NucNews July 18, 2006 -------- NUCLEAR -------- australia The nuclear debate we have to have John Howard July 18, 2006 Sydney Morning Herald http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/the-nuclear-debate-we-have-to-have/2006/07/17/1152988467790.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1 AUSTRALIA has a massive opportunity to increase its share of the global energy trade. With the right policies, we have the makings of an energy superpower. Australia is the world's largest coal exporter, accounting for 30 per cent of world trade. We have significant reserves of natural gas and could be the world's second largest liquefied natural gas exporter by 2015. We hold close to 40 per cent of the world's low-cost uranium reserves. We have extensive renewable energy resources. Hydro, wind and solar represent a small part of our energy mix and other potential sources such as hot dry rocks are yet to be tapped. Energy is the single largest contributor to global emissions of greenhouse gases. Meeting the challenge of climate change will require changes to the way the world produces and uses energy. To meet the goals of prosperity, security and sustainability, Australia needs an energy policy that is pragmatic, rational and flexible. This boils down to building Australia's energy advantage based on proven strengths; not putting all our eggs in one basket; and investing in leading-edge clean-energy technology while being pragmatic about what technologies help us reach our goals. The Government's energy policy emphasises the role of new low-emission technologies. Renewable energy will play an increasing role in the mix. But pragmatism, rationality and flexibility also call for realism about this role. The cost of delivering low-emission electricity from renewable sources remains very high. Coal, oil and gas will continue to meet the bulk of Australia's energy needs. Australia is determined to pursue an effective global response on climate change that encompasses the world's major emitters. Unfortunately, Kyoto did not meet this test. Global greenhouse emissions are projected to grow by 40 per cent by 2012 within the Kyoto framework. In the absence of Kyoto, they would have grown by 41 per cent. A central flaw of Kyoto is its reliance on a distinction between developed and developing countries which makes little sense when translated into global emissions. Australia contributes about 1.4 per cent of global CO 2 emissions. If we stopped emitting all carbon dioxide tomorrow it would take 10 months for the growth in China's emissions alone to eclipse our global reduction. The other fundamental flaw of Kyoto is that it can lead to distortions in economic activity without any environmental benefit. A good way to think about this is through the prism of the $25 billion liquefied natural gas deal between Australia and China. Resource development supporting this deal has the effect of increasing Australia's greenhouse emissions by about a million tonnes. A Kyoto constraint might have priced Australia out of a contract whose net effect is to lower China's prospective greenhouse emissions by 7 million tonnes. Australia would have lost out and, at best, the environment would be no better off. Where is the rationality in that? Global debate on greenhouse strategies has moved beyond Kyoto and Australia is at the centre of it with the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. Six countries that together account for 55 per cent of global output and 49 per cent of global emissions are forging a partnership, with action plans to be released later this year. Nuclear power has an important role to play in stabilising the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. This, along with energy security concerns, has led to a revival of interest in nuclear power. Nuclear energy accounts for 16 per cent of global electricity generation. Nuclear power emits virtually no greenhouse gases. Commercial factors remain critical to the future of nuclear power. With close to 40 per cent of the world's known low-cost uranium deposits, for Australia to bury its head in the sand on nuclear energy is akin to Saudi Arabia turning its back on global oil developments. Uranium is our second largest energy export in terms of energy content. All sources of energy have advantages and disadvantages. The real question is whether Australia should fully consider its interests and responsibilities in the global nuclear energy debate or whether it succumbs to a dogma of denial. This is an edited version of a speech on energy and water the Prime Minister gave yesterday. -------- britain Nuclear plant warned after leak The water leaked during routine tests at Sellafield Tuesday, 18 July 2006 BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/cumbria/5191874.stm The operator of the Sellafield nuclear plant in Cumbria has been rapped over a leak of radioactive water. The incident happened in February 2006, during routine tests, which required levels of contaminated water in storage pools to be raised temporarily. But levels remained high for too long and radioactive water leaked from a gap in a pool wall. Although water was contained within the plant the Environment Agency criticised failings by British Nuclear Group. The company said a full investigation was carried out and measures taken to prevent a similar incident. The Environment Agency said the volume of water lost was minute, but that the incident showed a "disappointing" lack of controls at the reprocessing facility. The agency issued an enforcement notice, which demands action be taken to prevent a similar occurrence. Failure to comply with the notice is an offence. Andy Mayall, leader of the agency's Sellafield Team said: "Although there was no environmental harm and the response and investigation were effective, we are extremely disappointed about the control, maintenance and other failings that led up to this event. "We want to see lessons learnt from this event lead to improvements in the management of storage ponds across the site." A British Nuclear Group spokesman said: "The pond was overfilled as a result of some statutory test work that was being carried out on the pond. "Although the water didn't actually overflow from the top of the pond, it did escape from an expansion joint in the pond wall. We acknowledge that this should not have happened. "We can confirm that improvement measures have been taken to prevent a re-occurrence." ---- Nuclear threat to Bromley Tuesday 18th July 2006 UK News Shopper http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/display.var.838858.0.nuclear_threat_to_bromley.php Do the people of Bromley and surrounding areas realise the danger to them - and to their families - which is posed by Tony Blair's personal decision to start building more nuclear plants? The nuclear waste from Dungeness already passes through the Chislehurst and Bickley lines - if there are new nuclear power stations there will be more waste. If there is more waste, there is the possibility of an accident. A train crashing off one of the higher bridges, which would split the irradiated fuel carrier, would mean at least 50,000 people would die - either slowly or quickly from the radiation released. Tony Blair has announced that new nuclear power stations will reduce the UK's emissions and help curb climate change - he obviously is not thinking of his children or his children's children who will have to live with the burden of radioactive waste which is cancer-causing for up to a million years. If that isn't something to worry about, why not worry that the man who is apparently the elected leader of this country - and being elected, has to respond to those who elected him - is one who is disallowing public consultation on the nuclear decision - you do not have a say in his decision and neither does your MP - because, just like the Iraq war, TB has taken the decision by himself and Parliament is not going to be able to debate or question this decision on nuclear power stations for you. Is this how you think serious decisions like this should be made - by one man? Isn't that a tyranny? Roisin Robertson, Greenpeace area networker, SE London -------- canada Nuclear fallout victims find health here By Robyn Chambers Tuesday, July 18, 2006 Chilliwack, Canada, Times http://www.chilliwacktimes.com/issues06/073106/features.html Twenty years on the fall out from Chernobyl's nuclear explosion is still being felt. Generations later, children of those who were themselves children when the nuclear reactor blew, visit Canada as part of a program to help the families and their offspring grow up healthy. The children are from Belarus-an area that was affected by 70 per cent of all the radioactive fallout from the 1986 explosion. Yana Moslakova is a second generation survivor. The 11 year old is taking part for the first time in an exchange by the Canadian Relief Fund for Chernobyl Victims in Belarus, an organization that provides a health respite for Belarussian children impacted by Chernobyl. Yana is being billeted in several local homes from June 23 until Aug. 6. She's come to the local area along with 14 others. If Yana were at home she would be spending time in the garden helping her parents and watching television she says through interpreter Galena Tatenkova. Along with receiving dental care-of which most of the materials and time are donated by local dentists-Yana and her fellow visitors are eating well and getting healthy: a goal of the program. "The children come and their system starts to clear up and their parents say they get home and they are healthy through the winter for the first time in years," Andrea Stiller, the children's program co-ordinator for the organization's western chapter, president of the national board and a host family member, said. Tatenkova, an English teacher at a business school in the Belarussian capital of Minsk, is the group's interpreter. She was 12 when the reactor blew and says her family and their friends are still dealing with diseases like cancer which are likely related to the explosion's fall out. Experts have said it could take up to 300 years for the area to be contamination free. "There are kids being born with all kinds of health deficiencies," Tatenkova said. Her daughter is often sick; she attributes that to the disaster. "Kids have low immunity and there are more kids in the country who are mentally challenged." Chernobyl heart is a medical condition that's been coined for Chernobyl survivors and refers to children who are born with holds in their hearts. "The worst thing about Chernobyl is people think because it happened so long ago it's not an issue. But the genetic alteration shows up generation after generation." Tatenkova made her first trip to Canada as part of the relief fund in 1994. She's been back several times to other communities across the country. "It's a great benefit for the kids and the families as well. The families in Belarus get lots of assistance from host families in Canada," she said. The Belarus government tries to help the survivors but because it's managing an emerging economy there isn't a lot of money. Soil contamination affects food production. "The government spends a lot of money in overcoming the bad effects of Chernobyl but there is not a strong economic base," Stiller said. Stiller got involved with the organization years ago and since then has visited Belarus several times. "When I went I realized the positive impact on people's lives besides the children's health," she said. "To have a friend in another country who is so open and generous and giving when they havw nothing." - Individuals interested in becoming involved in the Canadian Relief Fund for Chernobyl Victims in Belarus can call Stiller at 604-858-7773. -------- depleted uranium Depleted uranium at JPG on meeting agenda for tonight Peggy Vlerebome Madison, IN, Courier Staff Writer 7/18/2006 3:30:00 PM http://www.madisoncourier.com/main.asp?SectionID=4&SubSectionID=253&ArticleID=31145&TM=57803.59 Depleted uranium can cause genetic mutations by attaching itself to the DNA in cells, which can lead to diseases such as cancer, an Arizona biochemist reported in a study published in May. Her study is of interest locally to Save the Valley because of the tons of depleted uranium the Army left behind at Jefferson Proving Ground after 10 years of testing munitions containing it. “We’ve been saying that for years,” said Richard Hill, president of Save the Valley and co-chairman of the JPG Restoration Advisory Board, which for years devoted most of its quarterly meetings to discussing depleted uranium and what the Army is going to do about it. The study findings probably are something concerned residents will want to bring up tonight when the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel has a listening session in Madison. It will be at 6:30 p.m. at the Madison-Jefferson County Public Library. The session was contemplated long before the new study was published. The commission, which is made up of three administrative judges, will be in the area for a prehearing conference to set the final details for a public hearing on the Army’s proposal for how to proceed with decommissioning JPG. Save the Valley has been granted status to participate in the public hearing, whose date and location have not been set. The listening session is for anyone who is not a participant but who has concerns about depleted uranium at JPG, Hill said. The biochemist who published the study has said in interviews that she doesn’t want the public to panic over the study findings. Nonetheless, Save the Valley’s experts are taking a close look at the study, which was published in two scientific journals, Hill said. Depleted uranium is what is left over after uranium is processed for such uses as nuclear power plants. Uranium is found naturally in soil, and large deposits of it are mined for commercial use. Depleted uranium is more concentrated but less radioactive than what is taken out, Hill said. Depleted uranium is a heavy metal and is toxic as well as radioactive. Health problems caused by depleted uranium have long been the topics of study, but the new study is the first to say that regardless of DU’s toxicity or radioactivity, it can cause serious health problems such as cancer by altering the DNA. Depleted uranium stopped being a topic at the JPG Restoration Advisory Board meetings when Hill and the other co-chairman, Paul Cloud, agreed that depleted uranium had never been intended to be a topic of discussion by restoration advisory boards. The government set up local advisory boards when it embarked on massive military base closures. Cloud is a civilian who is the Army’s environmental coordinator for Jefferson Proving Ground. Another new study might pertain to Jefferson Proving Ground as well. It concludes that fires in forests where depleted uranium is present can cause the DU to be carried in the air. The study was done in another state after a wildfire. The study concluded, however, that only small amounts of depleted uranium are dispersed by fires. The study said the dispersal of DU can happen whether a fire is a wildfire or a controlled-burn conducted for forest management. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service conducts controlled burns each spring at JPG. Save the Valley wants the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission to require the Army to include air tests as part of its data-gathering that will go into whatever plan is eventually approved for decommissioning JPG. The Army had to have a Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to possess radioactive material at JPG, which was a munitions testing site. For the last 10 years JPG was in operation, from 1984 to 1994, munitions containing DU were tested there. As a heavy metal, depleted uranium is more dense than lead, and so it has both offensive and defensive uses for the U.S. military. Cladding a missile with DU can enable it to bore right through an enemy’s tanks and reinforced bunkers. Put on the outside of our own tanks can make them impenetrable by enemy weapons. There have been concern, however, around the world about depleted uranium and the health of soldiers and civilians exposed to DU in reinforced tanks that get hit by enemy fire or exposed to the depleted uranium left behind. -------- missile defense Locals split over US missile base July 18, 2006 (CTK) http://www.praguemonitor.com/ctk/?story_id=w36997i20060719;story=Locals-split-over-US-missile-base Olomouc, North Moravia - The Czech military is welcoming US military experts who are looking for a suitable location for a missile base, but some local officials are critical of the prospect. The experts are visiting a military training ground in Libava, North Moravia, on Wednesday. Libava is one of three military bases being considered. Local military officials say the presence of the base could benefit the area. "The presence of such a unit or facility can be used economically. In economic terms, there will be certainly no loss. It will mean a contribution to the micro-region," said Vladimir Kubisa, the head of the military facility in Libava. However, representatives of some local towns and villages are of a different view. "I can't see any contribution. If it is possible, let them go elsewhere and I will be satisfied. It is useless for the villages here. The military is stationed right in Praslavice and we have nothing at all from this. Besides, we have to repair the road," Mayor of Praslavice Cestmir Rochovansky said. "Moreover, there will be restrictions for local residents. Now the movement is quite free. The residents will have their strolls in the area seriously constrained," Rochovansky said. On the other hand, elected officials from the Olomouc authority have no objections to the stationing of the missile base in Libava. "We have not yet discussed the issue, but personally I am not opposed to it. It would help the region economically," deputy regional governor Ladislav Kavrik from the Civic Democratic Party (ODS) said. ---- Missile test planned Wednesday morning July 18, 2006 Santa Maria Times Staff report http://www.santamariatimes.com/articles/2006/07/18/news/centralcoast/news05.txt A Minuteman 3 missile is set to blast out of its underground silo early Wednesday at Vandenberg Air Force Base, a long-scheduled routine test that now comes as North Korea is flexing its military might. The test is targeting takeoff at 1:01 a.m. Wednesday, but the window remains open for six hours to accommodate any potential postponements because of unfavorable weather or technical problems. After blastoff, the Air Force will track the weapon's mock warhead as its travels more than 4,200 miles to targets in the Kwajalein Missile Range in the central Pacific Ocean. Although it comes amid heightened tensions - as North Korea sends off a flurry of missiles and rejects calls to quit - this test has been listed for July 2006 on Vandenberg's launch lineup as far back as 2004. The U.S. military regularly tests unarmed Minuteman missiles to collect data on their accuracy and reliability. Equipped with three solid-propellant rocket motors, Minuteman missiles stand some 60 feet tall and can travel more than 6,000 miles, reaching a speed of approximately 15,000 mph at burnout. Some 500 of the missiles are on alert on bases in North Dakota, Wyoming and Montana. Although it's an older weapon system, the military has undertaken a program to extend the Minuteman's life. Plans include replacing the aging guidance system, remanufacturing the solid-propellant rocket motors, replacing standby power systems, repairing launch facilities, and installing communications, command and control equipment. ---- Vandenberg set to launch unarmed Minuteman July 18, 2006 Santa Barbara News Press By Nora K. Wallace http://www.newspress.com/Top/Article/article.jsp?Section=LOCAL&ID=564771978137960487&Archive=false An unarmed Minuteman 3 intercontinental ballistic missile is being readied for launch from Vandenberg Air Force Base on Wednesday. The missile test is not part of the government's ballistic missile defense program, which has been in the news recently because of North Korea's missile tests. Wednesday's Minuteman is scheduled to launch between 1:01 and 7:01 a.m. from a silo on the northern part of the military base. Vandenberg routinely launches such missiles to check the weapon system's reliability and accuracy. Crews at Vandenberg installed tracking, telemetry and command-destruction systems on the missile, and will collect data on the missile's performance. The missile's three unarmed re-entry vehicles are designed to fly 4,200 miles in about a half-hour. They are programmed to hit predetermined targets in the water near a test range in the Marshall Islands. Information from the launch will be used by the Defense Department and the Department of Energy. North Korea, meanwhile, has vowed to launch more ballistic missiles. Vandenberg is one of two locations where operational interceptors are in place in retrofitted silos, apparently ready for launch if the need arises to shoot down an enemy missile. Vandenberg has two of the five-story-tall, 60-ton interceptors. Nine others are in Fort Greely, Alaska. Vandenberg has been a key test-launching site for the missile defense program for seven years. More test launches for that system are expected later this year. ---- US mission: missile defense base in Europe A team of missile experts from the Department of Defense arrives in the Czech Republic Tuesday to scout out possible sites. By Jeffrey White | Contributor to The Christian Science Monitor July 18, 2006 http://rss.csmonitor.com/~r/feeds/world/~3/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.csmonitor.com%2F2006%2F0718%2Fp04s01-woeu.html JINCE, CZECH REPUBLIC – At the heart of a 64,268-acre military zone here bordering this small town, Vladimir stops his car and points to a ridgeline of fir and pine. From there, says the retired army officer who would give only his first name, the Czech Army fires rounds of tank shells during military exercises. He traces the arc of those volleys that meet imaginary targets somewhere in the distant scruff. But the scope of projectiles launched from these lowland woods could greatly increase if a US delegation of missile experts arriving Tuesday likes what they see here in Jince (pronounced YIN-tseh), a small town just southwest of the Czech Republic's capital, Prague. This military zone is one of at least three that the team from the US Department of Defense will scout when they arrive in the country Tuesday for a week-long visit to identify potential sites for a US missile defense base. "I don't wish for the base to be here," says Petr Smola, a military police officer stationed at the edge of the zone. "First we had the Russians here, and now the Americans will be here." Mr. Smola echoes the concerns of many Czechs, for whom the idea of a missile base brings back troubling memories of the Soviet occupation, when missile silos were a common fixture in the countryside and troops carried out military exercises in zones like Jince. Czech politicians, struggling to overcome a parliamentary deadlock after a general election last month, are split on the issue. But defense experts agree that a missile defense base somewhere in Central Europe makes good strategic sense for the United States and Europe amid growing tensions between Western governments and Iran and North Korea. "Because of Iran and North Korea, the United States was bound to start exploring its options in Poland, the Czech Republic, in Britain even," says Daniel Keohane, a defense expert at the Center for European Reform in London. The Americans are reportedly considering sites in the Czech Republic, Poland, and Hungary, and are expected to approach one of these governments with a proposal by the fall. Such a base, which would be the first foreign site in the US missile defense program, would be equipped to track and, if necessary, defend against intercontinental missiles launched from countries to the east such as Iran. In Europe, regional missile defense has not been a major agenda topic since Sept. 11, 2001, when counterterrorism became a higher priority. That's going to change, say experts like Mr. Keohane: NATO is expected to release a new report on trans-Atlantic missile defense during its summit in Riga, Latvia in November. European governments, Keohane says, "will want convincing that [a missile defense base] can work, but they will want to be involved. They'll want to explore their options as much as possible. This is an exploratory time for this issue." Currently two bases - one in Alaska, one in California - make up the US missile defense shield. The shield has been controversial for years, with detractors saying its technologies remain unproven and that the end of the cold war made such a defense weapon unnecessary. But missile defense has resurfaced under President Bush, who earmarked $9.3 billion for missile defense in the government's 2007 budget - $118 million of which is slated for a base in Central Europe, according to recent Czech press reports that sourced the Missile Defense Agency. Washington and the Czech government have been talking for at least two years, according to the Czech Defense Ministry, which is hosting the US visit. It has said that the American team will include about 20 experts from the Department of Defense and will visit sites in Jince, Boletice, and Libava, to study geographical, hydrological, and weather conditions at the sites. A team made a similar visit to Poland last month and is expected to visit Hungary at a later date. "They want to see the terrain for themselves ... They also want to find out if there is enough of an available labor force in the area," says Jan Pejsek, a spokesman for the Defense Ministry. An official with the Missile Defense Agency could not be reached for comment. Jan Krc, a spokesman for the US Embassy in Prague, confirmed the visit and said that an American decision on the base is expected in the next two months. If the US requests to build a base in the Czech Republic, the government will decide whether to accept the proposal. Prime Minister Jiri Paroubek, who may soon be forced out by a new coalition government, has called for a nationwide referendum before any government decision is taken, a position not held by other leaders struggling to reshape parliament. But calls for a referendum are loud here in Jince, a rural community mainly inhabited by people old enough to remember the Soviet era. Those years made Czechs particularly leery of a military presence from any outsider, and that history could be a major obstacle for the US, if it ends up asking to build a base here. "A referendum is very important," says local pensioner Miroslav Rajtl. "Russia used to be the police state. But now it seems that the Americans can be the ones, and I don't like that." ---- Czech bid for US missile base The US wants to expand its missile defence system Tuesday, 18 July 2006 (BBC) http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/2/hi/europe/5191784.stm American military experts have arrived in the Czech Republic to examine potential sites for a new missile defence base. During a week-long mission they will inspect three training military grounds. The United States is said to be considering either the Czech Republic, Poland or Hungary for the base. Its purpose will be to shoot down long-range missiles before they reach their targets in the US or Europe. The visit of the 22 American experts is the last stage in two-year long talks between defence officials of both countries, the deputy spokesman of the Defence Ministry in Prague, Jan Pejsek, told the BBC's News website. It is part of the new security strategy adopted by the Czech government in 2004, he said. American military experts have already been in Poland and are expected to go on a similar fact-finding mission in Hungary, the deputy spokesman said. Purely technical Czech authorities have stressed that the purpose of the nature of the visit is purely technical, and any decision to locate an anti-missile base would be a political one. The base, designed to neutralise a missile attack on either the US or Europe, would employ up to 1,000 people, and though controversial, would bring substantial economic benefits to the host country. However, the Czech Republic's chances to win the contract for the base are being damaged by the ongoing political stalemate, BBC's Rob Cameron reports. It's seven weeks since inconclusive parliamentary elections and there's still no new government in Prague. With a decision on the new base due in September, time is running out. -------- russia To Nuke or Not to Nuke by Gordon Prather Antiwar.com July 18, 2006 http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=9321 President Bush will soon ask Congress to "not veto" a U.S.-Russia "civil" nuclear deal. "Not veto," because Russia is a "have-nuke" signatory to the Treaty on Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Hence, the U.S.-Russia deal – unlike the U.S.-India deal – will not require modification of the Atomic Energy Act or the repeal of other laws. Nevertheless, the U.S.-Russia NPT-friendly deal – unlike the US-India NPT-busting deal – could face significant opposition in Congress. Why? For the same reason many congresspersons had a cow when North Korea unsuccessfully test-fired a missile the Koreans claim is intended for launching satellites – but is capable of reaching Hawaii, according to the Cheney Cabal. And they didn't seem to even notice when India, a few days later, also unsuccessfully test-fired two missiles, one of which the Indians claimed was intended for launching satellites – but is capable of reaching Beijing, according to the Cheney Cabal. The Washington Post suggests that Bush concluded the civil deal – which the worldwide nuclear power industry wanted – in return for some kind of promise by Putin to pressure the Iranians into giving up "any aspirations for nuclear weapons." Now, if that's all Bush got in return for virtually ensuring the success of Russia's plutonium-uranium mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel cycle, he's been had. Because, as everyone knows, the Iranians have sworn on a stack of Korans that Islamic law prohibits their having "any aspirations for nuclear weapons" to give up. But back to MOX. The avowed purpose of the U.S.-IAEA-Russia Trilateral Initiative – launched by then-Russian Minatom Minister Mikhailov, then-IAEA Director-General Blix, and then-Secretary of Energy Hazel O'Leary in 1996 – was "to fulfill the commitments" made by presidents Clinton and Yeltsin concerning IAEA verification of the disposition of weapon-origin fissile materials and to "complement their commitments regarding the transparency and irreversibility of nuclear arms reductions." Under the Trilateral Initiative, we and the Russians were each – under IAEA supervision – to dispose of 34 metric tons of plutonium, obtained from the dismantling of thousands of nukes. In a separate agreement, Clinton agreed to help Russia financially and technically dispose of their 34 metric tons of plutonium as plutonium-uranium mixed-oxide (MOX) nuclear power plant fuel. Now, in the operation of a plain-vanilla nuclear power plant, the reactor is loaded with uranium with the U-235 enriched to about 5 percent and the U-238 reduced to about 95 percent. After a fuel element has been in the reactor about five years it is replaced. About a third of the U-235 is unburned, but in addition there has been "bred" from the U-238 an almost equal amount of "burnable" plutonium. Hence, as fuel, the spent fuel element is worth about two-thirds its original value. In Russia and in Europe – but not in America – that spent fuel is reprocessed, the uranium and plutonium chemically recovered, and new fuel produced, with enough burnable plutonium added to the uranium to get it back up to 5 percent U-235 equivalent. A large fraction of the operating nuclear power plants in the world are American-built or -fueled and are, hence, prohibited by U.S. law from participating in the Russian MOX fuel cycle. Five years ago, Senate Energy Committee Chairman Domenici called for the secretary of energy to develop a "National Spent Nuclear Fuel Strategy." Domenici said that Congress urgently needed that strategy in order to determine "whether the spent fuel should be treated as waste, subject to permanent burial" (at Yucca Mountain) or whether it "should be considered to be an energy resource that is needed to meet future energy requirements." Five years later, it appears that strategy has been developed and it involves our treating spent fuel as an asset, not a liability. Hence, it appears the principal provision of the U.S.-Russia civil nuclear deal will be to allow owners and operators of all U.S.-built or -fueled nuclear power plants to participate in the Russian MOX fuel cycle program. Now, it may be that Bush has realized that a solution to the current Iranian uranium-enrichment "crisis" would be for the Russian nuclear power plants at Bushehr to be fueled from the get-go with MOX fuel. With Iran cooking with MOX, the need or even desirability of their having a uranium-enrichment capability would be obviated. However, this U.S.-Iran confrontation has never been about Iranian nuke ambitions. What have the Iranians been seeking ever since Bush launched his war of aggression against Iraq? A promise not to be nuked. Unfortunately, as long as the mullahs are in power, Bush is not going to take the nuke option off the table. -------- MILITARY -------- israel / palestine World Health Organization: Lebanese Residents Displaced by Israeli Bombardment Expected to Top 900,000 Tuesday, July 18th, 2006 Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/18/1442244 Israel continues to target Lebanon's infrastructure and bomb civilian neighborhoods. Meanwhile, the World Health Organization expects the number of Lebanese residents displaced by the assault to reach 900,000 by the end of today. We go to Beirut to get a report from Pulitzer prize-winning reporter Anthony Shadid of the Washington Post. [includes rush transcript] Israel continues to target Lebanon's infrastructure and bomb civilian neighborhoods. The United Nations is warning of a looming humanitarian disaster and the World Health Organization expects the number of Lebanese residents displaced to reach 900,000 by the end of today. Just before the program we reached Anthony Shadid in Beirut. He is a Pulitzer prize-winning reporter for the Washington Post. He spoke about the mounting crisis in Lebanon. * Anthony Shadid, Pulitzer prize-winning reporter for the Washington Post. He reports from Beirut. RUSH TRANSCRIPT AMY GOODMAN: Just before the program went to air, we reached Anthony Shadid in Beirut. He’s a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter for the Washington Post. He spoke about the mounting crisis in Lebanon. ANTHONY SHADID: [inaudible] Beirut last night. I was [inaudible] to be a little bit quieter, at least in the capital. A lot of the fighting has been going on in Southern Lebanon, which has become increasingly difficult for generals to get down to, because of roads being cut and a generously hazardous situation down there. [inaudible] in terms of diplomacy, although there is a certain pessimism that there will be any breakthrough soon. Lebanese officials said last night that some ideas have been floated out there, but there has yet to be -- framework of those ideas [inaudible] negotiations not take place. It’s still pretty unclear. What you're seeing in Beirut and parts of the mountain country line that overlook the capital is very significant flows of refugees. Lebanese officials are saying more than 60,000 people have been displaced from their homes in the southern suburbs of Beirut. There are some Shiite Muslim [inaudible] support for Hezbollah, as well as Southern Lebanon. People are arriving by cars, vans, taxis. [inaudible] taking up residence in schools. A lot of the students you see in Beirut are overwhelmed by refugees at this point. In one school, which we visited yesterday, there were more than one thousand. Sometimes four, sometimes five families in a classroom. Local parties, sometimes [inaudible], have been trying to supply them with food, water, blankets, this type of thing, but [inaudible] is going to go on for a few more days before a more substantive campaign, more organized campaign [inaudible] take care of them. You're also seeing, in a rare moment of unity in the Lebanese factions, who are usually spiritually at odds, they’re coming together to try to help some of these refugees, in particular Michel Aoun’s group, the Christian leader, very popular among Christians here. His group has been one of the most active in helping refugees, but you’ve also seen other groups, a Sunni Muslim group [inaudible] prime minister, as well as the Druze faction that belongs to Walid Jumblatt, opening schools, trying to supply aid and trying to supply food, water. That's been going on, the pace of it has picked up in the last 48 hours. AMY GOODMAN: Washington Post reporter Anthony Shadid, reporting from Lebanon. -------- mideast Syrian President Bashar Al-Asad on U.S. Foreign Policy, the Resistance in Iraq, Syrian-Lebanese Relations and More Tuesday, July 18th, 2006 Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/18/1442253 In a Democracy Now U.S. broadcast exclusive, we air an interview with Syrian President Bashar Al-Asad. He spoke with independent journalist Reese Erlich last month in Damascus in a wide-ranging interview on United States foreign policy, resistance to the occupation of Iraq, Syrian relations with Lebanon and much more. [includes rush transcript] As the bombardment of Lebanon continues, the United States and Israel have been calling on Syria to pressure Hezbollah to back down and release the two captured Israeli soldiers. On Monday President Bush was caught on tape speaking privately to British Prime Minister Tony Blair. On the tape, he curses and blames Syria for the current crisis. Meanwhile, former CIA Director James Woolsey, appeared on Fox yesterday to call for US air strikes against Syria. Damascus has warned that it will respond in a "unlimited" manner to any Israeli attacks on the country. Meanwhile, a massive pro-Hezbollah rally was held in Damascus yesterday. Today, a Democracy Now U.S. broadcast exclusive: An interview with Syrian President Bashar Al-Asad. Last month, he gave a wide-ranging interview to independent journalist Reese Erlich in Damascus. Erlich is a freelance foreign correspondent who reports regularly for CBC, ABC Australia, Radio Deutche Welle and National Public Radio. He also co-author of the book "Target Iraq: What the News Media Didn't Tell You" In the interview, Asad discusses United States foreign policy, resistance to the occupation of Iraq, Syrian relations with Lebanon and much more. * Bashar Al-Asad, president of Syria interviewed by freelance foreign correspondent Reese Erlich on June 14, 2006. We get response on Bashar Al-Asad's comments from British journalist Patrick Seale, a British journalist who has covered the Middle East for over 30 years. He is the author of the definitive biography of Bashar Al-Asad's father Hafez, titled "Asad: The Struggle for the Middle East" * Patrick Seale, British journalist who has covered the Middle East for over 30 years. He is the author of "Asad: The Struggle for the Middle East" RUSH TRANSCRIPT AMY GOODMAN: On Monday, President Bush was caught on tape at the G8 summit speaking privately to the British Prime Minister Tony Blair. On the tape, he curses and blames Syria for the current crisis. PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: See, the irony is that what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this s*** and it’s over. AMY GOODMAN: Meanwhile, former CIA director, James Woolsey, appeared on FOX yesterday to call for U.S. air strikes against Syria. Damascus has warned that it will respond in a "unlimited manner" to any Israeli attacks on the country. Meanwhile, a massive pro-Hezbollah rally was held in Damascus yesterday. Today we bring you a Democracy Now! U.S. broadcast exclusive, an interview with Syrian President Bashar Al-Asad. Last month he gave a wide-ranging interview to independent journalist, Reese Erlich, in Damascus. Erlich's a freelance foreign correspondent, reports regularly for CBC, ABC Australia, Radio Deutsche Welle, National Public Radio. Reese Erlich is also co-author of the book Target Iraq: What the News Media Didn't Tell You, and he now joins us from San Francisco. Welcome to Democracy Now!, Reese. REESE ERLICH: Thanks very much, Amy. AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about this interview that we're about to play? What were the circumstances of it? Where did you interview the President of Syria? REESE ERLICH: I interviewed him at the presidential palace, up on a hill above Damascus, where he has his formal meetings. It's a very impressive place. You go in, and you have about eight miles of red carpet and huge doors, and it's quite an impressive entrance. And then, out of a little room comes the President of Syria and welcomes you in and shakes your hand. He's a very friendly guy. I’ve had an opportunity to interview presidents from a number of different countries, and most of them are rather stiff and formal. He was very informal, easy to talk to, was forthcoming in the interview. And we talked about a whole range of issues, from Iran and Syria and U.S. relations and terrorism down to issues of democratic rights inside Syria. AMY GOODMAN: I want to turn to the first part of that interview right now, where, Reese Erlich, you started by asking President Bashar Al-Asad if he was concerned the United States might also be considering Syria as a target for military action. Mind you, this is before the current conflict. You asked him if the U.S. might also consider Syria as a target. This is the President of Syria answering. PRESIDENT BASHAR AL-ASAD: Actually, Syria has a history of 5,000 years, and it made its history, it makes its presence, and it will make its future. The people in Syria will decide who's going to be in charge, who's going on the helm and who's not. But the most important thing, whoever think about destabilizing Syria, he should know that he's going to destabilize the region. We are the safety valve in the region. REESE ERLICH: The safety valve? PRESIDENT BASHAR AL-ASAD: Yeah, safety valve in the region. REESE ERLICH: What way? How? PRESIDENT BASHAR AL-ASAD: In a geopolitical way. Geopolitical way. The history of Syria, the road of the Syria and the region, the link between Syria and our neighbors, social links, ideological links, and the interest links with the region. So the whole region is connected with each other. REESE ERLICH: You mentioned that in the past Syria has helped provide intelligence about terrorist groups, al-Qaeda and so on. Explain that. And when did that cooperation end? PRESIDENT BASHAR AL-ASAD: Actually, we started cooperating with the United States -- we took the initiative to cooperate with the United States intelligence after 11th of September. And we succeeded in preventing more than seven plots made by al-Qaeda against the United States. The cooperation stopped last March 2005, because of mistakes were made by the United States, first; second, because of their political position or stand against Syria. REESE ERLICH: What were the mistakes made by the United States? PRESIDENT BASHAR AL-ASAD: Technical mistakes that led to losing many opportunities to go forward in fighting terrorism in the region. REESE ERLICH: That was also around the time in which the U.S. was pressuring Lebanon to demand the return of Syrian troops and the charges about Hariri, and so on and so forth. So, did that, in general, sour the political atmosphere? PRESIDENT BASHAR AL-ASAD: Definitely, definitely. REESE ERLICH: Do you think the Bush administration will militarily attack Iran, using the issue of nuclear weapons development, supposedly, that Iran is involved in? Do you think that's likely? PRESIDENT BASHAR AL-ASAD: Anyway, it's a hypothetical question, but if we want to talk about logic and the interest of the region and of the United States and the rest of the world, it's not to do such a thing, because the whole world would pay a very expensive price. REESE ERLICH: What would be the consequences if the U.S. did either try to impose sanctions or even a military strike on Iran? PRESIDENT BASHAR AL-ASAD: Sanctions won't do anything, from the experience in Iraq, in many different countries. Sanctions won't do anything. But the consequences of destabilizing the region by sanctions, by military actions, by any kind of means, will lead to destabilizing the whole Middle East. REESE ERLICH: Iran has a number of options, should something like that happen. For example, it can work with its supporters in Iraq to attack U.S. forces, when they're not doing that now. It has influence with Hezbollah, and it could inflame the situation there. Do you think those would be some of the examples of the destabilization? PRESIDENT BASHAR AL-ASAD: I think the question should be, as to the Iranian, I mean, both, they're going to do. But for me, the consequences are much deeper, if you look at Iraq as an example. You cannot talk about factions or parties or groups. It's much more deeper than this. It's chaos. It's going to be a total chaos. AMY GOODMAN: Reese Erlich interviewing the President of Syria. We're going to go back to that interview, joined by Reese Erlich in studio in San Francisco and Patrick Seale, British journalist who's covered the Middle East for over 30 years, who wrote the biography of Asad called Asad: The Struggle for the Middle East. Patrick Seale, I wanted to go to you in France right now to give us a little background on Asad, on the President of Syria, and to also your response to this first part of the interview. PATRICK SEALE: Well, as you know, he's been in power for about six years now. He took over from his father, when his father died in June 2000. He is an eye doctor, trained as an eye doctor in Britain and in Syria. He wasn't really prepared for power, so he's had a rather hard innings, particularly, of course, since the attack on Iraq by the United States, which is probably go down in history as a monumental blunder. Nevertheless, he has proved a very tough defender of Syrian interests, and it's striking that he should make this claim, that whoever -- that to destabilize Syria is to destabilize the whole region. I think that's really, in a way, one of his key remarks. He points to his concern and his attempt to persuade the world that Syria has an important regional role and continues to have that role. AMY GOODMAN: Can you give us more on the background, Patrick Seale, of how Bashar Al-Asad rose to power? And then, also, if you could talk about the reference to Rafik Hariri, the Lebanese leader who was assassinated last year. PATRICK SEALE: Well, he rose to power -- in a way, it was a sort of joint decision of the political elite in Damascus after his father died. He seemed a natural candidate, and in fact his father had, I think, to some extent, prepared him for this task in the six years since his elder brother, Basil, died in a car crash. His elder brother, Basil, was the acknowledged heir. When he died, then they recalled Dr. Bashar from London, where he was studying ophthalmology, and he was then trained to succeed his father. As I said, it's not been an easy problem. Now, the Lebanon is vitally important for Syria's security. Syria cannot tolerate a hostile power in the Lebanon, and this, I think, lies at the root of much of Syria's policy. If you may recall that in 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon, killing about 17,000 Lebanese and Palestinians and attempting to bring Lebanon into its orbit with the help of the United States. George Shultz, at the time, the American Secretary of State, tried to broker a separate peace between Israel and Lebanon, which would have put Lebanon in Israel's sphere of influence, and the Israelis were anxious to install a puppet government in Beirut, which would do their bidding. Now, the Syrians managed to overturn that accord and bring Lebanon back into their sphere of influence, which, as I said, is necessary for their security, but is also a reflection of the numerous ties between the two countries. They are tied, intimately tied, by the family ties, trade ties, financial ties and, of course, historical ties. So for all these reasons, Syria has a very strong interest in the Lebanon. Now, we don't know whether or not Syria killed the former prime minister of Lebanon, Rafik Hariri. The investigation into that matter is still continuing, and indeed into the murders which followed. Many people have pointed the finger at Syria and have argued that Rafik Hariri wanted to change the relationship between the two countries. But, as I say, it remains unproven to this day. AMY GOODMAN: I want to talk to you about the cooperation between Syria and the United States, but first, we're going to go back to the interview. Again, this is an interview done before the current conflict. Independent reporter Reese Erlich in this Democracy Now! U.S. broadcast exclusive, speaking to the President of Syria, Bashar Al-Asad. REESE ERLICH: Does Syria plan to demarcate its borders with Lebanon -- and then, a second related question -- or open embassies between the two? PRESIDENT BASHAR AL-ASAD: The first part about the borders, we had a letter, formal letter, from the Lebanese prime minister, and we sent him a reply, formal reply, that we are ready to demarcate the borders. We don't have any problem, because we had such a problem with Jordan a few years ago, and we solved it. About the embassies, as a concept, we cannot say we don't want to have an embassy in another country, as a concept, but that needs normal relation. Now, we don't have this normal relation with the Lebanese, so it needs better relation to discuss this issue. REESE ERLICH: What kinds of issues would have to be resolved in order to have a normal relation? PRESIDENT BASHAR AL-ASAD: First of all, not to have a government that works against your country. This is first of all. And second of all, you need the Syrians to feel that they have real neighbors, not cradle for or not a hub for terrorists to come and do such terrorist acts in Syria. REESE ERLICH: One last question, what would it take to improve relations between the United States and Syria now? Are there any steps that could be taken that would improve them? PRESIDENT BASHAR AL-ASAD: Definitely by the United States, not by Syria, because we did a lot, and we couldn't get any result, because they don't have the will. So first of all, they should know and they should understand the situation in the region. They should appreciate the role of Syria in the region. They should know that we have common interests that they don't see. And I think they should be neutral in dealing with our causes. That's how we can get back our relation to normal. REESE ERLICH: So, do you want to be any more specific about your causes and [inaudible]? PRESIDENT BASHAR AL-ASAD: Yeah, definitely. The most important thing, our occupied land, Golan Heights. The United States should take into consideration that we see everything in Syria through our occupied land. Without talking about peace process, in order to get this land back, what the benefit of this relation? REESE ERLICH: Anything else you would like to add, in a message to the American people? PRESIDENT BASHAR AL-ASAD: I think after the 11th of September, which was a very tough lesson, not to the United States people, to everybody in this world, first of all, you should learn more about what's going on behind the ocean, all over the world. You should send more people, more delegations to meet with other cultures to discuss with them, to know the facts, not to be isolated away from the rest of the world. AMY GOODMAN: Syrian President Bashar Al-Asad. When we come back from break, he will talk about the war in Iraq, and we'll continue with our conversation with Patrick Seale, who wrote the biography of Asad, called Asad: The Struggle for the Middle East. And we'll also speak with Reese Erlich, who did the interview with the Syrian president in Damascus. [break] AMY GOODMAN: We'll continue our interview that we're bringing you in this U.S. broadcast exclusive. Independent journalist Reese Erlich was in Damascus last month and interviewed the President of Syria, Bashar Al-Asad. We're also joined on the telephone by Patrick Seale from France, who wrote the biography of Asad's father. It's called Asad: The Struggle for the Middle East. Patrick Seale, as you listen to this interview and hear Bashar Al-Asad talk about the United States, can you comment on the relationship that Asad has had with the United States, as well as Lebanon? PATRICK SEALE: Well, Syria has -- there’s a terrible noise on this line. Can you hear it? AMY GOODMAN: We can hear the sound, but we can also hear -- we can hear you. PATRICK SEALE: Can you hear me? AMY GOODMAN: Yes, I hear you fine. PATRICK SEALE: Well, it's incredible noise. One second, please. AMY GOODMAN: We can hear you, if you can try to ignore the sound. We can hear you fine. PATRICK SEALE: Well, Syria has always sought better relations with the United States. Now, it’s suffered very much from what it considers America's alignment on Israel. Indeed, it's striking that President Bashar should urge the United States to be more even-handed, more neutral in its approach to the Middle East, not only, of course, on the Palestinian question, but also on the subject very dear to Syrian hearts, the occupied Golan. Now, as you know, Israel occupied the Golan in 1967, and the United States, in spite of Security Council Resolutions 242, 338, has allowed that occupation to stand, as it has allowed the occupation of Palestinian territories to stand for the last 39 years. The United States allowed Israel to occupy Lebanon, Southern Lebanon, for 22 years, and occupy the Palestinian territories for 39 years. Now, these are the reasons why many, many Arabs are very disgruntled, very hostile to the United States. Now, the United States believes that Israel can use force to protect its own supremacy in the region, but this is increasingly contested. And so, in terms of President Bashar Al-Asad, he made very clear that Syria cannot tolerate the use of Lebanon to mount hostile operations against Syria. That's when he was answering the question about why not restore -- have an exchange of embassies, have diplomatic relations with Lebanon. He said, ‘Well, we could do that once we have normal relations and once we have a Lebanese government in Beirut which doesn't work against Syria or cooperate with its enemies.’ So he was very clear on all those issues, and his appeal to the United States was to understand the region better, understand that there are other countries in the region, apart from Israel, with whom the United States has common interests, and should recognize those interests. AMY GOODMAN: Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh detailed several years ago how the Bush administration destroyed U.S.-Syrian relations by attacking a convoy of cars inside Syria in an attempt to assassinate Saddam Hussein. It turned out the convoy was made up of cars that were smuggling goods out of Iraq, and Syria has since stopped cooperating with the United States. PATRICK SEALE: Well, that's true. It wasn't just that. I mean, Syria, like many other countries in the world, like France, like Germany, was very much opposed to the attack on Iraq. The Syrians had no love for Saddam Hussein, but the idea that the United States should attack -- I mean, an unprovoked attack against a major Arab country -- and smash it and kill tens of thousands of people, and then accuse Syria, of all countries, of interfering or Iran of interfering, when the United States, which previously had opposed, over the horizon, of keeping away from the heartland of the Middle East, suddenly makes this qualitative leap of attacking a major Arab state, this has caused consternation in the region. And, of course, the Syrians feel threatened. They feel that they may be next. At least they felt that in the earlier stages of the attack. Now, I think they feel a bit more confident, because of the quagmire in which the United States finds itself. I mean, it looks very much as if the neo-cons, the pro-Israeli neo-cons, in influential positions in the U.S. administration took the United States for a ride. They involved it in this attack on Iraq, no doubt believing this would improve Israel's strategic environment. But this has proved to be a catastrophe for the United States, extremely costly in men and treasure. AMY GOODMAN: Patrick Seale, we're going to go back to the interview that independent journalist Reese Erlich did with the President of Syria, Bashar Al-Asad, last month, again, before the current conflict. REESE ERLICH: President Bush made a surprise visit to Baghdad today, or yesterday and today. Zarqawi was killed. Do you think that -- the Bush administration is trying to say that they're making progress now in Iraq. Do you think -- well, first of all, do you think that's accurate, or do you think the U.S. in some ways has actually already lost the war? PRESIDENT BASHAR AL-ASAD: Lost the war and making progress are linked together, so have to ask about the goal first. So you have goal, democracy, the answer is very clear: the situation is much worse than before, even during Saddam’s, that we don't defend in Syria. If they talk about better living standards, the situation much, much worse than before. If they are talking about development, about infrastructure, about anything, so everything is worse. So that depends on what the goal of the war. You cannot talk about occupation. I mean, occupation is not the goal of the war. This is the mean, occupation. But if we talk about the military side of the war, killing Americans every day in Iraq, and, of course, killing Iraqis, tens of Iraqis every week, is that the goal of the war from the military point of view? I don't think so. The answer is very clear for us. REESE ERLICH: But even in a military sense, the U.S. no longer controls certain areas of Iraq. It's very unstable, even in the south, in the Basra area. It would seem that even from a strictly military standpoint, the situation has gotten worse from the U.S. Do you think that's true? PRESIDENT BASHAR AL-ASAD: It’s self-evident. No power, no military power in the world, even the United States, can control a small country militarily. You can only control a country if the people wants you to control it. When the people are against you -- and this is very normal to have the people against the occupation in Iraq and in any other country -- you are going to have resistance, and you will not control anything. This is normal. REESE ERLICH: What do you think the outcome is going to be, if you said a few years from now, what do you think the situation will look like in Iraq? PRESIDENT BASHAR AL-ASAD: That depends on the constitution, first of all. You need consensus. If you want to talk about the future of Iraq, we should talk about a consensus about something, and normally the future of Iraq is going to be inside the constitution. So far, according to what we hear from many Iraqi factions, some factions think they are oppressed, so this needs to be re-evaluated. I think this is at the core of the future. If there's no consensus about the constitution, you will have conflict or maybe a civil war. This is the core, not having a new government or having some relation. This is good, we support in Syria. We support the political process, but this is not enough. This is for the short term, it's okay. For the long term, no, it's not enough. REESE ERLICH: Sources have told me you've been involved in promoting some negotiations between the Sunni resistance and the government. Is that accurate? PRESIDENT BASHAR AL-ASAD: Actually, what we tried to promote is the unified Iraq. This is the only thing. We tried to see what's in common between the whole Iraqis, and we tried to make some negotiations, some marketing, some ideas that the Iraqi would think it helps unifying Iraq or keep it unified, so far. And this is how we put our role as, in general. REESE ERLICH: But, specifically, have you helped facilitate some talks between the resistance, the people opposed, fighting the United States, and the Iraqi government? PRESIDENT BASHAR AL-ASAD: Actually, there's a delegation that comes to Syria. We don't know if they are resistance or not. They are Iraqis. And they don’t know -- nobody knows who are the resistance. Only the Iraqis. So don't believe if anyone tells you that he knows what the resistance? So, but definitely, most of them, most of the Iraqis that we meet, they are supporting the resistance, at least politically. REESE ERLICH: And are you trying to facilitate the political supporters to hold negotiations with the government? PRESIDENT BASHAR AL-ASAD: Yeah, we always say that we are ready to help in any way, but definitely Syria is open for this, and we tried to. Yeah, we did some effort. REESE ERLICH: There's been recent deaths on the beach in Gaza. Hamas has ended its ceasefire with Israel. What is your -- it seems like a very great struggle is re-emerging now in Palestine. What is your prediction for the next short-term period in Palestine? PRESIDENT BASHAR AL-ASAD: You mean the Palestinian-Palestinan relation or Palestinian -- REESE ERLICH: Palestinian-Israeli relations, yeah. PRESIDENT BASHAR AL-ASAD: Of course, when you have conflict between the Palestinians, you won’t have a peace talk in the near future. So I’m talking about -- I’m talking from the West’s point of view now. From our point of view, it's something -- between the Palestinians, it’s something humanitarian, that we consider them as brothers. But I think the Palestinians are paying the price of Oslo, treaty in 1993, and this is first. Second, they paid the price of the paralyzed peace process, especially after the 2000 negotiation at Camp David and the deadlock that they reached between the Palestinian and the Israeli and the negligence of the American administration of the peace process, in general. AMY GOODMAN: The President of Syria, Bashar Al-Asad, speaking with independent journalist, Reese Erlich. We’re going to go to him in a minute, but I wanted to ask Patrick Seale quickly, in France, about how much control you think Syria has over Hezbollah in Lebanon now. PATRICK SEALE: Hezbollah is, of course, its ally, as it is the ally of Iran. This doesn't mean that it has full control over Hezbollah. Hezbollah has become an autonomous player, particularly ever since it managed to expel the Israelis from Lebanon, from most of Lebanon, in the year 2000. Of course, Israel continues to occupy a small area known as the Shebaa Farms on the pretext that they actually belong to Syria, rather than Lebanon. Syria says, no, these are Lebanese. But nevertheless, the Israelis maintain their occupation there and, of course, are holding a lot of prisoners. Now, both the Hamas attack, in which was captured an Israeli soldier, and Hezbollah’s attack, which captured two Israeli soldiers, these were intended to act -- to serve as bargaining quarters to force Israel to release some of the many, many prisoners it holds. It holds about 10,000. AMY GOODMAN: Patrick Seale, we're going to leave it there for today. We're going to play more of the interview tomorrow. Reese Erlich, we have 30 seconds. Your final comment today on this part of the interview you did with the Syrian president. REESE ERLICH: Well, I think it's clear that he has accurately portrayed the difficulties the U.S. faces in Iraq. It's an unwinnable war. Hundreds of thousands of refugees are fleeing Iraq to live in Syria, including 18,000 Christian Iraqis, who have fled as a result of their churches being attacked and their communities being attacked, something that even Saddam Hussein never dared to do. AMY GOODMAN: Reese Erlich, I want to thank you for sharing this interview. We’ll play more of it tomorrow. Reese Erlich, independent journalist, recently back from Syria. And Patrick Seale, author of Asad: The Struggle for the Middle East. Tomorrow, again, part two of the interview. ---- A Sampling of Arab TV Coverage of the Middle East Crisis Tuesday, July 18th, 2006 Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/18/1442249 We look at how Israel's bombardment of Lebanon is being covered in the Arab world by turning to MOSAIC, an award-winning program on LinkTV that compiles television news reports from more than 30 television outlets throughout the Middle East. We play an excerpt of MOSAIC's newscast and speak with Jamal Dajani, director of Middle Eastern Programming at Link TV. [includes rush transcript] Israel's bombardment of Lebanon has entered its seventh day and the death toll continues to rise. More than 215 people have been killed - all but 14 of them are civilians. The country's infrastructure has been devastated and more than 400,000 people have been displaced. Hezbollah continues to fire rockets into Israel. At least 24 Israelis, including 12 civilians, have been killed. Meanwhile, the international community has no plan to stop the bloodshed and there has been little progress on the diplomatic front. News networks across the United States have been closely following the story over the past week. But how was the news delivered in the Middle East? In the U.S., there's one place to find out: MOSAIC, a daily show on our partner network, Link TV, that compiles television news reports from more than 30 TV outlets throughout the Middle East. Last year, MOSAIC won one of journalism's highest honors, the Peabody Award. We play an edited excerpt of the last night's newscasts from across the Middle East. * Jamal Dajani, Director of Middle Eastern Programming at Link TV that produces MOSAIC: World News from the Middle East. The program distills daily news reports from more than 30 Middle Eastern television outlets. Learn more about MOSAIC RUSH TRANSCRIPT AMY GOODMAN: This is an edited excerpt of last night's newscast from across the Middle East. MOSAIC: Almost all Lebanese television networks provided wall-to-wall coverage of the war. Future TV gave a summary of the sixth day of the intense bombing of Lebanon. FUTURE TV: The Israeli aggression targeted various Lebanese areas, from the bombing of the airport at night to bombing Beirut, where two people were martyred and many others were killed. Like other days, the bombing did not spare the southern suburb of Beirut. Beirut has been targeted with a number of missiles in separate attacks. The attacks reached Chouf, where five citizens were martyred and 23 others were wounded in an attack on one of the bridges. The bombing in the north included the Abdeh port in Akkar, according to civilian and Lebanese army witnesses. The Tripoli international port was also bombed. The Israeli military campaign also targeted Baalbek, where three civilians were martyred and six others were injured. Israeli warplanes also raided the Jalala village in central Beqaa, where two civilians were martyred and 22 others were wounded. Israeli warplanes carried out 60 raids on Sunday night, according to a survey by the Israeli army. Initial surveys indicate that at least 20 people were martyred and 40 others were injured. MOSAIC: Hassan Nasrallah, the Secretary-General of Hezbollah, appeared on all Lebanese television stations, including LBC, a Christian-run network. HASSAN NASRALLAH, on LBC TV: As long as the enemy aggression has no limits and redlines, our defiance will also have no limits and redlines. The arsenal that you are very concerned about is still available. What was launched so far is only a very small part of this arsenal. We still have the ability to launch more missiles. Today, the Zionists are making all their calculations on the premise that Hezbollah's missiles will only reach Haifa, Akka and Tigris. We could launch tens of missiles to distance further from Haifa. If you want to fight your battle on the basis of this assumption, then I want to let you know that you will be defeated, God willing. MOSAIC: Another Lebanese network, NBN, showed hours of photo footage of the carnage of the war. This report titled “The Massacre of Marwahiya” was shown several times, accompanied only by sound of music. IBA, the Israeli official state television, focused on the damage caused by a barrage of Hezbollah rockets which hit Haifa. IBA TV: After a quiet night, Haifa turned into a war zone this afternoon, as Hezbollah missile attacks caused a three-story building to collapse, injuring dozens. Joining us now live from Haifa is IBA’s Leah Zinder. Leah? LEAH ZINDER: Yes, Laura, I join you now from a site of devastation, where a three-story house collapsed here in a suburb of Haifa. The day began very quietly. A night and a morning of complete quiet was shattered at a quarter to 2:00 this afternoon when sirens start going off, followed by an onslaught of rockets. No fewer than 50 rockets landed here in Haifa and in the north of the country. Fortunately, in most of those attacks, there were no injuries. But as you see right behind me -- I believe you're looking at it now -- this three-story building collapsed. Now, one person was seriously injured in that incident, three others moderately injured. Miraculously, nobody was killed. MOSAIC: Meanwhile, Nile TV out of Egypt, aside from the coverage of the conflict, focused on the Egyptian public opinion. EGYPTIAN MAN 1, on NILE TV: This is a natural response, because violence gives birth to violence. Hezbollah's latest operation was a natural response to this Israeli arrogance. Hezbollah now feels that it has a presence and the ability to respond. EGYPTIAN MAN 2, on NILE TV: Should the Israeli soldier who was captured by the Palestinians be treated in a respectful and honorable way, while the Palestinian and Lebanese prisoners of war that are in Israel prisons are not? Aren't they humans? Do they not have legal rights and dignity? AMY GOODMAN: News reports from around the Middle East, an excerpt of MOSAIC: World News from the Middle East. We're joined now by Jamal Dajani, the director of Middle Eastern programming at Link TV, that produces MOSAIC. Welcome to Democracy Now!, Jamal. JAMAL DAJANI: Thank you for having me, Amy. AMY GOODMAN: It's good to have you with us. Can you talk about this coverage? JAMAL DAJANI: Well, you know, there is a unique coverage that's going on now, because there is a split in the perspectives, even within the Arab world and the Lebanese television stations. Since the beginning of the war, with the statements issued by Saudi Arabia condemning Hezbollah, in essence, or pointing the finger at Hezbollah, had created a split, debate, an opinion going on between different broadcasters. For example, some of the Lebanese networks -- we have been showing footage from four different Lebanese networks -- and some has been critical of Hezbollah, and that has created a lot of debate on the air. So that's a very unique situation here. Also, we have the situation where we have another ongoing war now in Iraq. As your news report mentioned, in Kufa, 39 people died today. This hardly made any news in the Arab world, which is really unusual, where you have wall-to-wall coverage on Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya and other broadcasters about what's going on in Lebanon, and you don't have -- or you have very little about Iraq. Meanwhile, some of the Arab networks that are aligned with that position, the Saudi position, in the Gulf, they have been having business as usual. I mean, they have not been covering the war in the same manner that -- which happened during the Iraqi war, when all the networks were coming with quick updates and showing you immediate reports about the attacks. I mean, we have an ongoing war; this is not just an incursion. And you have probably 60% of the Arab networks showing soap operas, showing game shows, music, songs, and while only the Lebanese are left alone. Only the Lebanese are offering you wall-to-wall coverage, plus Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya and the rest. This is unprecedented. Also, you know, just to -- you know, one of the reports that we showed was from Nile TV, and it was talking about -- I mean, showing you the perspective of the people on the street in Egypt. And this is in contrast of the Egyptian position, of the position of Hosni Mubarak, coming -- you know, critical about Hezbollah, but we have been seeing the Arab masses speaking against the Israeli incursion there, speaking against their own governments. They had, yesterday, marches in the streets in Kuwait, so a lot of things are going on. All sorts of unique coverage also from different angles. The Western media is now also present in Beirut. This is a difference that when we had war on Iraq, where the Western media did not come into Baghdad ’til the American soldiers were there. The Israeli media has been recently censored -- the past 24 hours, Israel authority has been censoring coverage on the attacks in the north, and more specifically on Al Jazeera. They have prevented Al Jazeera from covering the sites where Hezbollah has been hitting and attacking in Haifa and other areas. AMY GOODMAN: Jamal Dajani, I wanted to ask you about this issue of censorship. On CNN yesterday, host Kyra Phillips was interviewing Steve Hartov, a former soldier in the Israeli army, who’s now a military analyst. I wanted to play an excerpt of that interview and then ask for your comment. This is CNN's anchor, Kyra Phillips. KYRA PHILLIPS: I want to ask you about the Israeli Defense Force stepping in and asking the media to stop showing certain images in the area. We have struck a deal that it's a war-sensitive time. There have to be certain censorship issues. Tell me why the IDF is asking us to back off on certain specific pictures. STEVEN HARTOV: Well, Kyra, it's difficult for Western viewers sometimes to understand the aspects of what we might call here censorship. But, in fact, if you've got a camera, for instance, in Haifa, and you report that a rocket has fallen in a particular neighborhood, you become a forward observer for the enemy. AMY GOODMAN: Jamal Dajani of MOSAIC, your response? JAMAL DAJANI: Well, I mean, Hezbollah has been hitting Haifa. I think you have an entire coverage, a one-sided coverage of the war. You have cameras all over Lebanon, all over Beirut. You know, we are getting information there uninterrupted, uncensored, and then after -- you know, they started in the initial phase, when the Israelis were surprised, themselves, with the capabilities of Hezbollah, that Hezbollah was able to strike into Haifa. They started censoring first Al Jazeera. I know the other networks, like Israeli Broadcast Authority and Western Media, were allowed to film those areas, were allowed to interview the people. And then all the sudden this happened just within the past 24 hours. They decided, and I think, you know, they decided after they heard Nasrallah talking about that everything now is game, you know, for the attack. But I think, you know, if Hezbollah was prepared to attack Haifa, they already know where are the chemical plants, and they already know -- they have probably operatives on the ground. I mean, it's a whole -- I mean, these days, you know almost everything from Google video. So I think the Israelis are more concerned about the public opinion, showing the amount of damage that is going on, because I think the Israelis are not prepared for a long-term war of attrition like the Lebanese. I mean, if you saw what you saw in the footage, we showed you the Lebanese have been now subjected, and they've been seeing the horrifying images of the war, and I think a lot of the Israelis are not aware of what's going on in their own country. AMY GOODMAN: How much is the media in different Arab countries, like Saudi Arabia, watched, as opposed to satellite television, the networks like Al Jazeera? JAMAL DAJANI: Well, I mean, throughout the world, you have access to more than 200 different satellite networks, so although the Saudis are also practicing censorship, because the Saudis, you know, they have their own take on the war and they have not been showing really the devastation that has been shown on Al Jazeera, on Al Arabiya, on LBC, on NBN, but I think the average Saudi citizen can access all these networks. I don't think the people in the area are shielded from the horrifying images of the war, but I think from the Israeli side, there is definite censorship in showing the extent of the damage or what cities have been hit or the injured people. AMY GOODMAN: Jamal Dajani, I want to thank you very much for being with us, director of Middle East programming at Link TV, and producer of MOSAIC: World News from the Middle East. Link TV is on both TV satellite networks in this country, on DISH Network, channel 9410, and on DIRECTV, channel 375, where Democracy Now! broadcasts, as well. Thanks so much for joining us from San Francisco. ---- Saddam 'warns Syria against alliance with Iran' Jul 18, 2006 Deutsche Presse-Agentur http://news.monstersandcritics.com/middleeast/article_1181877.php/Saddam_warns_Syria_against_alliance_with_Iran Amman - Toppled Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein has issued a warning to the Syrian leadership 'not to go too far in its alliance with Iran,' blaming Tehran for the current flare-up of violence in the Middle East, the head of Saddam's defence team claimed Tuesday. Iraqi lawyer Khalil Duleimi told Deutsche Presse-Agentur dpa that he and another member of the defence panel, Ziyad Najdawi, met with the former Iraqi president at his place of custody in Baghdad on Monday for three and a half hours. 'The president told us that the Syrian leadership should not go too far in its alliance with Iran, because the Persians harbour bad intentions for all Arabs and aspire to see them vanquished,' he said. 'The Israeli aggression on Lebanon and the Palestinians is a natural result for what happened to Iraq with Iranian backing,' Saddam reportedly said, alluding to the US-led invasion of Iraq that resulted in the ouster of his regime in April 2003. 'Therefore, I do not exclude other Arab countries becoming the victim of US-backed Israeli attacks that serve Iranian objectives in the region,' he added. Syria, which belonged to a rival wing of the Arab Baathist Party then ruling in Baghdad, supported Persian Iran against Arab Iraq in the 1980-88 war. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad last week warned that 'heavy casualties' would be inflicted on Israel if Syria was attacked. 'I am convinced that the Iranian and US agendas have met in Iraq and elsewhere in the Arab world and Arabs are now placed between the US-Israeli hammer and the Iranian anvil,' Duleimi quoted Saddam as saying. ---- Bush: Syria trying to influence Lebanon By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer Tue Jul 18, 2006 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060718/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_mideast WASHINGTON - President Bush said Tuesday he suspects Syria is trying to reassert influence in Lebanon more than a year after Damascus ended what had effectively been a long-term military occupation of its smaller, weaker neighbor. "It's in our interest that Syria stay out of Lebanon and this government survive," Bush said in a reference to the young, Lebanese government. Bush spoke at the White House after briefing members of Congress about his recent trip to Russia for an economic summit that was overshadowed by fighting between Israel and the Islamic militant group Hezbollah. "Everybody abhors the loss of innocent life," Bush said. "On the other hand, what we recognize is that the root cause of the problem is Hezbollah. And that problem must be addressed ... by making it clear to Syria that they've got to stop their support to Hezbollah." He said there are suspicions that instability caused by Hezbollah's attacks will cause some in Lebanon to invite Syria to return to the nation. "Listen, Syria is trying to get back into Lebanon, it looks like to me," said Bush, who also noted the backing Hezbollah receives from Iran. "In order to be able to deal with this crisis, the world must deal with Hezbollah, with Syria and to continue to work to isolate Iran," Bush said. The president reiterated his stance that Israel should be free to respond to attacks, but warned against triggering the collapse of the Lebanese government run by Prime Minister Fuad Saniora. "We have made it very clear that Israel should be allowed to defend herself," Bush said. "We've asked that as she does so that she be mindful of the Saniora government. It's very important that this government in Lebanon succeed and survive." Fighting began June 25 when Hamas-linked militants in the Gaza Strip carried out a cross-border attack on a military outpost in Israel, killing two soldiers and capturing one. Hezbollah guerrillas joined the fray in July, attacking a military patrol on the border in northern Israel, killing three soldiers and capturing two. Both Hamas and Hezbollah have said the attacks were not related. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who spoke Monday with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, said Tuesday that any cease-fire in Mideast fighting ought to be based on fundamental changes that could lead to a lasting impact. "We all want a cessation of violence," Rice said. "We all want the protection of civilians. We have to make certain that anything that we do is going to be of lasting value." Rice said there must be a conducive environment for a cease-fire. That, she said, would involve implementation of a standing U.N. Security Council resolution and the deployment of the Lebanese army to the borders, as well as the introduction of a strong peacekeeping operation. A U.N. Security Council resolution in 2004 led to withdrawal of Syrian forces from Lebanon. But its call for disarming militant guerrillas has not been heeded. Rice, at a joint news conference with Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit, also indicated she would not be going to the troubled region immediately. She said she was primed to take the trip when it will be "helpful and necessary." Rice's skepticism about trying to work out an immediate, makeshift cease-fire reflects views shared by the Israeli government in seeking fundamental changes to guard against another flare-up. These include ensuring southern Lebanon does not remain a launching pad for attacks on Israel. Gheit, for his part, did not qualify his support for a cease-fire. He said one was under discussion in diplomatic circles. Speaking to reporters after the lawmakers' meeting with the president, Sen. Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting record), D-Del., said he agreed with Bush that the United States should respond to the crisis by pressuring Hezbollah, Syria and Iran. "I think the president has an opportunity here to turn — as an old phrase goes — lemons into lemonade," Biden said, adding that some of Lebanon's Arab neighbors are publicly siding with the United States and Europe against Hezbollah. "I think he's started down that road, and I think he has a shot," Biden said. Later, Bush spoke by telephone to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, who expressed his concern about the humanitarian situation in Lebanon, said a White Hous official who spoke anonymously because he was not authorized to make announcements. And, at the State Department, Rice assured the head of Lebanon's influential Maronite Catholic Church, Cardinal Nasrallah Sfeir, that the United States was "very concerned" about the plight of Lebanon's civilian population and was trying to bolster the country's sovereignty. Rice also told him that the international community "must insist on the enforcement" of the U.N. Security Council resolution. ---- Turkey Signals It's Prepared to Enter Iraq By LOUIS MEIXLER, 07.18.2006 Associated Press http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/2006/07/18/ap2887214.html Turkish officials signaled Tuesday they are prepared to send the army into northern Iraq if U.S. and Iraqi forces do not take steps to combat Turkish Kurdish guerrillas there - a move that could put Turkey on a collision course with the United States. Turkey is facing increasing domestic pressure to act after 15 soldiers, police and guards were killed fighting the guerrillas in southeastern Turkey in the past week. "The government is really in a bind," said Seyfi Tashan, director of the Foreign Policy Institute at Bilkent University in Ankara. "On the one hand, they don't want things to break down with the United States. On the other hand, the public is crying for action." Diplomats and experts cautioned the increasingly aggressive Turkish statements were likely aimed at calming public anger and pressing the U.S. and Iraq to act against the Turkish Kurdish guerrillas. But they also said Turkish politicians and military officers could act if nothing is done. U.S. officials in Turkey and Washington were in contact with Turkish officials and military commanders to press them to work with Washington to combat the guerrillas and not to act alone, a Western diplomat said, speaking on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the subject. Turkey's NTV television and Hurriyet newspaper reported the government has told the military to draw up plans for a push into northern Iraq and to advise on the possibilities such an incursion could lead to a clash with Iraqi Kurds or U.S. troops. Any operation was unlikely before the end of August, when the current military chief of staff is replaced by an officer widely regarded as a hard-liner, NTV said. The Western diplomat said the Turkish military long has had plans for fighting guerrillas in northern Iraq. These range from limited artillery and airstrikes on guerrilla bases, to attacks by commando forces and a broader ground offensive. American officials, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, have repeatedly warned Turkey against entering northern Iraq, one of the few stable areas of the country. U.S. Ambassador Ross Wilson said Turkish, Iraqi and U.S. cooperation is a "more sensible way to go forward than perhaps to ... try to do it unilaterally." Nechirvan Barzani, prime minister of the Kurdistan regional government in northern Iraq, appeared to be addressing Turkish concerns when he said Tuesday that Iraqi Kurds "won't allow anyone to harm our neighbors by using our territory." But he also said the problem with the guerrillas "cannot be solved through military means alone," Turkey's DHA news agency reported. Turkey considers the guerrillas terrorists and has refused to talk with them. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan appeared to confirm reports that the military was ordered to draft plans when he said Tuesday: "We know how to take care of (terrorism) on our own... Our competent units are making preparations and will continue to do so." Erdogan's spokesman, Akif Beki, refused to comment, but referred to a statement Monday by government spokesman Cemil Cicek. Cicek called on Iraqi and U.S. forces to take stronger action against the rebels and warned that if they did not, "Turkey is going to use its international rights until the very end." Officials reported no unusual military activity in the border regions. A Turkish push into northern Iraq could also threaten relations with European Union countries, which have been pressing Turkey to improve rights for minority Kurds. The Turkish Kurdish guerrillas are mostly based in the Qandil mountains, an area 50 miles from the Turkish border with Iran. From Iraq, the guerrillas infiltrate southeastern Turkey to stage attacks. Turkey has long had some 2,000 troops in northern Iraq near the border monitoring the area. But if Turkey sent in military units they would have to travel through territory controlled by Iraqi Kurds. "I don't think it is Turkey's desire to stage an intervention in northern Iraq," said Ilter Turan, professor of international relations at Istanbul Bilgi University. Turkey "is simply trying to draw attention to the fact that it is an untenable position." -------- prisoners of war Europe Decries U.S. on Guantanamo Situation July 18, 2006 Angus-Reid http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/12577 Adults in three European countries express dissatisfaction with the way the United States is operating the Guantanamo Bay detention centre, according to a poll by the Program on International Policy Attitudes. 85 per cent of Germans, 65 per cent of Britons, and 50 per cent of Poles believe the U.S. is not following international treaties. In India, 34 per cent of respondents believe the current U.S. policies for detaining people it has captured are not legal. In the United States, 52 per cent of respondents see no problem with the situation. In May 2005, a 308-page report by Amnesty International criticized the U.S. government for its handling of prisoners in several detention centres, including one at Guantanamo Bay where more than 400 "enemy combatants"—most of them from Afghanistan—are being held. Former presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton have urged the federal administration to close the prison. In June, three Guantanamo prisoners were found hanging from the ceilings inside their cells. U.S. officials described the situation as "the first successful suicides" after repeated attempts. In late June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the American government should not be allowed to use military tribunals to try any of the detainees currently held at Guantanamo. On Jul. 7, U.S. president George W. Bush commented on the Supreme Court’s decision, saying, "They were silent on whether or not we should have used Guantanamo. In other words, they accepted the use of Guantanamo, the decision I made. What they did say was, in terms of going forward, what should the court system look like? How can we use a military commission or tribunal? And we’ll work with the United States Congress." Polling Data Is it your impression that current U.S. policies for detaining people it has captured and is holding in Guantanamo Bay are or are not legal, according to international treaties on the treatment of detainees? USA BRI GER POL IND Are legal 52% 22% 8% 18% 28% Are not legal 38% 65% 85% 50% 34% No answer 9% 14% 7% 32% 38% Source: Program on International Policy Attitudes Methodology: Online interviews with 1,059 American adults, conducted from Jun. 27 to Jul. 2, 2006. Margin of error is 3.1 per cent. Telephone interviews with 1,004 British adults, conducted from Jun. 13 to Jun. 25, 2006. Margin of error is 3.2 per cent. Telephone interviews with 1,002 German adults, conducted from Jun. 6 to Jun. 25, 2006. Margin of error is 3.2 per cent. Face-to-face interviews with 1,639 Polish adults, conducted from Jun. 9 to Jun. 13, 2006. Margin of error is 3.2 per cent. Face-to-face interviews with 1,639 Indian adults, conducted from Jun. 19 to Jun. 25, 2006. Margin of error is 2.5 per cent. Complete Poll (PDF) http://www.angus-reid.com/admin/collateral/pdfs/polls/PIPA_World.pdf -------- POLITICS -------- investigations Gonzales: Bush blocked eavesdropping probe By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer Tue Jul 18, 2006 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060718/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/eavesdropping_gonzales WASHINGTON - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Tuesday that President Bush personally blocked Justice Department lawyers from pursuing an internal probe of the warrantless eavesdropping program that monitors Americans' international calls and e-mails when terrorism is suspected. The department's Office of Professional Responsibility announced earlier this year it could not pursue an investigation into the role of Justice lawyers in crafting the program, under which the National Security Agency intercepts some telephone calls and e-mail without court approval. At the time, the office said it could not obtain security clearance to examine the classified program. Under sharp questioning from Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter, Gonzales said that Bush would not grant the access needed to allow the probe to move forward. "It was highly classified, very important and many other lawyers had access. Why not OPR?" asked Specter, R-Pa. "The president of the United States makes the decision," Gonzales told the committee hearing, during which he was strongly criticized on a range of national security issues by Specter and Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record), the panel's senior Democrat. Last week, under a deal with Specter, Bush agreed conditionally to a court review of his antiterror eavesdropping operations. When the program was disclosed in December, it outraged Democrats and civil libertarians who said Bush overstepped his authority. Bush's 2001 directive authorized the National Security Agency to monitor — without court warrants — the international communications of people on U.S. soil when terrorism is suspected. The administration initially resisted efforts to write a new law, contending that no legal changes were needed. But after months of pressure, officials have grown more open to legislation. Under the deal with Specter, the president agreed to support a bill that could submit the program to the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for a constitutional review. Last week, Gonzales said the bill gives Bush the option of submitting the NSA program to the intelligence court, rather than requiring the review. -------- propaganda wars You Won’t Read It Here First: India Curtails Access to Blogs By SOMINI SENGUPTA, July 18, 2006 New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/19/world/asia/19india.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/fuj/nytimes93.htm NEW DELHI — As India’s financial capital, Mumbai, observed a moment of silence on Tuesday to commemorate the seven bombings of commuter trains seven days ago, a blistering silence blanketed the Indian blogosphere. For reasons yet to be articulated by the authorities, the government has directed local Internet service providers to block access to a handful of Web sites that are hosts to blogs, including the popular blogspot.com, according to government officials and some of the providers. The move has sown anger and confusion among Indian bloggers, who accuse the government of censorship and demand to know why their sites have been jammed. Nilanjana Roy, a Delhi-based writer who runs kitabkhana.blogspot.com, a literary blog, called it “a dangerous precedent.” “You have a right to know what is being banned, and why it’s being banned,” she said. “I can understand if it’s China or Iran or Saudi Arabia. I’m truly appalled when it’s my country doing this.” The ban, which has come into effect in recent days, means that people living in India are, in theory, kept from reading anything that appears on the blocked platforms, whether Indian blogs or otherwise. But the ban seems far from effective. Some Internet providers have blocked access. Others have not, and many more blog aficionados have figured out how to continue reading their favorite sites. One Web site offers help, by way of a free blog “gateway.” “Is your blog blocked in India, Pakistan, Iran or China?” it asks, and goes on to offer instructions for outwitting the restrictions. That site was prompted by the efforts of the Pakistan Telecom Authority to block blogspot.com in February, as a way to prevent the proliferation of Danish cartoons mocking the Prophet Muhammad. On Thursday, a technician at a Bangalore-based service center of one Internet provider said the government had ordered the block of blogspot.com “due to security reasons.” Another service provider in Delhi said the government, without explanation, had directed his company to block access to fewer than a dozen sites; he could offer no details on the nature of those sites. Officials at the Ministry of Communications did not return repeated calls. Gulshan Rai, an official at the ministry’s department of information and technology, said he was aware of “two pages” that had been blocked for spreading what he called anti-national sentiments, but did not provide details. The secretary for telecommunications, D. S. Mathur, the highest-ranking civil servant in the sector, hung up the phone when reached at home. The tempest is a testament to growing government anxiety about how to control this mushrooming medium. Like blogs anywhere, Indian blogs serve as forums to pontificate on national passions: books, movies, politics, cricket. There are blogs devoted to everyday self-indulgence: One blogger, a self-described amateur photographer, writes of jogging in the monsoon, while another recalls what she wore to a cocktail party. And there are blogs that strive to be public service tools, including one that within hours of the Mumbai train bombings began listing phone numbers of hospitals where victims were taken. Called mumbaihelp.blogspot.com, it is now blocked. Last Tuesday’s attacks in Mumbai killed 182 people and injured more than 700. Frenetic Mumbai observed a short silence Tuesday in memory of the victims. It is impossible to know how many Indian blogs are affected. One blogger, Mitesh Vasa, from Vienna, Va., has documented “40,128 Indian bloggers who mention India as their country.” That does not include those who do not name which country they are based in, nor others who identify their country of origin, as Peter Griffin does from Mumbai, as “utopia.” Mr. Griffin, who helped set up the mumbaihelp site, said he woke up Tuesday morning to a furious litany of 300 e-mail messages, mostly from bloggers enraged by the blockade. Among the speculation offered was that certain blogs could be used by terrorists to coordinate operations. “Even if that were true, it doesn’t make sense,” Mr. Griffin argued. Anyone with a domain name, he said, could effectively do the same thing on an ordinary Web site.