations could make a significant contribution to meeting the country's future energy needs but didn't specify how many it may build or at which locations. The Irish Government has already said it will oppose any plans by Britain to build new nuclear power stations. Mr Eldon emphasised tonight that the Energy Review's aims were to tackle climate change and deliver safe, clean, energy at affordable prices. "I'm sure the Irish Government would entirely share these two objectives," he said at a press briefing at the British Embassy in Dublin. Speaking of Irish concerns about nuclear energy, he said: "A lot of concerns raised in Ireland are exactly the same as we have in Britain and we have no interest in ignoring them." Mr Eldon reiterated that the nuclear energy debate should be based on sound and rational science. Earlier, the Labour Party said that accidents at any of the proposed new nuclear power stations could have catastrophic consequences for Ireland. "We in Ireland will have to put up with ongoing discharge of harmful waste into the Irish Sea as well as with the ever-present threat of nuclear explosion or a major terrorist attack," said TD Emmet Stagg. Fine Gael called on the Irish Government to consider taking legal action against the construction of any new stations. "Any increase in British reliance on nuclear power will have nothing but harmful effects on Ireland," foreign affairs spokesman Bernard Allen added. Sinn Féin's Louth TD Arthur Morgan said he will write to British Prime Minister Tony Blair to register his party's opposition to its nuclear policy. "Nuclear power can never be a viable option. I will be making very clear to the British government and to the nuclear industry that we are very serious about defending the health and safety of the people of Ireland," he said. Friends of the Earth called on the Taoiseach to make a pledge that the Government would never buy nuclear-generated electricity from the UK. "It would be hypocritical in the extreme for the Government to campaign to close Sellafield and then turn around and let the ESB buy electricity from a new nuclear station," said spokesman Oisin Coghlan. -------- india India in the Shadow of the Nuclear Lobby July 15, 2006 14:56 | by Subramanian Udayakumar SPECTREZINE http://www.spectrezine.org/resist/India.htm After years in the doldrums, the nuclear lobby is once again raising its ugly head. Cashing in on fears of climate change, the industry crows about zero carbon emissions and plays down the essentially insoluble problem of waste, the nightmare prospects of accident or terrorist attack, and the fact that nuclear power is expensive power. Recently in spectrezine, journalist heather Wokush has looked at the situation in the United States and Kartika Liotard, MEP, a member of the European Parliament's Environment Committee, has written on Europe . Developing countries are, however, peculiarly vulnerable to the nuclear industry's vast power, and the evn greater power of its duplicitous friends in the White House and Downing Street. One example is India, whose economy is growing fast, while a large part of its population has no electricity supply. The government argues that, for these reasons, it needs to build nuclear power stations. According to Subramanian Udayakumar, however, the nuclear programme is being forced through with American support, with the aim of making India as much a nuclear power as is China. Udayakumaar, of Indian state Tamil Nadu's People's Movement Against Nuclear Power, recently visited the Netherlands, where he spoke to Herman Damveld of Tribune, the Socialist Party's monthly magazine. This is what he told him. In Madras on the coast there's a nuclear power station, and a fast-breeder reactor is being built. The foundations, which are a few metres deep, had collapsed and at the time of the tsunami in December 2004 there were 200 people at work on it. They were all killed by the water. The government had declared the area around to be a military zone. It was pitch dark, yet there was a lot of traffic, which people living around the site told me was transport of the dead workers from the nuclear power station. I'm from South India, more or less the most southerly point of India, near to Sri Lanka. Close to my house there is a nuclear power station. There are also plans for new nuclear power stations in the area, but that's about all that's known. Our organisation asked to see the reports on the environmental effects these will have, but we were told that they were not available to the public. In December 2004 the state of Tamil Nadu was hit by the tsunami. In the area where I live, small earthquakes occurred, force 3 on the Richter scale. There are also volcanoes which erupt from time to time. Our organisation asked why it was decided that nuclear power stations should be built in such a place, but we received no answer. In India, it's difficult to explain the dangers of nuclear power and nuclear weapons. Half of the population can't read or write, and many of these people live in the area where they plan to build the nuclear power stations. We are trying to make it clear what's at stake, to fishermen (fish being the most important food for many Indian coast-dwellers), to farmers and to women's groups. The middle class is well-educated and understands well enough, but this class wants to get rich and is positive about any kind of development, as long as India follows the US. These people aren't bothered about the consequences for society or the environment and they aren't willing to listen to any criticism. The nuclear lobby in India reigns supreme. To give an example: nobody knows how much money is involved in these nuclear power stations. There is, in addition, no discussion of this in parliament. All political parties support nuclear power. There isn't one party with a green agenda. The government intimidates opponents of nuclear energy, sends the police after us, searches our houses. It is thus very difficult to put criticism of nuclear power on the agenda. People say indeed that India is a democracy, but all democracy means for our movement is the right to complain, and exercising even that right is not without its consequences. Widespread corruption also plays a role. In the case of major projects such as the building of a nuclear power station, politicians can line their pockets with more slush money than they can when it's a matter of small projects such as the building of windmills. India's economy is growing by around 8 % per year and the demand for energy with it. The last few years have seen electricity consumption rise by 5% annually, but it is lower than that of the western world. India uses about three million barrels of oil a day while the European Union gets through fourteen million. Of the approximately one billion (1,000,000,000) inhabitants some 80% live in the countryside in around 600,000 villages, 474,000 of which are connected to the national electricity grid. That seems a high proportiuon, but the picture is distorted. Most people are too poor to afford to be connected to the electricity supply, so that in fact in the countryside fewer than half of the population has electricity. In 1947, the year of India's independence, the capacity of all electricity generating stations added together was a paltry 1300 megawatts. This has since grown to 124,000 megawatts. Two-thirds of the supply comes from fossil sources - coal, oil, gas - and 26 % from hydroelectric. As things stand, nuclear power makes only a small contribution, a bit less than 3%. The remaining 5% comes from sustainable sources, from solar and wind power. That's very little when you consider that India has a coastline of 7,000 kilometres where there are often waves and that the sun shines almost the whole year round. A major problem is the quality of the electricity grid. During transmission and distribution four times as much electricity is lost as in, for example, a developed country such as the Netherlands. This is due to the poor condition of the antiquated network. The biggest priority for the near future must therefore be an improvement of the distribution grid. If India invested in that we would need fewer new power stations. On the other hand the loss will always be greater than it is in the Netherlands, because of the far greater distances which must be covered. There is another reason why nuclear power is a bad idea. Nuclear power in India is roughly twice as dear as electricity from modern gas-fired power stations. And remember that we are talking about 400 million poor people who don't have sufficient to eat, don't have access to clean drinking water and are barely surviving. Also, India is a heavily populated country. If an accident occurred involving a nuclear power station, the consequences for human beings and the environment would be extremely serious. The Indian government has had the various alternatives assessed. Wind power could be increased from 1,870 megawatts to 45,000 megawatts and small hydroelectric plants could add a further 15,000 megawatts. Then there is solar power which could deliver another 20 megawatts peak capacity per square kilometre. Yet they're going on with expensive nuclear power. Not long ago an agreement was signed with President Bush concerning the delivery of two nuclear power stations by the US firm Westinghouse. $5 bn worth of weapons will also be supplied. Supporters say that Bush is helping India by supplying these things, but this agreement makes the world less safe. The real background is, in my view, the fear that the US has for China. That's why they need a country bordering on China that can compete with it: India. China has more nuclear weapons and a bigger military arsenal than does India. This explains this 'support'. And because of this, because India is making nuclear weapons, it's odds on that Pakistan is going to produce more nuclear weapons, which also suits the US. Naturally they speak about the peaceful use of nuclear energy. But we would do well to remember that India's first bomb was made in a nuclear power station supplied by Canada, a facility also aimed at producing energy for peaceful purposes. So I don't have much faith in statements about the peaceful use of nuclear power. Nuclear power and nuclear weapons go together. Otherwise, why would so much money be invested in nuclear power? Read more about South Asian struggles against nuclear power See also: http://www.spectrezine.org/MiddleEast/Damveld.htm -------- iran Iran's leadership rejects freeze of sensitive nuclear work by Siavosh Ghazi Sat Jul 15, 2006 (AFP) http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060715/wl_mideast_afp/irannuclearpolitics_060715161932 TEHRAN - Iran's leadership has rejected demands to freeze sensitive nuclear work contained in an international proposal aimed at resolving the crisis over Tehran's nuclear drive. "In the West's proposal, two preconditions are raised: suspending nuclear activities and responding to questions" raised by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said Abdolreza Rahmani-Fazli, the deputy secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council. "The leadership has reached the conclusion that it will not accept the precondition set by the Europeans," he was quoted by semi-official Mehr news agency, which is close to the Islamic republic's top national security body. Although a number of senior officials have over the past month spoken out against a freeze, the comments from Rahmani-Fazli -- the deputy of Iran's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani -- are the first indication that the regime has reached a clear decision. Iran says it only wants to enrich uranium to make reactor fuel, but the process can be extended to make weapons. Western powers believe Iran is trying to build a nuclear bomb under the cover of a peaceful atomic energy programme. Nevertheless, the official said Iran was "continuing to examine the offer" -- which was drawn up by Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States and handed to Tehran on June 6. The package offers trade, technology, diplomatic and other incentives as well as multilateral talks -- also involving the United States -- if Iran agrees to freeze enrichment. In the absence of an Iranian reply, the so-called 5+1 group of nations on Wednesday decided to send the matter back to the UN Security Council -- which has the power to make a suspension legally binding and impose sanctions if Iran continues enriching. Diplomats say the Council could vote as early as next week on a draft resolution that would make a freeze mandatory -- although Russian President Vladimir Putin on Saturday emphasised the need for more diplomacy. "We're not going to take part in any crusades, any holy unions... but our common aim is to make the world a safer place," Putin said after meeting US counterpart George W. Bush ahead of the G8 summit in Saint Petersburg. "We are going to come up with common approaches to this common problem," Putin said at a press conference. Iran resumed enrichment in January, and has already ignored a non-binding Security Council demand for the work to stop pending the result of an IAEA probe. The Vienna-based agency says that after more than three years of inspections it is still not in a position to say whether Iran is seeking nuclear energy or weapons. The regime's hardline leaders have repeatedly said they are willing to ease concerns over their atomic activities, but are unwilling to accept any "preconditions". -------- korea U.N. Security Council's resolution on North Korea Saturday, July 15, 2006 CNN http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/07/15/korea.res/ The Security Council, Reaffirming its resolutions 825 (1993) of 11 May 1993 and 1540 (2004) of 28 April 2004, Bearing in mind the importance of maintaining peace and stability on the Korean peninsula and in north-east Asia at large, Reaffirming that proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, as well as their means of delivery, constitutes a threat to international peace and security, Expressing grave concern at the launch of ballistic missiles by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), given the potential of such systems to be used as a means to deliver nuclear, chemical or biological payloads, Registering profound concern at the DPRK's breaking of its pledge to maintain its moratorium on missile launching, Expressing further concern that the DPRK endangered civil aviation and shipping through its failure to provide adequate advance notice, Expressing its grave concern about DPRK's indication of possible additional launches of ballistic missiles in the near future, Expressing also its desire for a peaceful and diplomatic solution to the situation and welcoming efforts by Council members as well as other Member States to facilitate a peaceful and comprehensive solution through dialogue, Recalling that the DPRK launched an object propelled by a missile without prior notification to the countries in the region, which fell into the waters in the vicinity of Japan on 31 August 1998, Deploring the DPRK's announcement of withdrawal from the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (the Treaty) and its stated pursuit of nuclear weapons in spite of its Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards obligations, Stressing the importance of the implementation of the Joint Statement issued on 19 September 2005 by China, DPRK, Japan, Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation and the United States, Affirming that such launches jeopardize peace, stability and security in the region and beyond, particularly in light of the DPRK's claim that it has developed nuclear weapons, Acting under its special responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. 5 July 2006 local time; 1. Condemns the multiple launches by the DPRK of ballistic missiles on 5 July 2006 local time; 2. Demands that the DPRK suspend all activities related to its ballistic missile programme, and in this context re-establish its pre-existing commitments to a moratorium on missile launching; 3. Requires all Member States, in accordance with their national legal authorities and legislation and consistent with international law, to exercise vigilance and prevent missile and missile-related items, materials, goods and technology being transferred to DPRK's missile or WMD programmes; 4. Requires all Member States, in accordance with their national legal authorities and legislation and consistent with international law, to exercise vigilance and prevent the procurement of missiles or missile related-items, materials, goods and technology from the DPRK, and the transfer of any financial resources in relation to DPRK's missile or WMD programmes; 5. Underlines, in particular to the DPRK, the need to show restraint and refrain from any action that might aggravate tension, and to continue to work on the resolution of non-proliferation concerns through political and diplomatic efforts; 6. Strongly urges the DPRK to return immediately to the Six-Party Talks without precondition, to work towards the expeditious implementation of 19 September 2005 Joint Statement, in particular to abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programmes, and to return at an early date to the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards; 7. Supports the six-party talks, calls for their early resumption, and urges all the participants to intensify their efforts on the full implementation of the 19 September 2005 Joint Statement with a view to achieving the verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in a peaceful manner and to maintaining peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula and in north-east Asia; 8. Decides to remain seized of the matter. 1. Condemns the multiple launches by the DPRK of ballistic missiles on 5 July 2006 local time; 2. Demands that the DPRK suspend all activities related to its ballistic missile programme, and in this context re-establish its pre-existing commitments to a moratorium on missile launching; 3. Requires all Member States, in accordance with their national legal authorities and legislation and consistent with international law, to exercise vigilance and prevent missile and missile-related items, materials, goods and technology being transferred to DPRK's missile or WMD programmes; 4. Requires all Member States, in accordance with their national legal authorities and legislation and consistent with international law, to exercise vigilance and prevent the procurement of missiles or missile related-items, materials, goods and technology from the DPRK, and the transfer of any financial resources in relation to DPRK's missile or WMD programmes; 5. Underlines, in particular to the DPRK, the need to show restraint and refrain from any action that might aggravate tension, and to continue to work on the resolution of non-proliferation concerns through political and diplomatic efforts; 6. Strongly urges the DPRK to return immediately to the Six-Party Talks without precondition, to work towards the expeditious implementation of 19 September 2005 Joint Statement, in particular to abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programmes, and to return at an early date to the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards; 7. Supports the six-party talks, calls for their early resumption, and urges all the participants to intensify their efforts on the full implementation of the 19 September 2005 Joint Statement with a view to achieving the verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in a peaceful manner and to maintaining peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula and in north-east Asia; 8. Decides to remain seized of the matter. -------- missile defense Independent Working Group Issues Major Report on Ballistic Missile Defense From: Sheila Baker Date: Sat Jul 15, 2006 9:42 am Scroll down for link to full report. Five years after withdrawing from the ABM Treaty, the United States has so far failed to take advantage of the withdrawal and revive development of specific technologies necessary to make the nation and its allies safe from missile attack. The Independent Working Group (IWG) this week issued a major report outlining the need for more ambitious efforts in ballistic missile defense policy. The report, entitled Missile Defense, the Space Relationship, and the Twenty-First Century, advocates the development and deployment of robust missile defense capabilities well beyond the limited ground-based system currently being deployed in Alaska and California. The Claremont Institute is one of eight public policy organizations from around the country co-sponsoring the report. The report recommends that the Pentagon build on the legacy of technologies developed under the Strategic Defense Initiative of the Reagan and first Bush administrations. Sea- and space-based assets should constitute the backbone of a robust, layered U.S. missile defense shield, which ground-based systems should support. Such a shield would be capable of protecting the U.S., its allies, and troops abroad against the threat of a hostile missile attacks from any quarter. The missile threat has only increased in recent years as rogue nations and transnational terrorist organizations attempt to acquire ballistic missile technology and weapons of mass destruction. The report praises the Bush Administration for withdrawing from the 1972 ABM Treaty and beginning a modest and limited deployments, but also criticizes the failure to use existing technologies to deploy a more robust system actually capable of defending the United States, our troops, and our allies. Changes to sea-based missile defense development programs could be made for approximately $350 million, in three specific areas. The U.S. could demonstrate a space-based missile defense system for some $3-5 billion, and field some 1000 space-based interceptors for an anticipated cost of $16.4 billion. Current expenditures for missile defense total approximately $8 billion per year. The Independent Working Group is co-chaired by Dr. Robert Pfaltzgraff, President of the Institute of Foreign Policy Analysis (IFPA) at Tufts University, and by Dr. William R. Van Cleave, Professor Emeritus of the Department of Defense and Strategic Studies at Missouri State University, and a member of the original U.S. delegation which drafted the 1972 ABM Treaty. Ambassador Henry F. Cooper, who in former roles oversaw both development of missile defense for the U.S. and was chief negotiator to the Geneva Defense and Space Talks, Dr. Robert Jastrow, founding director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and Dr. Lowell Wood, a Physicist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Commissioner on the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) were among the numerous missile defense, space, and security experts from the scientific, technical, and national security policy communities around the country who are members of the Independent Working Group. Members of the Working Group also include Brian T. Kennedy, president of the Claremont Institute, Thomas Karako, Director of Programs at the Claremont Institute and editor of Missilethreat.com. Sponsors and authors of the IWG report include eight think-tanks headquartered across the country, in Washington, D.C., California, Alaska, Missouri and Massachusetts. Further, the experts called on the U.S. to recreate and sustain the scientific and technology base -including the workforce needed - to assure U.S. primacy in space and missile defense. That job would be accomplished by revamping organizational leadership of sea and space based missile defense in the U.S., and directing the National Science Foundation and other government agencies to further emphasize research in space technologies. The report was released July 10 in Washington D.C., and will be followed by a series of briefings to the public and governmental officials during 2006 and 2007. "We cannot be complacent about the missile defense program we have with the new threats the U.S. is facing," said Dr. Robert Pfaltzgraff, co-chair of the Independent Working Group. "We promised ourselves an effective, layered defense with our withdrawal from the ABM treaty. It is now time to put politics aside and use the most effective technologies to make that happen." (Article, Link) " Read the 2007 Report: The Independent Working Group on Missile Defense, the Space Relationship, and the Twenty-First Century (8 MB) " More stories on: Resources and Space-Based Systems " Missile system details for: Brilliant Pebbles, Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) and Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) http://missilethreat.com/ Scrap the Indo - US Nuclear Deal, as this has legitimized the possession of nuclear weapons, added to the nuclear arms race, has made us a puppet of the US imperialism in its designs to dominate the world and will push us towards unending threat of radiations in the name of generating electricity through nuclear energy -which is neither safe nor economical, was the consensual opinion at the seminar organized by the Indian Doctors for Peace and Development (IDPD) and Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace (CNDP) jointly on 9th July at Ludhiana on Indo - US Nuclear Deal in Whose Benefit in conjunction with the National Coordination Committee meeting of the CNDP on 8- 9 July. The seminar deliberated on various aspects of the India United States nuclear cooperation deal initialed a year ago and during President George Bush's, visit to India and further debated in the US congress recently. The seminar came to the consensual conclusion that the nuclear deal is undesirable from the point of view of Indian politics as well as the cause of world peace and security. We oppose this deal because precisely it legitimizes nuclear weapons and sets back the prospects of global nuclear abolition on urgent, equitable and non-discriminatory basis. Delivering the main speech, Admiral Ramdas-former chief of Indian Navy, said the essence of the deal lies in making an unprecedented special exception for one country in respect of the global nuclear order by legitimizing its nuclear weapons. Under the agreement India will be allowed to keep 8 out of 22 nuclear reactors out of the civilian category and thus the scope of inspections (safeguards) of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). In addition, all military-nuclear facilities as the Dhruv Plutonium Reactor as well as fast breeder reactors will be exempt from safeguards. This will enable India to considerably develop and produce fissile material for nuclear weapon use. Since this legitimizes India's nuclear armament, it sets wholly negative example to other countries including Pakistan and North Korea and weakens the case of non-proliferation. Sh.Achin Vanaik a renowned peace activist pointed out that the nuclear deal and the Indo-US defense agreement reinforce the US-India strategic partnership which is itself Washington's strategy of building a system of alliances to achieve global domination and hegemony. It thus signifies India's complete abandonment of commitments of non-alignment. This strategic partnership also erodes India's sovereignty in various forms, the glaring example being India's recent IAEA vote against Iran. He further said that the only beneficiaries of the deal would be the nuclear lobby in the US and its allies as also the elite in India who will get huge business in this deal. The struggle against the global designs of the nuclear lobby has to be therefore combined with the struggle against the Indian elite and for a just and equitable society. Speaking on the occasion Sh.Praful Bidwai a renowned journalist said that the deal cannot be justified in the name of energy sustainability and countering global warming. This will promote nuclear power - an expensive, hazardous and economically nonviable source, which have become discredited and is being phased out in several parts of the world. India's experience with the nuclear power has not been a happy one. This will further lead to exposure of our people to the nuclear waste as there is no foolproof method for its management. Nuclear power has not be shown to be an answer to global warming. This will be done at the cost of developing renewable and environmentally sound energy sources despite their proven viability. Dr L.S.Chawla, President IDPD, pointed out that concerned with the health of people, we as doctors are opposed to development of any such methods and technologies which will harm the health and life of our population and the life around. We believe the development and possession of nuclear weapons as evil, immoral and illegal. Therefore it is our duty to oppose any such strategies, which promote these weapons. It is by now a well-researched and proven fact that there is no medical remedy to nuclear fallout. Dr Arun Mitra, General Secretary IDPD, said that we are pained that India which was for long an ardent advocate of disarmament has abandoned this agenda to pursue strategic relationship with a power that is addicted to nuclear weapons. The seminar was attended by a large number of people from all walks of life including doctors and medical students. Several persons participated in the interactive session that followed main speeches and took exception to the role of media in projecting only one-sided rosy picture contrary to the facts. The participants in the discussion wanted information about arms race vs health should be imparted at school level. -------- russia Russia Is Not a Lost Cause by Patrick J. Buchanan Antiwar.com July 15, 2006 http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=9305 Asked by the "Today" show's Matt Lauer about the recent caning Vice President Cheney gave him and Russia, President Vladimir Putin gave this cocky and cutting reply: "I think these kinds of comments from your vice president amount to the same thing as an unfortunate shot while hunting." In Rostock, Germany, Bush declined to defend Cheney or rebut Putin, though the veep's tough words in Lithuania May 4, accusing Russia of backsliding on democracy and using its oil as a weapon to blackmail neighbors, had to have been approved by the White House. Putin, a black belt in karate and the man into whose soul Bush famously saw five years ago, as he gazed into the eyes of that ex-KGB officer, takes no guff from these Americans. That is among the reasons Putin's approval rating in Russia is twice that of Bush in America and four times that of the veep. On the Eastern shore of Delaware, where college girls from Eastern Europe come to work in the summer, Putin is a rock star among the Russians. Why is Putin popular in Russia? Why is America no longer so? As one of the achievements of the Reagan-Bush administration was to convert Russia from the hostile global power headed by Brezhnev into the friendly nation headed by Boris Yeltsin, these issues should concern us. For the relationship between the two greatest nuclear powers on earth has been going steadily downhill. Americans give these reasons for the estrangement: Putin's reversion to authoritarianism, his support for repressive regimes in Belarus and Uzbekistan, his closeness to Beijing (including joint military exercises), his sale of fighter jets to Hugo Chavez and anti-aircraft missiles to Tehran, his support for Iran's nuclear plant, his recognition of Hamas' election victory, his oil blackmail of Ukraine, his unplugging of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, and his crackdown on U.S. NGO's promoting democracy in Russia. All seemed designed to show Russia's independence of – and, indeed, defiance of – the world leadership of the United States. And that is not an unfair conclusion. But Americans need to ask themselves whether we have had it coming. For consider how we have dealt with Russia's interests and sensitivities. Listening to U.S. advisers on how to privatize the wealth of the Soviet state, Russians saw their national assets looted by thieves, hustlers and "oligarchs" welcomed in the West, as their per capita income sank and their social security vanished. They saw the United States bomb into submission a Serb nation Russia had always seen as her Balkan god-child, for Serbia's crime of trying to hold on to her cradle province, Kosovo. They watched America go back on her word – given when the Red Army withdrew from Europe – and push NATO into Poland, the Baltic States, the Balkans, and, now, Ukraine and Georgia. This is the political equivalent of Great Britain – had the United States come apart in the Civil War – making Virginia, South Carolina and Texas dominions of the British Empire. They saw U.S. agents, under cover of Bush's "democracy crusade," effect the defeat of pro-Russian governments in Kiev and Tbilisi – through the project failed in Minsk – and the election of regimes pledged to reorient their policies toward the EU, NATO and the United States. They saw Americans colluding with former provinces of the Soviet Union to develop pipelines that would bypass not only Iranian territory, but also Russian territory. They saw the U.S. bases in Central Asia they had approved for the Afghan war taking on a permanent character. They listened as U.S. neoconservatives cheered for Chechen rebels and officials from Cheney to McCain bashed Putin and Russia, with some calling for her expulsion from the G-8. Putin concluded, not incorrectly, that these Americans do not want partners, they want poodles. But Putin is not Blair. A patriot and nationalist, he has set about restoring Moscow's independence and self-respect, and started looking out for Russia first. He was determined to stand up for Russia, even if it meant standing up to the United States, which is why so many Russians respect him. He imposed a flat tax, stripped the oligarchs of their assets and jailed them or ran them out of the country, liquidated the Chechen murderers of Beslan, started using his oil wealth the way great powers always do, and began to reorient his foreign policy without consulting Washington, as Washington never consulted him. Though the West is losing Russia, Russia is not lost. But the minimal price of regaining Russian good will is to start treating her like a great nation. That means getting out of her face, getting our alliance off her front porch, and getting our bases and our Cold War agitprop agencies and pests out of her back yard. Russia today threatens no vital interest of the United States. Is it too much to ask that we treat Russia and her "space" the way we want Russia and Russians to treat ours? ---- No plans for Russia to change stance on Iran - nuclear chief 15/ 07/ 2006 (RIA Novosti) http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060715/51403651.html MOSCOW, July 15 - Russia's nuclear chief has denied foreign media reports that the country would sign an agreement on nuclear cooperation with the United States in exchange for altering its position on Iran. "This is absolute nonsense. This issue has never been raised or discussed during talks," Sergei Kiriyenko told Russian television Saturday. Presidents Vladimir Putin and George Bush announced earlier Saturday that Russia and the U.S. were planning to sign an agreement on peaceful use of nuclear energy, transition to trade in the nuclear sphere on a commercial basis and global partnership in this field, including the establishment of international uranium enrichment centers. Kiriyenko said Russia's cooperation with Iran was based on two principles: the right of Tehran as a member of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to develop civilian nuclear energy and Iranian guarantees that it would not attempt to create nuclear weapons. The Islamic Republic has been accused by many countries of seeking to produce nuclear weapons under the guise of a civilian energy program, but has denied the accusation, insisting that it only wants nuclear technology for power production. -------- security U.S. to Install New Nuclear Detectors at Ports The $1.2 billion in contracts will go toward scanning for weapons with greater accuracy. By Ralph Vartabedian, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer July 15, 2006 http://q13.trb.com/la-na-radiation15jul15,0,1225255.story?coll=kcpq-home-2 The nation's defense against nuclear terrorism took a major step Friday, federal officials said, following the award of contracts worth $1.2 billion to install advanced sensors at U.S. ports of entry to screen for radioactive cargo. The Department of Homeland Security plans to install 1,400 advanced detection systems at 370 border crossings and ports under the program, which has been in development at federal laboratories for several years. The sensors, which cost $350,000 to $600,000 each, will allow inspectors to scan rail cars, trucks and shipping containers with greater accuracy and fewer false alarms, said Vayl S. Oxford, director of the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, part of the Homeland Security Department. Sensors now in use are highly sensitive, but since 2002, inspectors have recorded 318,000 false alarms in the 80 million cargo shipments examined, Oxford said. Inspectors have never uncovered an attempt to smuggle nuclear weapons or nuclear materials. Every time existing sensors signal the presence of radioactive materials, inspectors must send containers to a secondary station, requiring a lengthy and costly inspection. With only so much capacity to conduct them, inspectors often turn down the sensitivity setting on the sensors to avoid disrupting cargo operations. The new sensors will use advanced software to discriminate between different types of radioactive materials at very high sensitivity levels, Oxford said. For example, they would be able to distinguish weapons-grade plutonium and highly enriched uranium from common substances that emit radioactivity, such as granite countertops, bananas and even kitty litter. At the time of the Sept. 11 attacks, none of the cargo entering the nation's ports was screened for radioactive materials. Today, about 80% of incoming containers are screened and the department expects to screen for about 90% by next year, Oxford said. In recent months, the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles began screening all trucks, rail cars and containers, according to Todd Hoffman, a Customs and Border Protection official who will take over responsibility for the ports this fall. The ports, the nation's largest container complex, are regarded as one of the nation's most difficult places to protect against attempts to smuggle in a nuclear weapon. Since Sept. 11, 2001, the federal government has created a technology development program, including efforts to improve nuclear defenses. Research into radiation sensors has grown from $95 million in the last budget year to $180 million this year and is expected to reach $360 million next year. The bulk of federal research money has focused on biological terrorism. The Domestic Nuclear Detection Office was created 15 months ago, a recognition that not enough emphasis was being placed on stopping a dirty bomb or nuclear weapon from entering the U.S. The contract award Friday is a culmination of this effort. "This is a huge step," said Penrose "Parney" Albright, a technology consultant in Washington and former technology chief at the Homeland Security Department. "This dramatically improves our ability to scan vehicles and containers crossing our border." Federal officials acknowledge their system is not leak-proof. With enough lead and advanced plastic shielding, radioactivity can be blocked from sensors that passively try to detect radiation. Finding hidden or buried contraband requires active sensors, which attempt to create images of cargo inside the containers, much like an X-ray machine used to inspect baggage at airports. At most ports, the Customs and Border Protection uses gamma ray detection systems that create images of contents inside containers — but only on a tiny percentage of targeted containers and vehicles. The nuclear detection office is funding research that would go further, scanning for shielding materials and alerting border inspectors that nuclear contraband could be hidden. The federal response also has included establishing multiple layers of defense that extend from foreign ports to potential U.S. targets, Oxford said. That includes greater scrutiny of shipments before they leave foreign ports and detection systems that would protect American cities with sensors along highways. The new sensors will be developed and produced by Raytheon Co.'s Integrated Defense Systems, Thermo Electron Corp. and Canberra Industries Inc. All three companies will conduct research and produce the equipment in the U.S., Oxford said. The first 80 units will go to the container terminal in the Port of New York and New Jersey for evaluation later this year, and other units will go to the Nevada Test Site for testing. The department has not decided which U.S. ports will be the first to receive operational units. The program is not scheduled to be completed until 2011. ---- U.S. to Spend $1.2 Billion on Detecting Radiation By ERIC LIPTON July 15, 2006 New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/15/us/15secure.html?_r=1&oref=login&pagewanted=print WASHINGTON, July 14 — Acknowledging the shortcomings of its first generation of nuclear-detection equipment, the Homeland Security Department announced on Friday that it intended to spend up to $1.2 billion to buy new screening machines. The advanced devices would be used not only at ports and borders, but also in establishing protective rings around major cities. Since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the government has invested $350 million installing more than 840 machines to detect radiation at borders, seaports and international mail centers, based on a fear that a radiological weapon might be the next choice for terrorists. The detection equipment is based on a technology long used by the scrap-metal recycling industry to set off an alarm without identifying the exact isotopic source of the radiation. That has meant that harmless but modestly radioactive substances like cat litter, ceramic tile and even bananas set off alarms. As a result, officials had to lower the sensitivity of the devices, rendering them less likely to detect a weapon, or be willing to pull aside so many containers for secondary screening that they could cause bottlenecks. The new equipment, known as the Advance Spectroscopic Portal monitor, can simultaneously detect the presence and type of radiation, officials said. Officials of the Homeland Security Department said they expected that after all the systems were in place they would have to conduct 15,000 secondary inspections a year because of false alarms, instead of an estimated 831,000. Officials are also considering installing monitors at points around major cities, said Vayl S. Oxford, director of the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office. The concern is that simply checking items as they enter the United States might not be enough, because a dirty bomb could be constructed within the United States using low-level radioactive material available in medical and food-processing equipment. Dirty bombs, which can be set off with conventional explosives, would probably not cause many immediate deaths, but they could force the long-term evacuation of a part of a city because of radioactive contamination. The urban screening is to start with a test in the New York metropolitan region. Mr. Oxford said the region had at least 150 entry points where passing vehicles or shipments would have to be checked. The department is so eager to install the devices that it has awarded contracts worth up to a total $1.16 billion to Canberra Industries of Meriden, Conn.; Raytheon of Waltham, Mass.; and Thermo Electron, also of Waltham, before the new technology is ready to be installed. Starting early next year, the devices are to be used in 30 ports or border posts for backup screening, Mr. Oxford said. By late next year, officials say, they hope to have the monitors operating reliably and quickly enough to be used for primary screening, ultimately buying 1,400 by 2011. Even as the plans were announced, experts in the field raised questions. Jim Shafer, assistant director at the Government Accountability Office, said he was not convinced that the technology was worth up to $500,000 a machine, enough to buy seven older ones. “That is still the bottom-line question,” Mr. Schafer said. Mr. Oxford said the strategy was to get the best value by buying a mix of old and new devices, ultimately having about 1,500 of each type. Randall J. Larsen, a retired Air Force colonel and the former chairman of the military department at the National War College, said the entire approach seemed irrational. Even with all the new equipment, Mr. Larsen said, the government would still probably fail to detect highly enriched uranium for a nuclear bomb if it was in a protective shield. Terrorists would continue to have many ways to deliver a nuclear weapon to the United States. “A terrorist with a nuke will fly it in a chartered plane to New York City, Los Angeles or Chicago,” Mr. Larsen said. “They are not stupid.” The key, he added, is to focus on preventing nuclear materials from falling into terrorist hands, rather than on detecting materials they already possess. ---- U.S. and Russia Will Police Nuclear Terrorists By DAVID E. SANGER New York Times July 15, 2006 http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/nws/nytimes97.htm WASHINGTON, July 14 — President Bush and President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia on Saturday will announce a new global program to track potential nuclear terrorists, detect and lock up bomb-making materials and coordinate their responses if terrorists obtain a weapon, according to administration officials who have negotiated the deal. Within months, the officials said, they expect China, Japan, the major European powers, Kazakhstan and Australia to form the initial group of nations under what the two leaders are calling “The Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism.” The informal organization of countries is based on the American-led “Proliferation Security Initiative,” a group of more than 70 countries that have pledged to help seize illicit weapons as they move across oceans or are transported by air. Some countries in that group now hold regular drills to share intelligence and practice seizures. But the nuclear terrorism initiative, the final details of which were worked out in a meeting between American and Russian officials in Vienna last weekend, goes beyond interdiction. It would operate inside the borders of countries with nuclear weapons and materials, setting standards for protection and detection, and develop common strategies aimed at terror groups. A statement that the two leaders are expected to release Saturday morning underscores that the countries have come to regard terrorists, rather than each other, as the largest nuclear threat. The statement will describe how they plan to coordinate their nuclear response teams to “mitigate the consequences of acts of nuclear terrorism” and to “ensure cooperation in the development of technical means to combat nuclear terrorism.” Robert Joseph, the under secretary of state for arms control and international security, and the architect of the new initiative, said in an interview that the threat was considered so urgent that both nations set aside their differences on issues from energy to Mr. Putin’s move toward authoritarianism to establish the new program. “We have differences with Russia as well as common interests,” Mr. Joseph said. “One obvious common interest is combating nuclear terrorism, which is a threat to both of our countries.” He said he expected that an organizational meeting of the new group in the fall would involve about 11 countries, adding that other nations “will be free to join if they share our concerns.” Even some critics of Mr. Bush’s nuclear policies and the pace at which Russia has moved to secure its own nuclear facilities said they welcomed the new plan. “This has been much needed for years,” said Matthew Bunn, a Harvard nuclear expert who is one of the authors of an annual survey of potential nuclear perils called “Securing the Bomb.” “It’s very impressive, especially if the administration is successful at expanding it.” The latest edition of the Harvard survey, published Friday, includes reports of the arrest in April of several people who obtained 22 kilograms (48.5 pounds) of low-enriched uranium stolen from Elektrostal, a Russian fuel plant. While the low-enriched uranium was not weapons-grade, the same plant processes uranium that could fuel a weapon. Like the Proliferation Security Initiative, which started with a small core of countries and has now expanded around the world, the new group is not based on a treaty and has no central bureaucracy or headquarters. Instead, it is the kind of loose-knit international organization that Mr. Bush favors, a coalition built for a specific purpose, made up of countries that volunteer. “If there is one conclusion this president has come to, it’s that treaties take too long to write, and they are too hard to change,” one senior White House official said recently. The official, who was not authorized to speak publicly about internal administration policy, described Mr. Bush’s frustrations at the difficulties in tightening the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty so that countries like Iran could not exploit loopholes that allow nations to build a nuclear weapons capacity while declaring its program is for peaceful civilian purposes. The president, the official said, “wants speed and flexibility.” The new agreement is to be announced at the same time that both countries declare the opening of negotiations on a long-discussed pact on civilian nuclear uses that could pave the way for Russia to become one of the world’s largest repositories of spent nuclear fuel. Russia’s enthusiasm for the new arrangement on nuclear terrorism is notable because it was not an original member of the Proliferation Security Initiative. It has since joined. The initiative’s best-known success was the interception four years ago of the BBC China, a German ship bound for Libya that was halted, brought to port and emptied of centrifuge parts for Libya’s nuclear weapons program. Administration officials argue that interception convinced Libya to give up the program and to turn over all of its parts, most of which it had obtained from the nuclear network built by the former head of Pakistan’s nuclear laboratory, Abdul Qadeer Khan. Pakistan and India are not on the list of nations expected to be early members of the program, and they are not members of the Proliferation Security Initiative. Both are enormously sensitive about allowing any outside supervision or influence on their nuclear weapons programs. Both countries, along with Israel, have refused to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. While experts argue about how successful the Proliferation Security Initiative has been, far more countries have joined than many experts expected several years ago. Mr. Joseph said that more than 30 illicit transfers had been halted, in some stage or another, by member countries. But the administration will not describe most of those cases, saying the countries often do not want to be identified. One of the more notable successes came last year, when China, under pressure, denied Iran the right to fly over its territory with a military aircraft that had apparently flown to North Korea to pick up missile parts. The Chinese have never confirmed the incident. But if the proliferation initiative covers borders, oceans and airspace, the nuclear terrorism program is intended to operate within countries. “It’s a very different objective,” Mr. Bunn said. “The proliferation program doesn’t deal with securing stockpiles or detection, or hunting down the materials or the terrorists if something goes wrong.” For more than a decade, the United States has financed a program to secure or remove nuclear material in Russia and other states of the former Soviet Union. The history of that program has been bumpy, though experts said that an agreement reached between Washington and Moscow several months ago helped to speed the program. The new initiative is a next step and, if successful, would set standards for securing such material around the world. It would also develop new technology to secure nuclear material and detect it inside cities and at crucial crossing points. Already the United States is putting detection equipment at some ports overseas, but Mr. Joseph said that this effort “would be much broader.” ---- Russian, U.S. Presidents Plan to Control Global Nuclear Fuel Enrichment STRELNA, Russia, July 15, 2006 (ENS) http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jul2006/2006-07-15-01.asp Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President George W. Bush have agreed to control the spread of uranium enrichment by creating one central enrichment system that will supply client countries with fuel for nuclear power plants. In a bilateral meeting before the opening of the Group of eight, G8, Summit today, the leaders agreed to move forward on the plan, known as the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. Enrichment of uranium is necessary before the radioactive element can be made into fuel for nuclear power plants or atomic weapons. President Putin said today, "We have adopted a joint statement, the basis of which are our parallel initiatives on the secure development of nuclear energy. Its main goal is to contribute to the sustainability and reliability of the supply of this type of energy resource, and the parallel reduction of the threat of the spread of nuclear weapons." "We believe that this will be possible in the case of the creation of a system of international enrichment centered into a single network, and of course, under strict control on the part of the IAEA," Putin said. "The Russian initiative on the creation of multilateral centers for the provision of nuclear fuel cycle services and the idea of a global partnership in this area complement each other very well, and we'll jointly work toward integrating these two initiatives," said Putin. "In order to achieve this we'll have to resolve problems that have to do with the terms of trade in nuclear materials between Russia and the United States," he said. At the press conference in Strelna today, President Bush indicated that it was President Putin who gave him the initial idea for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership in a proposal on handling Iran's desire for civilian nuclear power reactors. Bush told reporters, "You might remember that Russia proposed a very interesting way forward for Iran. It was the Putin government that said to the Iranians, 'If you want a civilian nuclear power program, we will support you in that; however, we will provide the fuel and we'll collect the spent fuel.' "I thought it was a very innovative approach to solving the problem," said Bush. "I strongly supported the initiatives." In February, President Bush announced the furthering the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership to be his government's policy. At their meeting today, the U.S. and Russian leaders discussed the entire range of international issues including Iran's nuclear program, the situation in the Middle East, on the Korean Peninsula, and in other regions of the world. Russia has claimed that Iran's nuclear program should not be viewed as a threat, and Russia has provided a light water reactor to Iran's nuclear power plant at Bushehr. In February, the head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization agreed in principle to set up a joint uranium enrichment project with Russia. The move was seen as a potential breakthrough in efforts to prevent an international confrontation over Iran's nuclear ambitions. But since then, Tehran has declared it would conduct all elements of the nuclear cycle on its own territory, including enrichment. Speaking Friday at joint press briefing with Chancellor Angela Merkel in the German town of Stralsund, President Bush said, "I made it clear to the Iranians that if they were to do what they said they would do, which is to stop enrichment in a verifiable fashion, we are more than pleased to come back to the table." But Tehran has repeatedly said that it will not accept any pre-conditions for talks on its peaceful nuclear activities. The U.S. President said that there is still a chance for a diplomatic solution of the Iranian nuclear dispute. "There is no question that it can be solved diplomatically," he added. In their talks today, Presidents Bush and Putin discussed the danger that Iran and North Korea might acquire and use nuclear weapons, or that terrorists might acquire them. The Russian and U.S. leaders adopted a joint statement on fighting acts of nuclear terrorism. Putin said, "Our countries are demonstrating the commitment to taking the most serious measures to counter the acquisition, transport, or use of nuclear and radioactive materials by terrorists, as well as improvised explosive devices based on such materials. It is equally important to rule out any hostile actions against nuclear facilities." "We hope that this initiative will draw the attention of other participants in the G8 and will deliver concrete results," he said. In February, Bush outlined his view of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. "America will work with nations that have advanced civilian nuclear energy programs, such as France, Japan, and Russia," he said. "Together, we will develop and deploy innovative, advanced reactors and new methods to recycle spent nuclear fuel. This will allow us to produce more energy, while dramatically reducing the amount of nuclear waste and eliminating the nuclear byproducts that unstable regimes or terrorists could use to make weapons." The Bush administration's Fiscal Year 2007 budget includes $250 million to launch this plan. At the press conference today, President Putin said he views the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership as an opportunity for countries who want to develop civilian nuclear power plants to do so. He downplayed the fact that the countries doing the enrichment and reprocessing of nuclear fuel would control the world's supply of enriched uranium. "We are seeking not only for the possibility of controlling this or that process; we are seeking opportunities for ensuring their legal access to nuclear technology," said Putin. "It is to this end that we have adopted our joint initiative on the creation of international centers for uranium enrichment and reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel." "These are not unilateral actions aimed at trying to block somebody's access to something," Putin said. "This is a search for solutions that could ensure development in the world, at the same time would make the development secure in terms of nuclear nonproliferation and missile nonproliferation." The G8 Summit opens tonight with a formal dinner and working meetings begin tomorrow and continue through July 17. -------- u.s. nuc facilities -------- maryland A nettle-some problem on Potomac Jellyfish force one Maryland power plant to to temporarily reduce output, jam others. Date published: 7/15/2006 By FRANK DELANO Fredericksburg, Va. Free Lance-Star http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2006/072006/07152006/206385 An overabundance of jellyfish in the Chesapeake Bay is causing problems for power plants in Maryland. According to reports filed with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, jellyfish have clogged intake pumps three times this month at the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant in Calvert County, Md. On July 7, an influx of jellyfish in a pump that circulates cooling water forced the plant to reduce the power output of its Unit 1 to 41 percent of capacity. The unit returned to 100 percent production after engineers cleared and restarted the pump, the NRC report said. Masses of jellyfish also jammed water pumps July 6 and as recently as Wednesday, but the plant's two units maintained 100 percent output, the reports said. Jellyfish are also causing headaches at Maryland's largest power plant, the Chalk Point Generating Station on the Patuxent River in Prince George's County, an environmental analyst said. Pat Langley said jellyfish have clogged large nets protecting cooling-water intakes. A local waterman is now dumping jellyfish from the outermost line of the nets twice a week, he said. "It's not a perfect system, but it seems to be doing a good job," Langley said. Chalk Point is about 30 miles upstream from the mouth of the Patuxent River. From there, Calvert Cliffs is about 10 miles up the bay. There are indications that the annual infestation of jellyfish in Chesapeake Bay waters is worse this year than in prior years. Langley said he could remember no other jelly-fish seasons where barrier nets had to be cleared as often as this year. An online search of NRC event reports dating back to 1999 revealed no jellyfish problems at Calvert Cliffs prior to this month. Jellyfish are also abundant in the lower Potomac River, but less so in fresher waters upstream. That is good news for river swimmers at Colonial Beach, about 50 miles up from the mouth of the Potomac. "Aside from a couple of little ones, we've had no problems with them. They usually don't show up here until around Aug. 1," said Colonial Beach Mayor G.W. "Pete" Bone Jr. Across the Potomac in Charles County, Md., environmental analyst Liz Spitzer said jellyfish have caused no problems at the Morgantown Power Plant on the Maryland side of the U.S. 301 Bridge. Marine scientist David A. Nemazie of the Center for Environmental Science of the University of Maryland, said jellyfish are a "balloon species" whose populations can explode under optimum conditions of salinity and water temperature. Ideal conditions for jellyfish often occur in summer in the mid-Chesapeake Bay, including saltier portions of the Patuxent, Potomac and Rappahannock rivers, Nemazie said. He said jellyfish populations seem to be increasing along with increases of nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorous in the waters where jellyfish are found. "Large, worldwide blooms of jellyfish are regular occurrences now. They used to be rare before," Nemazie said. A Web site maintained by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric maps the probability of jellyfish in the Chesapeake Bay. Its address is http://coastwatch.noaa.gov/seanettles. Jellyfish are not the only marine species recently to beset the Calvert Cliffs power plant. The plant reported Tuesday to the NRC that 150 to 200 cow-nosed rays had died on trash racks protecting water intakes of both units. "The apparent cause was low oxygen levels in the Bay water," the report said. Power output was not disrupted by the death of the stingrays. Staff reporter Rusty Dennen contributed to this story. To reach FRANK DELANO:804/333-3834 Email: fpdelano@gmail.com -------- nevada Layoff notices set for Yucca staff Workers to be warned about reorganization of planned nuclear waste repository By STEVE TETREAULT Jul. 15, 2006 Las Vegas Review-Journal http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Jul-15-Sat-2006/news/8508331.html WASHINGTON -- As many as 500 Yucca Mountain workers will receive warnings next week that they might be laid off at the end of September as part of an ongoing reorganization of the nuclear waste repository program, officials said Friday. Notices are being prepared for about a fourth of the work force of managing contractor Bechtel SAIC and for its commercial and federal laboratory subcontractors, Bechtel spokesman Jason Bohne said. Many of the employees affected are well-trained scientists, engineers, computer modelers and technical workers. Some of the workers are expected to be retained by Bechtel as it repositions its work plans, Bohne said. Others are expected to be offered jobs by the Sandia National Laboratories, which is taking over portions of the Yucca project from Bechtel. But others might not be retained. On Friday, Bohne and Sandia representative Kate Rivera said they did not know how many workers might be offered new jobs and how many might face layoffs in the fall. "These are individuals with experience and qualifications on the project," said Rivera, manager of organizational assurance and operations for Sandia. "It's a wonderful opportunity for Sandia to tap into that talent, and we are trying to facilitate the transition as best as possible." The Energy Department announced the reorganization in January, saying it expected the transition to be complete by October. Sandia has been involved in DOE activities at Yucca Mountain since work began there in the early 1980s. Sandia's role is expanding to assume control of science and technical components, including projections of how long the underground repository might prevent residue of highly radioactive and decaying nuclear waste from escaping into the environment. Bechtel is refocusing on designing above-ground facilities where nuclear waste will be transferred from trucks or rail cars and managed for emplacement. DOE managers said the reorganization was designed to improve the project's credibility with scientists and regulators. Sandia performed a similar role in coordinating the Waste Isolation Pilot Project in Carlsbad, N.M., a repository that began receiving transuranic nuclear waste for disposal in 1999. A job fair where Yucca employees can meet with Sandia officials and subcontractors has been scheduled for July 21 and July 22 at the Desert Vista Community Center in Summerlin, Rivera said. Additionally, Sandia will establish a job recruitment Web site, Rivera said. Bohne said 100 Bechtel employees and 400 subcontractor and federal laboratory workers will receive Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN) notices required by federal law. Bechtel will "send notices to everyone who could be affected and then there is a management process to identify what work scope remains and what skills we need to do that scope, and then evaluate the people we have and the skills we need to keep," Bohne said. The total contractor work force is about 1,900, Bohne said. That includes 1,300 Bechtel employees, 300 subcontractor workers and 355 federal laboratory contractors. -------- new york Nine Mile Point to lose about 150 jobs July 15, 2006, Newsday http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/ny-bc-ny--nuclearstationcut0715jul15,0,7957781.story OSWEGO, N.Y. -- Officials at the Nine Mile Point nuclear station say about 150 jobs will be lost by the end of the year as owner Constellation Energy tries to make the two reactors more profitable. The cuts combine early retirements and layoffs and will reduce the work force from about 1,100 to 938, union officials said. Nine Mile Point had 1,330 employees when Constellation acquired it in 2001. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 97 recently protested to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission that the job cuts would sacrifice the plants' safe operation. But many concerns were resolved during contract negotiations that ended June 23, said David Falletta, president of Local 97. The company also scaled back plans to use outside contractors. "We're not happy, but we're going to have to try this," Falletta said. Station spokesman Maria Hudson said Constellation is committed to safety. Richard Laufer of the NRC's Division of Operator Reactor Licensing said the commission does not set minimum staffing levels for nuclear plants except for certain job functions, such as control room operators and security officers. Staffing at U.S. nuclear plants has shrunk by an average of 20 percent over the past decade, according to industry surveys by Goodnight Consulting of Vienna, Va. The industry consolidated from 45 nuclear operators in 1995 to 26 in 2005. Besides Nine Mile Point, Constellation owns two Calvert Cliffs reactors in Maryland and the Ginna plant near Rochester. -------- oregon OSU tests new reactor design New concepts for power plants are streamlined, theoretically safer By WILLIAM McCALL AP Business Writer Saturday, July 15, 2006 http://www.topix.net/r/05KQAC65=2B9p3CnEOW2BSxTb47d2bGMRMmJwGBQ8NGlrDNU99R193FN4lQZ9juzZsP6XYxHwoySzjs9alJdrHftuCxTxCpKGeD6HX017trQR9JzvH1pfvY7KSPguBn=2B8vQ It may seem a mere tangle of pipes and instruments to the untrained eye. To nuclear engineer Jose Reyes, it’s a sign of a coming nuclear-power plant revival in the United States — with electricity produced more safely and for less money than the atomic behemoths built in the 20th century. This jumble of technology is a one-quarter-scale model of the Westinghouse AP1000 power plant. Reyes heads a team at Oregon State University that built the model to test the AP1000’s so-called passive safety systems, under contract with the U.S. Department of Energy and Westinghouse. “We’ve conducted 20 tests for the AP1000,’’ said Reyes. “We found the simple passive system could replace entire batteries of pumps that are normally used for cooling of the nuclear core.’’ This kind of safety system, Reyes said, would make nuclear leaks far less likely, and virtually eliminate the threat of a meltdown of the nuclear core. He predicts that nuclear power plants using the passive safety systems will be built in the United States within the next seven years. There are currently 103 nuclear plants operating in the United States, producing about 20 percent of the nation’s electricity. The partial meltdown of the Three Mile Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania in 1979 helped lead to a virtual halt in new plant construction — along with high costs and energy demand forecasts that turned out to be wrong. But global warming and the rising cost of natural gas and coal may finally change the image — and the appeal — of nuclear power as the industry markets a new generation of reactors, such as the AP1000 and General Electric’s ESBWR, or Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor. Interest in new plants has increased sharply since last August, when President Bush signed an energy bill that streamlines applications and offers loan incentives, tax credits and federal insurance for new plants. Licensing could be approved within a few years, depending on when applications are filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. But there are plenty of skeptics. They point out that, because the AP1000 and ESBRW have not yet been built, it’s still uncertain how much they will cost or how safe they will actually be. “It’s been tested in scale models,’’ David Lochbaum, director of a nuclear safety project for the Union of Concerned Scientists, said of the passive-safety system. “If there’s a gap between’’ testing and what happens when such designs are put into operation, “it could be a nasty surprise,’’ said Lochbaum. Over the past decade Reyes’ team at Oregon State University has played an important role in charting the future of nuclear power in this country. Their work helped lead to NRC certification of the AP1000 plant last December. The model at OSU was built to test how the passive safety design would hold up during all sorts of conditions, including a crisis. The model uses no fissionable material. Instead, electricity heats water to temperatures reached in a nuclear plant, and the water is moved through the model, testing each of the safety features. The cooling system in the previous generation of reactors operated much like a car radiator, requiring constant pumping of cool water to prevent overheating. In the passive safety designs, the cooling system is more like the tank of a bathroom toilet. Flip a single handle and cool water rushes down to the reactor if it overheats. Designers say that if the operator needs to leave the plant during an accident, that handle will be tripped automatically, and the reactor will cool itself. The passive safety system also contributes to making this generation of power plant less expensive to build because there are far fewer parts, nuclear advocates say. The system eliminates the need for huge cooling towers, redundant pumps and backup diesel generators. The next generation of nuclear power plants will not only be safer than the previous generation, but also simpler, more streamlined, and therefore far less costly to build than reactors now online, nuclear engineers say. The AP1000, according to Westinghouse, has 87 percent less cable, 83 percent less piping, 50 percent fewer valves and 36 percent fewer pumps than the previous generation of reactors. The new General Electric design — the ESBWR — is similar to the AP1000. Both use simplified construction that dramatically shrink the size of the power plant as well as passive safety technology. General Electric has been racing with Westinghouse — now owned by Toshiba Corp. — and other manufacturers, such as Areva NP in France, to build the next generation of nuclear reactors. So far, Westinghouse has the U.S. lead because it has a design already certified by the NRC. A dozen new plants are under consideration. Estimates on the cost of new reactors vary widely, and it is difficult to compare current costs with past projects that required years to build and many design modifications, analysts say. The best measurement is how much it will cost per kilowatt of electricity to build a new plant, said Per Peterson, a nuclear engineer at the University of California, Berkeley. “Vendors have said consistently they will come in under $1,500 per kilowatt,’’ he said. “At that point you’ll probably see a lot of new nuclear construction because it will be economically cheaper to build nuclear rather than coal plants.’’ New coal plants — with carbon scrubbers — cost about $1,800 per kilowatt, said Adrian Heymer, a financial analyst for the Nuclear Energy Institute. Second-generation nuclear plants from the 1970s ranged in cost from $600 to $3,700 per kilowatt, depending on a wide variety of factors, Heyman said. “But it’s very hard to translate those numbers to current numbers, partly because they were all custom designs, with custom modifications,’’ Heyman said. Nuclear opponents say that even if the new safety features work under all conditions, there’s yet another problem to be resolved: as of yet, the United States has no permanent storage facility for spent nuclear fuel. Potential delays in site approval for new nuclear plants and licensing are also a concern. Reyes said the NRC needs to “expedite its new and untested process for a combined construction and operating license.’’ On the construction side, Reyes said, “the U.S. has lost significant capability in fabricating key components for nuclear plants.’’ Right now, Reyes said, “there’s a single U.S. manufacturer of large nuclear components, and we’re buying most large replacement components from France. We must also rebuild the skilled work force needed to construct nuclear plants.’’ Reyes concedes these are “significant challenges,’’ but says they are “being faced by an industry that is highly energized, disciplined with regards to safety and profit, and driven by goals of energy independence and environmental quality.’’ But nuclear opponents are telling people not to get their hopes up. Among them is Portland attorney Greg Kafoury, a veteran of battles against atomic power in the Pacific Northwest. “We were promised that the plants could not explode and we got Chernobyl,’’ Kafoury said. “We were told they could not melt down and we got Three Mile Island. Now the industry says they can get it right. Why on Earth should anybody believe them?’’ ON THE NET: Energy Department: http://www.ne.doe.gov/ Westinghouse: http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/ General Electric: http://www.gepower.com/businesses/ge—nuclear/en/index.htm -------- MILITARY -------- arms US plans up to US$1 billion arms sale to Australia 12.30pm Saturday July 15, 2006 REUTERS http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10391436 WASHINGTON - The Pentagon unveiled plans today to sell Australia shipborne missile launching systems built by Lockheed Martin Corp. and related gear valued at up to US$1 billion ($1.61 billion). In a mandatory notice to Congress, the Pentagon's Defence Security Cooperation Agency said Australia was seeking to buy up to three MK 41 Vertical Launch System "ship sets" and modify up to three MK 7 Aegis weapons systems. The total value could be US$1 billion if all options are exercised, it said. The deal would provide Australia with "significantly improved" air warfare capability, the announcement said. It would also boost the Royal Australian Navy's ability to participate in coalition operations, match logistics support with the US Navy and enhance the lethality of Australia's Air Warfare Destroyer, the agency said. The MK 41 launch system is described by Lockheed Martin as capable of launching missiles for every threat in naval warfare, including air-air, anti-submarine, ship self-defence, land attack and ballistic missile defence. -------- israel / palestine Bush Refuses to Press Israel for Truce By TOM RAUM Associated Press Writer July 15, 2006 http://wokv.com/common/ap/2006/07/15/D8IS7LVO0.html ST. PETERSBURG, Russia (AP) -- President Bush says he enjoys a "solid friendship" with Russian President Vladimir Putin, despite differences over Israel, Iraq, trade, human rights and a host of other issues. The two are trying to resolve those differences in face-to-face meetings ahead of a summit of global powers here. Bush and Putin were meeting Saturday to discuss the many crises shaking the world, after a more relaxed barbecue dinner Friday night with their wives at a government-owned villa. The two leaders planned a joint news conference Saturday. The U.S. and Russian presidents _ along with the leaders of Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Japan _ are gathering for the annual Group of Eight economic summit, which begins Saturday night and continues through Monday. This is Russia's first year as host. The recent violence between Israel and Hezbollah militants in Lebanon is a late but unavoidable addition to the agenda. Bush refused Friday to pressure Israel for a cease-fire. He called on the leaders of Egypt and Jordan to explore ways to end three days of furious fighting. But the White House signaled skepticism about a cease-fire plea from Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora. "The president is not going to make military decisions for Israel," said White House press secretary Tony Snow, saying it was unlikely that Israel or Hezbollah would agree to a cease-fire now. That put Bush at odds with Putin and several other G-8 members who have criticized Israel's attacks and called for just such a cease-fire. Putin called Friday on all sides in the Middle East fighting to end the bloodshed immediately. "No hostage-takings are acceptable ... but neither is the use of full-scale force in response to these, even if unlawful, actions," Putin said. "We will demand that all sides involved in the conflict immediately stop the bloodshed." Putin told a meeting of young people from G-8 countries that he would raise the issue with Bush. Bush and Putin have some issues apart from those pressing on the full G-8 membership. The two countries appear close to announcing an accord in which the U.S. would bestow its long-sought blessing on Russian admission into the World Trade Organization, the 149-nation group that sets the ground rules for global trade and investment. Also, the two countries were expected to announce a sharing agreement on civilian nuclear power. Among other things, the pact _ yet to be negotiated _ could allow Russia to store spent nuclear fuel from U.S. allies. The Bushes and the Putins had a relaxed dinner Friday night at a villa on the grounds of the opulent 18th century Konstantin Palace, which Putin chose as the headquarters for the G-8 summit. Putin showed off the vintage car that had been his first, owned when he was a student in the 1970s. Bush said his first car was a Triumph, which Putin said sounded more like a bicycle. The leaders shook hands and hugged. Putin gave Laura Bush three kisses on alternate sides of her face. Asked by a reporter about the state of his friendship with Putin, Bush responded, "Solid friendship." Earlier, Bush met with a group of 17 Russian activists troubled by Putin's steps away from individual rights and democracy. Bush said he shared their concerns, and promised to deliver some of their specific grievances to Putin when they met. At the same time, Bush said, he considered Putin a friend and it was important for the United States to "stay engaged with Russia." ---- Britain urged to ban £23m arms trade with Israel By Ben Russell, Political Correspondent Published: 15 July 2006 UK Independent http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1178600.ece Campaigners have demanded that Britain impose a ban on arms sales to Israel after figures showed that the Government licensed £23m worth of weaponry to be shipped to the country in the past year. They warned that British arms sales to Tel Aviv broke the Government's pledge not to stock the arsenals of countries where there is a risk of regional instability or conflict. Figures released by the Department of Trade and Industry showed that arms sales to Israel worth £2m were approved between January and March. The quarterly arms export report brought the year's total arms sales to the country to £23m. Equipment included components for naval guns, military helicopters, submarines and electronic equipment. Components for airborne radars were also included. Researchers said that the level of British arms sales to Israel was in line with recent years. Paul Eavis, director of the arms control think-tank Saferworld, which analysed the figures, said: "The Government's arms policy states that it will not issue arms where there is a risk of regional conflict of instability, yet it has consistently approved arms sales to Israel. The current violence in the Middle East is alarming and the Government must now stop all arms sales to Israel." The Campaign Against the Arms Trade also called for a halt to exports. A spokeswoman said: "This is a country we highlight, along with South Africa and Indonesia. Current events show the need for an end to the arms trade." Downing Street yesterday described the latest violence as "one of the most serious for the Middle East for some time" and called on all sides to show restraint and return to the negotiating table. The Foreign Office insisted that arms export controls were kept under constant review, but said there were no plans to impose an embargo on Israel. A spokesman said there was no evidence that British-made munitions had been deployed by Israel. He said: "We certainly do our best to scrutinise and examine these exports to decide whether the end user will use the components in internal oppression or external aggression and licences are refused." British arms exports to Israel have long been a source of controversy. Last year, 51 Labour MPs signed a House of Commons motion calling for a ban on arms sales to Israel. Israel, Saudi Arabia and Indonesia are among the countries described as major countries of concern in last year's annual human rights report by the Foreign Office. The report criticised Israel's failure to respect the human rights of Palestinians in the occupied territories. Campaigners expressed concern about arms exports to countries throughout the world after the quarterly report showed export licences had been granted for shipments to China, Indonesia, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq. Exports to Indonesia worth £16m were approved between January and March, including components for combat aircraft, aircraft cannons and military helicopters. Exports to Pakistan worth £9m were granted, including components for air-to-air missiles. Exports to Iraq included assault rifles, and components to be used in aircraft, vehicles and guns. Arms equipment worth £19m was exported to China, including components for military navigation equipment and naval radar, military aero-engines and "technology for the production of combat aircraft". Exports to Saudi Arabia included shotguns and sniper rifles. -------- landmines HPG signs ‘Deed of Commitment for Adherence to a Total Ban on Anti-Personnel Mines’ DozaMe.org, July 15, 2006 http://dozame.org/blog/2006/07/15/hpg-signs-deed-of-commitment-for-adherence-to-a-total-ban-on-anti-personnel-mines/ The Kurdish People’s Defense Forces (HPG) signed on July 15, 2006, the ‘Deed of Commitment for Adherence to a Total Ban on Anti-Personnel Mines’, a document equivalent to the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty (MBT). The deed is an intiative by the international humanitarian organisation ‘Geneva Call’ and guarded by the government of the Republic and Canton of Geneva. HPG commander Dr. Bahoz Erdal, who signed the deed on behalf of the Kurdish forces during a ceremony in Qandil, said that many civilians, mainly women and children, were injured by the vast amount of anti-personnel mines in Kurdistan. “Therefore, our people will greet every deed and treaty with joy. We, as the movement and especially HPG, will therefore support these treaties,” Erdal said. Geneva Call was represented by Elisabeth Reusse-Decrey, Pascal Bongard and Anki Sjöberg. Elisabeth Reusse-Decrey is the President and co-founder of Geneva Call, a Nobel Peace Prize nominee and the President of the Parliament of the Republic and Canton of Geneva. What is the ‘Geneva Call’? Geneva Call is an international humanitarian organisation dedicated to engaging armed non-state actors (NSAs) to respect and to adhere to humanitarian norms, starting with the ban on anti-personnel (AP) mines. Geneva Call is committed to the universal application of the principles of international humanitarian law and conducts its activities based on the principles of neutrality, impartiality and independence. Geneva Call provides an innovative mechanism for NSAs, who do not participate in drafting treaties and thus may not feel bound by their obligations, to express adherence to the norms embodied in the 1997 anti-personnel mine ban treaty (MBT) through their signature to the “Deed of Commitment for Adherence to a Total Ban on Anti-Personnel Mines and for Cooperation in Mine Action”. The Government of the Republic and Canton of Geneva serves as the guardian of these Deeds. -------- latin america Chavez Lashes Out at U.S. Over Mideast The Associated Press Saturday, July 15, 2006; 12:18 AM http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/15/AR2006071500044_pf.html CARACAS, Venezuela -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said Friday that American support of Israel is responsible for flaming tensions in the Middle East. Israel launched its attack on Lebanon after Hezbollah carried out a brazen cross-border raid Wednesday, capturing two soldiers. "The fundamental blame falls again on the U.S. empire. It's the empire that armed and supported the abuses of the Israeli elite, which has invaded, abused and defied the United Nations for a long time," Chavez said. The Venezuelan president said Israel was using excessive force _ destroying critical civilian infrastructure and killing and injuring civilians. An ally of Cuba's Fidel Castro, Chavez frequently lashes out at President Bush and U.S. policy. "The U.S. empire's desire to dominate has no limits and that could take this world to a real Holocaust," Chavez said. -------- mideast Israel pounds Lebanon Sat Jul 15, 2006 7:42 AM ET (Reuters) By Alistair Lyon, Middle East Correspondent http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=newsOne&storyID=2006-07-15T114237Z_01_L11538533_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST.xml&pageNumber=1&imageid=&cap=&sz=13&WTModLoc=NewsArt-C1-ArticlePage1 BEIRUT - Israeli air strikes killed at least 27 civilians on Saturday, pounding Lebanon for a fourth straight day to punish it for letting Syrian- and Iranian-backed Hizbollah fighters threaten northern Israel. President Bush said Syria should persuade Hizbollah to stop cross-border attacks from Lebanon's mainly Shi'ite Muslim south. An Israeli missile wrecked a van near the southern port of Tire, killing 15 passengers and wounding six, police said. The van was carrying families fleeing the village of Marwaheen after Israeli loudspeaker warnings to leave their homes. Israeli aircraft also bombed a Hizbollah office in southern Beirut's Haret Hreik district, and attacked roads, bridges and petrol stations in north, east and south Lebanon, killing at least 12 people and wounding 32, security sources said. Israel's campaign, launched after Hizbollah captured two Israeli soldiers and killed eight on Wednesday, has killed 93 people, all but two civilians, and paralyzed Lebanon's economy. It aims not just to force Hizbollah to free the soldiers, but to destroy its ability to launch rocket attacks on northern Israel, where four civilians have been killed this week. "The best way to stop the violence is for Hizbollah to lay down its arms and to stop attacking. And therefore I call upon Syria to exert influence over Hizbollah," Bush told a joint news conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Israel's aerial assault on Lebanon has drawn mounting world criticism but the White House has said President Bush would not press Israel to halt its military operation. Israeli army chief Dan Halutz said on Friday more targets would be bombed in a bid to remove Hizbollah from the border and replace it with a force answering to the Lebanese government. He said Israel was also telling the Lebanese that "they swallowed a cancer that has to be regurgitated, and if not this country will pay a price as in the past" -- an allusion to Israel's 1982 invasion to drive out Palestinian guerrillas. The Israeli army said on Saturday it had struck about 150 targets in Lebanon so far, fewer than a dozen of them linked directly to Hizbollah. Most have hit civilian installations. Israel was bombarding roads in the north and east to try to seal Lebanon's land border with Syria. It has already bombed Beirut's international airport and blockaded Lebanese ports. Hizbollah fired more than two dozen rockets at towns in northern Israel, slightly wounding several people. SAILOR'S BODY FOUND Hizbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, speaking shortly after Israeli jets destroyed his Beirut home, announced on Friday that his fighters had hit an Israeli warship off Beirut. Several Hizbollah rockets hit the Israeli town of Tiberias on Saturday, the furthest they have landed so far. No casualties were reported in the town, 35 km (22 miles) from the border. The Israeli military has recovered the body of one of four sailors reported missing after the warship was hit. Israeli military commander Brigadier-General Ido Nehushtan said the body was found at sea and that the military was searching for the other missing sailors. He said Hizbollah had launched an Iranian-made missile at the vessel. The worst violence in Lebanon in a decade coincided with an Israeli attack on the Gaza Strip begun last month to try to get back another captured soldier, halt Palestinian rocket fire and destroy the institutions of the Hamas-led government. Israeli aircraft attacked the Palestinian Economy Ministry and a house in Gaza on Saturday. One Hamas militant was killed in the strike on the house and eight people were wounded. Since the Gaza offensive was launched on June 28, Israel has killed about 85 Palestinians, around half of them militants. Syria's ruling Baath Party said it would support Hizbollah and Lebanon against the "barbaric Israeli aggression". The pledge came despite the sometimes hostile ties prevailing between Damascus and Beirut since Syria ended its 29-year military presence in Lebanon last year. The Beirut government, led by an anti-Syrian coalition, is unable or unwilling to disarm Hizbollah, the only Lebanese faction to keep its guns after the 1975-90 civil war. After Israeli troops quit Lebanon in 2000, Hizbollah confined its attacks largely to the disputed Shebaa Farms area, but its bold assault on Wednesday shattered the tacit rules that had kept the lid on border violence with Israel for six years. The blistering Israeli response is the fiercest since a 17-day blitz on Hizbollah strongholds in the south in 1996. (Additional reporting by Nadim Ladki, Alaa Shahine, Lin Noueihed, Laila Bassam and the Jerusalem bureau) -------- spies Italian spy chief questioned over CIA case Sat Jul 15, 2006 (Reuters) By Emilio Parodi http://today.reuters.com/news/ArticleNews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-07-15T123029Z_01_L1552981_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-ITALY-USA.xml MILAN - The head of Italy's military intelligence agency was questioned by prosecutors for the first time on Saturday on suspicion of helping the CIA kidnap a terrorism suspect in Milan, judicial sources said. The development makes Nicolo Pollari the highest ranking official connected to the Italian investigation -- which has already led to the arrests of his No. 2 and another leader of his Sismi intelligence agency earlier this month. Twenty-six Americans, most believed to be CIA agents, face arrest warrants over the 2003 abduction of radical Muslim cleric Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr, also known as Abu Omar. Prosecutors say a CIA-led team grabbed Nasr off a Milan street, bundled him into a van and flew him to his native Egypt. Nasr says he was tortured there under questioning. A judicial source said prosecutors, investigating an Italian role in the abduction, questioned Pollari for about four hours at the Milan prosecutors' offices, which were shut to the public and placed under heavy security. SPIDER'S WEB A report by a Council of Europe investigator last month identified the case as one of the most disturbing in an alleged "global spider's web" of secret CIA flights of terrorist suspects. Although Italy's former centre-right government and Sismi have denied any role, investigator Dick Marty said: "It is unlikely that the Italian authorities were not aware of this large-scale CIA operation." Pollari could not be reached for comment. He has said Sismi had no knowledge of a plot to kidnap Nasr, who had political refugee status in Italy at the time of his abduction. Former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, who was in power at the time of the abduction, has also denied any role and compared magistrates to "terrorists" for locking up the intelligence agency officials meant to protect the country. The centre-left government has so far defended Sismi and Defense Minister Arturo Parisi has encouraged Italians to distinguish between the agency and possible wrongdoing by some of its spies -- an argument that becomes increasingly difficult with its top officials under the investigation. The Egyptian cleric, who is being held in a prison outside of Cairo, faces an Italian arrest warrant for suspicion of terrorist activity including recruiting militants for Iraq. He plans to sue Italy for 10,000 euros ($12,680) for its alleged role in the kidnap. -------- un Lebanon: U.S. blocking call for cease-fire By EDITH M. LEDERER Associated Press Writer July 15, 2006, 9:43PM http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/4049633.html UNITED NATIONS — Lebanon accused the United States on Saturday of blocking a U.N. Security Council statement calling for a cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah, saying the impotence of the United Nations' most powerful body sent the wrong signal to small countries and the Arab world. Israel has killed more than 100 people in a four-day bombardment of Lebanon. The offensive was triggered by a cross-border raid by Hezbollah guerrillas in which eight soldiers were killed and two others were captured. Fifteen Israelis have died in the fighting and the Shiite militant group has been raining rockets on northern Israel. "It's unacceptable because people are still under shelling, bombardment and destruction is going on ... and people are dying," said Lebanese special envoy Nouhad Mahmoud. Qatar, the only Arab nation on the council, received widespread support during closed council consultations late Saturday for a press statement calling for an immediate cease-fire, restraint in the use of force, and the protection of civilians caught in the conflict, council diplomats said. But Argentina's U.N. Ambassador Cesar Mayoral said the United States objected to any statement and Britain opposed calling for a cease-fire. The U.S. and Britain want to wait for the outcome of this weekend's Group of Eight meeting in Russia, an Arab League foreign ministers meeting, and a mission sent to the Middle East by Secretary-General Kofi Annan, Mayoral and other diplomats said. France's U.N. Ambassador Jean-Marc de La Sabliere, the current council president, confirmed "there was no agreement on a text tonight, but we will meet on Monday." "Many delegations would have liked to have a very prompt reaction," he said. "Others think the spotlight should be elsewhere, not here in the council. " But Lebanon's Mahmoud protested, saying while innocent civilians are killed, "here we are impotent." "It sends very wrong signals not only to the Lebanese people but to the Arab people, to all small nations that we are left to the might of Israel and nobody is doing anything," he said. Lebanon's pro-Western government came to power following the February 2005 assassination of former prime minister Rafik Hariri, which led to Syria ending its 29-year occupation of its smaller neighbor. The Security Council has passed several resolutions promoting the full restoration of Lebanon's sovereignty and has urged it to deploy troops to the Hezbollah-dominated south to assert control there. "We have many reasons to expect much more from the Security Council," said Mahmoud. And from the United States? "They were always supportive in the last 1 1/2 years, but when it comes to Israel it seems things change," he said. In another development, Undersecretary-General for Peacekeeping Jean-Marie Guehenno told reporters that Israel had rescinded a directive that would have restricted the movements of the 2,000-strong U.N. peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon, blocking it from carrying out its observer mission. ---- Condi and Her Gangs by Gordon Prather July 15, 2006 Antiwar.com http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=9308 On 26, November, 2004, the Brit-French-German-Iran ambassadors notified Mohamed ElBaradei – Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency – of the terms of the Paris Accord, whereby the Brits-French-Germans and Iranians undertook to negotiate an agreement that "will provide objective guarantees that Iran's nuclear programme is exclusively for peaceful purposes. It will equally provide firm guarantees on nuclear, technological and economic cooperation and firm commitments on security issues." Why were they telling ElBaradei all this? Well, under the Paris Accord the Iranians had voluntarily offered to suspend – for the duration of the negotiations – activities that were currently subject to IAEA Safeguards. On March 23, 2005, Iran offered (in confidence) a package of "objective guarantees" that included a voluntary "confinement" of Iran's nuclear programs, including forgoing the production of plutonium and reprocessing of spent reactor fuel. On August 1, 2005, having had no response to their offer, the Iranian IAEA ambassador notified ElBaradei they were beginning implementation of the "confined" program. Why were the Iranians telling ElBaradei all this? To alert him that the implementation involved the resumption of certain voluntarily suspended Safeguarded activities. Well, almost immediately Condi strong-armed the Brits-French-Germans into involving the IAEA Board in something that was absolutely none of the Board’s business. First they got the IAEA Board – which had no authority to do so – to "require" Iran to re-suspend the resumed Safeguarded activities and return to the Paris Accord negotiations. Well, that didn’t work, so Condi and Brits-French-Germans got the IAEA Board to "report" the Iranian "dossier" to the UN Security Council for "possible sanctions." Well, that didn’t work, either, You see, Article 39 of Chapter VII of the UN Charter says: "The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security." [Article 41 provides for measures "not including the use of armed forces,’’ while Article 42 includes the use of armed forces.] But Article 40 of Chapter VII says: "In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable." So, all that Condi and the Brits-French-Germans got out of the Security Council was a non-binding Presidential Statement that basically remanded the dispute. Well, Condi has now assembled a new gang [Brits-French-Germans-Russians-Chinese] and the French Foreign Minister issued a statement this week on their behalf. "On the 1st of June, we met in Vienna and agreed [to] a set of far reaching proposals as a basis for negotiation with Iran, stressing however that, should Iran decide not to engage, further steps would have to be taken in the Security Council. "Today, five weeks later, we reviewed the situation, on the basis of a report by [EU High Representative] Javier Solana who has met three times with Dr Larijani [Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council]. "The Iranians have given no indication at all that they are ready to engage seriously on the substance of our proposals. Iran has failed to take the steps needed to allow negotiations to begin, specifically the suspension of all enrichment related and reprocessing activities, as required by the IAEA. We express profound disappointment over this situation. "In this context, we have no choice but to return to the United Nations Security Council and take forward the process that was suspended two months ago. "We have agreed to seek a United Nations Security Council Resolution which would make the IAEA-required suspension mandatory. "Should Iran refuse to comply, then we will work for the adoption of measures under Article 41 of Chapter VII of the UN Charter." Well, since the IAEA Board obviously exceeded its authority when it required, inter allia, Iran to suspend certain Safeguarded activities, it will be hard for Condi’s new gang to get the Council to determine under Article 39 that Iran’s refusal to obey an illegal requirement to suspend legal Safeguarded programs constitutes "a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression." As the Iranians correctly noted on August 1, 2005; "Iran, like any other Non-Nuclear-Weapon State, has no obligation to negotiate and seek agreement for the exercise of its 'inalienable' right, nor can it be obligated to suspend it." -------- POLITICS -------- propaganda wars Attention Deficit Americans Are Being Misled to War by Paul Craig Roberts July 15, 2006 Antiwar.com http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=9311 A terrible thing is happening, and not enough Americans are aware to be able to do anything about it. Zionists in Israel and in the Bush administration are leading America into war with Iran, Syria, Hizbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine. The consequences for America, Israel and the Middle East will be disastrous, but as long as Washington is in thrall to Zionist paranoia, nothing can be done about it. Bush made this clear on July 14 when he rejected the plea from Lebanon’s prime minister to pressure Israel to stop its attack on Lebanon. The war began when Bush’s neoconservative government invaded Afghanistan and Iraq under the pretense of "fighting terrorism." Neither front has gone well for America. The Israelis, seeing the growing domestic opposition to Bush’s wars of choice, concluded that they are in danger of losing America’s military intervention in behalf of their Middle East interests. Israel decided to force the issue. Israel did this by bombing and invading Gaza, from which they had just withdrawn as part of a "Palestinian settlement." Israel’s pretext was the capture of one Israeli soldier in Gaza in retribution for Israel’s genocidal policies toward Palestine. Few Americans know that Israel has forced Palestinians into ghettos and walled them off from their farm lands, schools, and medical treatment. By slaughtering scores of civilians and destroying the infrastructure of the fragile land in response to the capture of one Israeli soldier, Israel has made it clear that its policy is fire and sword. Under international law – the identical law that was used to try Nazi war criminals after World War II – Israel’s invasion of Gaza is a monstrous war crime. The United Nations top humanitarian official, Jan Egeland, said that Israel’s attacks on civilians and infrastructure violated international law. On July 13, the UN Security Council tried to condemn Israel for its criminal invasion of Gaza, but US Ambassador John Bolton, a rabid pro-Israeli zealot, vetoed the Security Council resolution that would have required Israel to halt its illegal and criminal actions in Gaza. Bolton is the UN ambassador who could not get confirmed even in a Republican Senate and was given a recess appointment by Bush in defiance of Congress. On July 12, Israel invaded Lebanon. The pretext was the capture of two Israeli soldiers in Israeli-occupied Lebanese territory by Hizbollah. In two days Israel has slaughtered scores of Lebanese civilians, destroyed bridges and power plants, attacked the Beruit International Airport and blocked Lebanese ports. Israel’s over-reactions are calculated to start a wider war. Israel has asserted that the two soldiers captured by Hizbollah are being held in Iran. Israel blames Syria for Hizbollah’s acts. Both Israel and its neoconsevative allies in the Bush government blame Iran and Syria for "attacks on Israel" by Hamas and Hizbollah. No one, least of all Bush, blames Israel’s Palestinian policy. Israel’s American agents, the neoconservatives, have made it clear for years that their goal is to eliminate every Middle Eastern government that is not ruled by an American puppet friendly to Israel. The people who hold the important positions in Bush’s government have frankly stated this position over and over. For example, a decade ago in 1996 a group of American neoconservatives who have comprised much of the sub-cabinet in the Bush administration wrote that Israel could gain American sympathy by blaming aggression on Hizbollah, Syria, and Iran and then seizing the strategic initiative by "engaging Hizbollah, Syria, and Iran as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon." First, however, Iraq would have to be taken out. The first focus, said the neocons, should be "on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq – an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right." Gentle reader, does it not strike you as strange that US citizens, most of whom have held presidential appointments in the Bush administration, are so concerned to plan how Israel can draw upon US blood and treasure to achieve Israel’s objectives in the Middle East? We certainly have to hand it to Israel and its American neoconsevative agents. They have succeeded on entirely false pretenses in launching two wars in the Middle East and now they have prepared the ground for a general conflagration. Who is to stop them? The Condi Rice State Department? Be serious. The Democratic Party? What a laugh! The power mad Republicans who have sold their souls? The Christian Evangelicals who believe the destruction of huge numbers of people in the Middle East is the lead up to "the Rapture" in which they will be wafted up to Heaven? The UN Security Council, where the US never fails to veto any resolution or sanction against Israel? The US and Israel haven’t the troops needed to defeat and occupy Syria, Hizbollah and Iran with conventional forces. Pentagon documents have described two ways in which the Middle East can be secured for Israel. One is the use of nuclear weapons. The other is the destruction of all infrastructure – power plants, water and sewage systems, hospitals, schools, roads, bridges, ports, and a reduction of much housing to rubble by powerful conventional bombs. In other words, an air war that never ends. Most Americans are incapable of identifying their own US Representative and Senators. Everything they "know" about the Middle East comes from Israeli propaganda: Israel is the innocent victim, and all Arabs are terrorists with suicide bombs. America is being led by a handful of traitors into participating in "regime change" that might succeed or might dethrone our bought and paid for puppets in Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. If Pakistan were to fall to Islamist forces, Muslims would have a nuclear capability as a counterpart to Israel’s and America’s. Muslims have many reasons to hate us for generations of oppression and interference in their internal affairs. As Iraq has proven, it is not easy to break their spirit. Out-gunned and out-manned, they still resist, motivated by anger and pride. Many Americans may think that "ragheads" mean nothing to them. But when $200 oil means Americans cannot commute to their jobs in their gas-guzzlers from their far-flung suburbs, or Russia and China intervene because American-Israeli interests conflict with their own, the world becomes a different place for inattentive, uninvolved, complicit Americans. -------- -------- us politics -------- -------- voting -------- ENERGY -------- alternative energy -------- -------- energy -------- -------- OTHER -------- environment -------- -------- genetics -------- -------- health -------- -------- imf / world bank / wto (economics) -------- poverty -------- ACTIVISTS -------- --------