NucNews July 20, 2006 -------- NUCLEAR -------- australia Howard wants nuclear waste dump in Australia, Opposition says Thursday July 20, 2006 Australian Broadcasting Corporation http://au.news.yahoo.com/060719/21/zuat.html The Federal Opposition says Prime Minister John Howard's real agenda concerning nuclear power is to turn Australia into "the world's nuclear waste dump". The claim was made in a speech to an ALP think tank last night in Sydney. Federal Labor's environment spokesman Anthony Albanese says that while the Prime Minister wants a domestic nuclear industry, his immediate plan lies in uranium enrichment, and what he described as nuclear "leasing". He says this means Australia would provided enriched uranium to other countries for use in nuclear power, with the high level waste then being returned. "Under this plan, Australia would be the quarry and the dump," he said. "It would mine and enrich uranium and become the world's nuclear waste dump." While a Federal Government inquiry is currently considering uranium enrichment, Mr Albanese says Mr Howard has given clear signals he wants Australia to embark on such a path. -------- britain UK Wyfla nuclear plant to shut 2010, smelter threat Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:11 AM ET (Reuters) http://today.reuters.com/stocks/QuoteCompanyNewsArticle.aspx?view=CN&storyID=2006-07-20T151039Z_01_L20798371_RTRIDST_0_ENERGY-BRITAIN-NUCLEAR-UPDATE-1.XML&rpc=66 LONDON, July 20- Britain's Wylfa nuclear power plant, the chief electricity supplier to the UK's second largest aluminium smelter, will shut in 2010 after the decomissioning authority confirmed on Thursday it will not extend its life. Britain gets about a fifth of its power from nuclear but is committed to closing all but one of its fleet of ageing nuclear power plants over the next 20 years. Decommissioning and cleaning up costs for existing civil nuclear plants are running at about 70 billion pounds ($130.8 billion), the UK Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) said in a statement. Last week's government-comissioned Energy Review came out in favor of building a new generation of nuclear generators, arguing that nuclear power had an important role to play in reducing carbon dioxide emissions and ensuring energy supply. But the fate of Wylfa, on the island of Anglesey off Wales, was sealed after the NDA concluded an extension would be "extremely difficult to achieve as well as being uneconomic." The Nuclear Installations Inspectorate in May granted formal consent to decommission the 430-MW Sizewell A station in eastern England once it stops generating at the end of this year. The plant started up in 1966. The 438-MW Dungeness A reactor in Kent is awaiting formal decomissioning consent from the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate. It too is due to shut at the end of this year. Sizewell B, which is Britain's newest nuclear power plant, is not due to be closed until 2035. SELLAFIELD The 135,000 tonnes a year capacity Anglesey Aluminium Ltd smelter at Holyhead, jointly owned by Rio Tinto , and U.S. Kaiser Aluminium Corp. , gets most of its power from Wyfla. The NDA is therefore aiming to operate Wylfa until December 2010, nine months later than previously planned. The NDA looked at operations at the Springfields nuclear fuel manufacturing plant, at the Sellafield fuel reprocessing facilities and at Wyfla itself with a view to giving the plant a temporary reprieve. But the costs involved in upgrading Wyfla's safety alone could run to as much as 100 million pounds ($184.3 million), the authority said. The NDA also found there were "significant difficulties" in materials sourcing, supply of parts, and availability of plant and people to manufacture the Magnox fuel at Springfields that Wylfa would need to keep on running beyond 2010. At Sellafield further costs would be incurred from maintaining the Magnox reprocessing plant beyond 2010. Extending the reprocessing schedule would mean altering the programme for reprocessing and general decommissioning at Sellafield, the NDA concluded. The UK Secretary of State for Trade and Industry Alistair Darling has agreed with the NDA's conclusion that there was "no realistic case" to be made for an extension beyond 2010. ---- MPs will vote on whether to renew nuclear deterrent Thu Jul 20, 2006 LONDON (AFP) http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060720/wl_uk_afp/britainpoliticsdefense_060720133644 Members of the House of Commons will be given a vote on whether Britain should renew its nuclear deterrent force, a cabinet minister has said. Prime Minister Tony Blair paved the way "two weeks ago when he did point out that we were the first government to give the house a vote over decisions to go to war," House leader Jack Straw said. "Of course we should involve the house fully in a decision as important as the renewal of our nuclear deterrent," Straw said. "And in practical terms it is inevitable that there will therefore be a chance for the house to express its view on this important matter in a vote," Straw added. Straw did not say whether members of parliament from the governing Labour Party would be given a free vote on replacing the Trident nuclear missile system. Britain's current nuclear deterrent was set up in the 1980s by then prime minister Margaret Thatcher, when the Soviet Union -- not global terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda -- was seen as the primary threat. It is based on four Royal Navy submarines fitted with US-built Trident missiles which are due to become obsolete in the 2020s. One of the submarines is always on patrol, but the missiles are no longer pre-targeted. Replacing the deterrent is likely to cost anywhere from 10 billion to 25 billion pounds (14.6 billion to 36.4 billion euros, 18.6 billion to 46.1 billion dollars), observers say. -------- canada Ontario Nuclear Strategy Inadequate, Bruce Says (Update1) July 20, 2006 (Bloomberg) http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=aPalUfDedNIQ The Ontario government's plan to build two new nuclear reactors in the next 10 years is inadequate and won't solve the province's looming energy shortage, said the chief executive of Bruce Power LP, Canada's biggest privately owned nuclear plant operator. ``The government's proposal for 1,000 megawatts of new nuclear makes no sense to me,'' Duncan Hawthorne told an RBC Capital Markets conference on nuclear power in Toronto today. ``It's not nearly enough.'' Ontario plans to build two new reactors and refurbish six others as part of a C$46 billion ($40.6 billion) plan to avert energy shortages over the next two decades, Ontario Energy Minister Dwight Duncan said last month. That won't be enough to offset the shutdowns slated to start in 2014 at Bruce Power's B complex and Ontario Power Generation Inc.'s Darlington plant, Hawthorne said. ``Bruce B and Darlington will need refurbishment at the same time,'' Hawthorne said. ``New building has to smooth that out. That's why the 1,000 megawatts makes no sense.'' Ontario may face energy shortages in the next 20 years as demand begins to exceed supply in 2014, the energy ministry said. The Ontario Power Authority estimates the province will be 10,000 megawatts short by 2025. The province is also delaying the planned closure of four coal plants. Duncan based his decision for new construction on calculations made by the Ontario Power Authority, the government-appointed body that oversees planning of the power system, Duncan's spokesman Steve Erwin said. ``It's no surprise that someone in the business of nuclear power would advocate for more nuclear power,'' Erwin said. Plant Output Darlington's four units east of Toronto can generate 3,254 megawatts of electricity, enough to power about 3.2 million average homes. Bruce Power, a partnership of Cameco Corp., TransCanada Corp. and the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System, operates four units at its Bruce B complex, capable of generating 3,208 megawatts. Bruce Power, which is rebuilding two reactors at a cost of C$4.25 billion at the Bruce A complex, is interested in building new plants at the site, Hawthorne said in an interview. ``Bruce meets all the criteria'' set out by the government, he said, including operating in a community willing to host nuclear power plants and building the units for a fixed price with performance guarantees. The site doesn't have enough transmission lines to carry the additional power though, Hawthorne said. The company could start construction on new units, using existing staff, because environmental approvals take about three years. That's about when the reconstruction of the Bruce A reactors will be finished, he said. Construction of a new plant will probably take another five years, he said. Construction Ontario Power Generation, the government-run utility that produces about 70 percent of electricity in Ontario, also wants to build the new plants, Pat McNeil, a senior vice president, told the conference. The Darlington site has room to expand and is already hooked up to a transmission system that could carry the additional electricity, McNeil said. The government must decide soon, Hawthorne said. ``If we lose Bruce B and Darlington for 18 months to two years, we have to start now,'' he said. -------- depleted uranium ISRAEL AND HIZBULLAH MUST SPARE CIVILIANS Obligations under international humanitarian law of the parties to the conflict in Israel and Lebanon July 20, 2006 Amnesty International http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/document.do?id=ENGMDE150702006 Introduction The armed conflict between Israel and Hizbullah continues to be characterized by killing of civilians, mass forced displacement and attacks on civilian infrastructure. The evidence so far, including the pattern of attacks, the extent of civilian casualties and statements by the parties indicates that serious violations of the laws of war have been committed and continue to be committed by both sides in the conflict. Both sides must comply with fundamental tenets of international humanitarian law, including the principles of proportionality, distinction and civilian immunity. They must also comply with international criminal law. The following paper is a summary of the relevant rules of international humanitarian law and international criminal law with which the warring parties are legally bound to comply. It is a framework for examining accountability for violations of international humanitarian law, including individual criminal responsibility for war crimes and the responsibility of states and individuals to provide full reparations to the victims and their families, including restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition. Israel and Lebanon also have obligations under applicable international human rights law. These obligations are not analysed here. This paper does not examine the legality or legitimacy of the resort to force itself by either party under international law (i.e. jus ad bellum). The paper contains a number of important recommendations designed to end the killing of civilians by both sides and to bring to justice those responsible. International humanitarian law and war crimes International humanitarian law is the body of rules and principles which seek to protect those who are not participating in the hostilities, including civilians but also combatants who are wounded or captured. It limits the means and methods of conducting military operations. Its central purpose is to limit, to the extent feasible, human suffering in times of armed conflict. The four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their two Additional Protocols of 1977 are the principal instruments of international humanitarian law. Israel and Lebanon are parties to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, but neither is a party to the Protocol I relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I – adopted in 1977.) Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and of Protocol I are war crimes. As an armed group, Hizbullah is not a party to international conventions. But it is a party to the conflict and it and its members are bound by applicable customary international humanitarian law. The fundamental provisions of Protocol I, including the rules cited below (unless otherwise noted) are considered part of customary international law and are therefore binding on all parties to the conflict. The rules of customary international humanitarian law are largely reflected in Article 8 of the Rome Statute. For example, the US delegate to the UN Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court expressly stated in June 2000 that the adoption of the Elements of Crimes further defining Article 8 "was an historic accomplishment that cannot be overstated" and that the USA was "happy to join consensus in agreeing that this elements of crimes document correctly reflects international law". Amnesty International’s demands: All parties to the conflict must issue clear instructions to their forces: * prohibiting any direct attacks against civilians or civilian objects, including in reprisal; * prohibiting attacks which do not attempt to distinguish between military targets and civilians or civilian objects (indiscriminate attacks); * prohibiting attacks which, although aimed at a legitimate military target, have a disproportionate impact on civilians or civilian objects; * prohibiting attacks using inherently indiscriminate weapons; * requiring that they ensure humanitarian access for civilians in need; * to treat humanely all prisoners, the wounded and those seeking to surrender – prisoners must never be killed or held as hostages * to take all other necessary measures to protect the civilian population from the dangers arising from military operations, including not locating military objectives among civilian concentrations; * to punish all breaches of the laws of war by ensuring those responsible are brought to justice and to ensure reparations are provided to victims of violations. All other High Contracting Parties of the Geneva Conventions should take action to "ensure respect" for international humanitarian law, in accordance with common Article 1 of the Conventions. 1.0 No direct attacks on civilians Article 48 of Protocol I sets out the ''basic rule'' regarding the protection of civilians (often referred to as the principle of distinction) in the context of international armed conflict, but the rule is the same for non-international armed conflict: ''In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives.'' No states, and very few armed political groups, admit to deliberately targeting civilians. Direct attacks on civilians are often justified by denying that the victims are actually civilians. Civilian immunity is also undermined by the manner in which definitions of military objectives/civilian objects are interpreted by attacking forces. In practice, of course, civilians are targeted in most conflicts. In addition, unfortunately, the current conflict between Israel and Lebanon is one in which civilians are overwhelmingly the victims of the hostilities. Israeli officials have denied deliberately targeting civilians, but they have launched attacks on civilian objects, including essential infrastructure, without adequate explanation of why the objects they have attacked could be making an effective contribution to military action. Hizbullah leader Sheikh Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah suggested that rocket attacks against civilian population centres were justified by illegal Israeli actions: "When the Zionists behave like there are no rules and no red lines and no limits to the confrontation, it is our right to behave in the same way." According to the Rome Statute, intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking a direct part in hostilities is a war crime. (Article 8 (2) (b) (i)) The states negotiating the Rome Statute did so on the basis that the list of war crimes in the statute reflected customary international law. 2.0 Targeting – military versus civilian objects According to Protocol I, Article 52 (1): "Civilian objects are all objects which are not military objectives." Article 52 (2) defines military objectives as ''those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.'' Objects that do not meet these criteria are civilian objects. In cases where it is unclear whether a target is used for military purposes, ''it shall be presumed not to be so used'' (Article 52(3)). The authoritative Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 published by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC Commentary) interprets the expression "definite military advantage anticipated" by stating that "it is not legitimate to launch an attack which only offers potential or indeterminate advantages." Overbroad interpretations of military advantage are often used to justify attacks aimed at harming the economic well-being of the state or demoralizing the civilian population in order to weaken the ability to fight. Such interpretations that distort the legal meaning of military advantage undermine civilian immunity and other fundamental principles of international humanitarian law, posing a severe threat to civilians. As the commentary on the German Military Manual explains: "If weakening the enemy population’s resolve to fight were considered a legitimate objective of armed forces, there would be no limit to war." Israel has deliberately and extensively targeted public civilian infrastructure, including power plants, bridges, main roads, and Beirut’s airport. Such objects are presumed to be civilian. Even if it could be argued that some of these objects qualify as military objectives (because they serve a dual purpose), Israel is obligated to ensure that attacking these objects would not violate the principle of proportionality. For example, a road that can be used for military transport is still primarily civilian in nature. The military advantage anticipated from destroying the road, must be measured against the likely effect on civilians who are trying to flee the conflict. The fact is that the destruction of infrastructure is having devastating consequences for the civilian population indicates that the bombing campaign is disproportionate. It also raises the strong possibility that Israel may have violated the prohibition against targeting objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population. Israel has attacked the offices of Al-Manar, Hizbullah’s television station, and the transmitters of several other Lebanese television stations. This is another example of a dangerous distortion of the meaning of military advantage. The fact that Al-Manar television broadcasts propaganda in support of Hizbullah’s attacks against Israel does not render it a legitimate military objective. Only if the television station were being used to transmit orders to Hizbullah fighters or for other clearly military purposes could it be considered to be making "an effective contribution to military action". Even then, Israel would need to take required precautions in attacking it and choose the manner least harmful to civilians. Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects is a war crime (ICC Statute, Article 8 (2) (b) (ii)). 3.0 No indiscriminate or disproportionate attacks Article 51(4) of Protocol 1 prohibits indiscriminate attacks, including: "those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective" and "those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol". Consequently, in each case, indiscriminate attacks "are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction." Article 51(5) defines a further type of indiscriminate attack: "an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated." Disproportionate attacks, as well as indiscriminate attacks generally, occur when armed forces disregard the principle of distinction and attack a military target without regard to the likely consequences for civilians. They might use weapons which are not capable of hitting a military target with precision -- either by their nature or as a result of the circumstances in which they are employed. Or their tactics or method of attack might show a disregard for civilian lives. As of 25 July more than 300 civilians have been killed in Lebanon and thousands have been injured. According to the Save the Children, 45% of those killed have been children. Israel claims that it has been launching surgical strikes against military targets using precision weapons. The death and injury toll and the massive damage to civilian objects indicate that some attacks may have been indiscriminate or disproportionate. Hizbullah’s attacks on Israeli towns and cities have killed at least 17 civilians and injured scores of civilians. It is unclear whether any of Hizbullah’s rocket and missile strikes have been aimed at military targets. If they were, they would be indiscriminate attacks, given the nature of the weapons used. Intentionally launching a disproportionate attack is a war crime (ICC Statute, Article 8 (2) (b) (iv)). Launching an indiscriminate attack resulting in loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects is a war crime (ICRC, Customary International Humanitarian Law, Vol. I: rules; Rule 156, p589). 4.0 Precautions in attack Under Protocol I, ''In the conduct of military operations, constant care shall be taken to spare the civilian population, civilians and civilian objects.'' (Article 57). Where it is unclear whether a target is used for military purposes, ''it shall be presumed not to be so used'' (Article 52(3)). Article 57 (2) specifies precautionary measures required: ''With respect to attacks, the following precautions shall be taken: (a) those who plan or decide upon an attack shall: (i) do everything feasible to verify that the objectives to be attacked are neither civilians nor civilian objects and are not subject to special protection but are military objectives within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 52 and that it is not prohibited by the provisions of this Protocol to attack them; (ii) take all feasible precautions in the choice of means and methods of attack with a view to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects; (iii) refrain from deciding to launch any attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated; (b) an attack shall be cancelled or suspended if it becomes apparent that the objective is not a military one or is subject to special protection or that the attack may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated; (c) effective advance warning shall be given of attacks which may affect the civilian population, unless circumstances do not permit.'' Israel has attacked sites that it claims were used to fire rockets into Israel, resulting reportedly in the deaths of many civilians. Even if Israel verifies that rockets have emanated from a particular location, it needs to take necessary precautions before attacking. This includes determining whether the objective remains military in character (if a rocket has been fired from the roof a civilian house and then the rocket launcher and combatants leave, it cannot be considered a military objective), ascertaining whether civilians are in the vicinity and ensuring that if they proceed with the attack it will not be disproportionate. Since Israel will have quickly perceived a pattern of Hizbullah fighters removing rocket launchers after firing them, this would suggest that its forces would anticipate little or no military advantage from pursuing this strategy of attack, which is needlessly risking civilians and civilian objects. Reports that Israel has warned all civilians living south of the Litani River to leave suggest it is distorting the concept of effective warning. If anything, such warning to over 400,000 people seems to result in spreading panic among the civilian population, rather than enhancing their safety. Some may simply not be able to leave. There were reports of Israel giving more specific warning earlier in the conflict. But in several of these instances Israeli forces then attacked the very civilians who had been warned, while they were fleeing. Its bombing of roads and bridges has also made it extremely difficult for civilians in south Lebanon to flee north following warnings from Israel. In any case, even when warning is given, this does not relieve Israel from taking other required precautions to ensure its attack respects IHL. There cannot be any "free-fire" zone. 5.0 Humanitarian access and prohibition of starvation The use of starvation of the civilian population as a method of warfare is prohibited. Attacking , destroying, removing or rendering useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population is prohibited (Protocol I, Article 54 (1,2). The parties to the conflict must allow and facilitate rapid and unimpeded passage of impartial humanitarian relief (Protocol I, Article 70). They must respect and protect medical personnel and their means of transport (Protocol I, Articles 15 and 21). Israel is imposing a naval and air blockade of Lebanon. It has attacked Beirut’s airport and bombarded the main road out of the country to Syria and dozens of other roads. The humanitarian situation for civilians remaining in the south is worsening by the day, including in the southern port city of Tyre, which is also having to cope with a large influx of internally displaced from villages in the south of the country. The destruction by Israel of electricity power plants and other infrastructure has left hospitals, clinics and other medical facilities without the necessary resources and supplies at a time when they have to cope with a massive increase in casualties. Ambulances and rescue crews have reportedly been attacked by Israeli forces as they have tried to reach victims of the bombing. While blockades are not prohibited per se, they must strictly comply with the right of the civilian population in need to receive humanitarian relief, as set out in the Fourth Geneva Convention and Protocol I. Israel reportedly agreed on 22 July to allow humanitarian supplies through the naval blockade. But this will not address the plight of civilians trapped in isolated towns and villages where the fighting has been most intense. Using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including by wilfully impeding relief supplies, is a war crime. (ICC Statute, Article 8 (2) (b) (xxv)). Intentionally directing attacks against humanitarian personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles is a war crime. (ICC Statute, Article 8 (2) (b) (iii)). Making medical or religious personnel, medical units or medical transports the object of attack is a war crime (Article 8 (2) (b) (ix and xxiv)). 6.0 Rights of the displaced The displacement of the civilian population is prohibited unless the security of civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand. Parties to a conflict must prevent displacement caused by their own acts, when those acts are prohibited in themselves. According to the UN at least 500,000 Lebanese have already been internally displaced by the conflict. More than 150,000 have crossed the border into Syria. Israel has been dropping leaflets warning all civilians in southern Lebanon to evacuate the areas south of the Litani River. Tens of thousands of Israeli civilians have fled northern Israel for fear of further rocket and missile attacks by Hizbullah. To the extent that much of the displacement in Lebanon and Israel has been caused by indiscriminate attacks or other unlawful attacks, the displacement itself is also unlawful. 7.0 "Human Shields" Warring parties also have obligations to take all feasible precautions to protect civilians and civilian objects under their control against the effects of attacks by the adversary. Protocol I requires each party to avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas (Article 58 (b).) This rule is reflected in the Israel-Lebanon Ceasefire Understanding of 1996. Protocol I also expressly prohibits the use of tactics such as using "human shields" to prevent an attack on military targets. Article 51 (7) states: "The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations." However, the Protocol also makes it clear that even if one side is shielding itself behind civilians, such a violation of international law "…shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians." Furthermore, Article 50(3) of Protocol I states that: "The presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character." Hizbullah reportedly have been launching rockets and missiles from residential areas, thereby endangering civilians in the vicinity. Their fighters are also said to be sheltering among civilians in villages and cities, and Israeli officials claim that Hizbullah are storing weapons in civilian homes. Utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations is a war crime. (ICC Statute, Article 8 (2) (b) (xxiii)). 8.0 No use of indiscriminate weapons Article 51 (4) Protocol I prohibits indiscriminate attacks, including "those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective" and "those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol" (emphasis added). Consequently, in each case, the attacks "are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction." The ICRC Commentary to the Protocols mentions "long-range missiles which cannot be aimed exactly at the objective" as examples of weapons which cannot be directed at specific targets and refers to bacteriological weapons and to the poisoning of sources of drinking water as obvious cases of weapons which "by their very nature have an indiscriminate effect." Indiscriminate effects can derive from factors such as the design of the weapon, the intention and professionalism of those using it, and the circumstances in operation at the time of the attack (weather, visibility, reliability of intelligence, etc). An indiscriminate weapon can therefore be defined as a weapon deemed to have indiscriminate effects either because of inherent characteristics or because of the way it tends to be used, or both. Where evidence shows that a weapon has a high potential for indiscriminate effects, for whatever reason or combination of reasons, then banning the weapon might be the most effective way to prevent such indiscriminate effects. Hizbullah’s use of Katyusha rockets and longer-range missiles against Israeli cities and towns violates the prohibition on indiscriminate attack, even when they appear to have been directed at legitimate targets, such as military bases. This is due to the inherent inaccuracy of these weapons at long distances. 8.1 Anti-personnel landmines AI opposes the use, manufacture, stockpiling and transfer of anti-personnel landmines because of their inherently indiscriminate nature. The Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction (‘Ottawa Mine Ban Treaty’) has been signed by 150 countries. It came into force on 1 March 1999. Neither Israel nor Lebanon is a party to the treaty. According to the Landmine Monitor, mines and other ordnance were used extensively in Lebanon from 1975 to 2000, including by Israel and Hizbullah, leaving behind a legacy of anti-personnel and anti-vehicle mines, with the heaviest concentration of mined areas in the south, in territory formerly occupied by Israeli forces. An estimated 75 percent of the more than 400,000 suspected landmines still in the ground are in the immediate area of the "blue line," the UN–defined border between Israel and Lebanon, affecting more than 90,000 inhabitants. The remaining 100,000 mines are littered throughout the remainder of the country. In June 2005, Lebanon stated that 3,975 landmine casualties (1,835 killed and 2,140 injured) had been identified since 1970. 8.2 Cluster weapons Cluster bombs or shells scatter scores of bomblets, or submunitions, over a wide area, typically the size of one or two football fields. These can be dropped by aircraft, or fired by artillery or rocket launchers. Depending on which type of submunition is used, between about five and twenty per cent or more cluster bomblets fail to explode. They are then left behind as explosive remnants of war, posing a threat to civilians similar to anti-personnel landmines. AI is calling for a moratorium on the use of cluster weapons. These bombs present a high risk of violating the prohibition of indiscriminate attack, because of the wide area covered by the numerous bomblets released and the danger posed to all those, including civilians, who come into contact with the unexploded bomblets. Human Rights Watch (HRW) has reported that Israeli forces fired artillery cluster shells on the Lebanese village of Blida on 19 July, killing one and wounding 12 civilians. According to HRW, the type of cluster munition likely to have been used in this attack is the M483A1 Dual Purpose Improved Conventional Munitions, which are U.S.-produced and -supplied, artillery-delivered cluster munitions. The M483A1 artillery shells deliver 88 cluster submunitions per shell, and have failure rate (dud rate) of 14 percent. Israel also used cluster munitions in Lebanon during the 1970s and 1980s. 8.3 Depleted Uranium Weapons Depleted uranium is a chemically toxic and radioactive heavy metal used particularly in armour-piercing ammunition. DU weapons are denser than conventional arms, meaning they can penetrate heavy armour more easily. They burn up on impact, creating a radioactive dust, the effect of which remains the subject of safety debates. Like other heavy metals, DU is toxic and constitutes a health risk independent of any residual radioactivity. AI is calling on governments to consider refraining from the transfer and use of depleted uranium (DU) weapons. There is much controversy over their long-term effects. Some studies suggest that DU dust, which remains in the vicinity of targets struck by DU weapons, poses a significant health risk if inhaled or ingested. AI calls for a moratorium on their use pending authoritative conclusions on their long-term effects on human health and the environment. According to media reports, the USA is transferring GBU 28 bunker-buster bombs containing depleted-uranium warheads to Israel for use against targets in Lebanon. 8.4 Other weapons In addition to the prohibition on the use of inherently indiscriminate weapons, IHL prohibits weapons that cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering (e.g. blinding laser weapons). The use of other weapons is governed by the fundamental principles of IHL. They should not be used to target civilians and should not be used in indiscriminate or disproportionate attacks. There are reports that Israel has used incendiary weapons, such as white phosphorous shells, in attacks in Lebanon. Protocol III on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons (a Protocol additional to the 1980 UN Convention on the Prohibition or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons) prohibits the use of such weapons against civilians. And it prohibits making any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by incendiary weapons. According to the ICRC, it is unclear whether this latter rule is customary law. Israel is not a party to Protocol III on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons. There are also reports that Israel has used vacuum bombs in this conflict. These are a type of thermobaric weapon, also called fuel air explosives. This type of weapon introduces an aerosol cloud of volatile gases in the target area, which is then ignited to create a fireball that sucks air out of the atmosphere and produces lethal effects, such as severe burns and lung collapse, to individuals in the target area. Like all weapons of modern warfare they pose a danger to civilians and could be used in indiscriminate or other unlawful attacks. Their great destructive potential raises concerns that they are more likely to result in indiscriminate killing. An example of the horrific toll on civilians of such weapons came in 1982, during the Israeli army’s siege of Beirut. The Israeli air force dropped a vacuum bomb on an apartment block in which they believed PLO leader Yasser Arafat was hiding. Around 200 people were reported to have been killed in that attack. Arafat is said to have left the building moments before the attack. 9.0 Prisoners of War The Geneva Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (POWs) defines who is eligible for POW status and gives detailed provisions on the treatment that should be afforded to POWs. According to Article 4 of GCIII, Prisoners of War include "persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy: (1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces. (2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. (3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power… Article 5 requires that: "Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal." With regard to treatment of POWs, Article 13 of Geneva III states that "prisoners of war must at all times be treated humanely." And according to Article 14, "Prisoners of war are entitled in all circumstances to respect for their persons and their honour." No prisoner of war may at any time be sent to or detained in an area where he may be exposed to the fire of the combat zone, nor may his presence be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations. [Geneva III, 22, 23] Hizbullah captured two Israeli soldiers on 12 July. Israel reportedly has captured several Hizbullah fighters in recent days. Neither Israel nor Hizbullah have in the past treated as POWs each other’s captured combatants. Amnesty International believes that Israel and Hizbullah should treat enemy combatants they have captured as POWs. Accordingly, they should be treated humanely. They must never be held as hostages. And they should be granted access to the ICRC without delay. Torture or inhuman treatment is a war crime (ICC Statute, Article 8 (2) (a) (ii)). Taking of hostages is a war crime (ICC Statute, Article 8 (2) (a) (viii)). Killing or wounding a combatant who has surrendered is or is otherwise hors de combat is a war crime (Article 8 (2) (b) (vi)). 10.0 No impunity Article 86 of Protocol I requires that ''Parties to the conflict shall repress grave breaches, and take measures necessary to suppress all other breaches, of the [1949 Geneva] Conventions or of this Protocol which result from a failure to act when under a duty to do so.'' Article 91 makes clear that each party to the conflict ''shall be responsible for all acts committed by persons forming part of its armed forces''. Accordingly, a ''Party to the conflict which violates the provisions of the Conventions or of this Protocol shall, if the case demands, be liable to pay compensation.'' Individuals, whether civilians or military, regardless of rank, can be held criminally responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law. Commanders can be held responsible for the acts of their subordinates. In the words of Article 86(2): ''The fact that a breach of the Conventions or of this Protocol was committed by a subordinate does not absolve his superiors from penal disciplinary responsibility, as the case may be, if they knew, or had information which should have enabled them to conclude in the circumstances at the time, that he was committing or was going to commit such a breach and if they did not take all feasible measures within their power to prevent or repress the breach.'' Superior orders cannot be invoked as a defence for violations of international humanitarian law although they may be taken into account in mitigation of punishment. This principle has been recognized since the Nuremberg trials which followed World War II and is now part of international customary law. There are several possible mechanisms for investigating and suppressing violations of international humanitarian law committed during the course of the conflict between Israel and Hizbullah: By the parties Each party to the conflict must bring to justice any of their nationals suspected of being responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law during military operations. If investigations into possible violations lead to prosecution of suspected perpetrators, AI calls for proceedings to be conducted in accordance with international standards for fair trial and without the possibility of the death penalty. States whose forces have committed violations must ensure that victims receive adequate redress, including compensation, through a mechanism set up for this purpose. By other states Other states should exercise their obligations to conduct criminal investigations of anyone suspected of grave breaches of international humanitarian law during the conflict. If there is sufficient admissible evidence and the suspect is within their jurisdiction, such states should prosecute or extradite the suspect to another state willing and able to hold a fair trial without the possibility of the death penalty. In addition to being obliged to exercise universal jurisdiction for grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and Protocol I, states are permitted to exercise universal jurisdiction for other serious violations of international humanitarian law. If, following an investigation, there is sufficient admissible evidence and the suspect is within their jurisdiction, states should prosecute, in a fair trial, or extradite the suspect to another state willing and able to hold a fair trial. By the International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission All parties to the conflict should commit themselves to seek the services of the International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission (IHFFC), established under Article 90 of Protocol I, to investigate incidents where serious violations of the Geneva Conventions and the Protocol are alleged to have taken place. Scrutiny by the IHFFC will be essential to ensure that the facts are independently and authoritatively established and appropriate follow-up action recommended. It can also act as a deterrent against further abuses by the parties to the conflict. The IHFFC may decide, if appropriate, to ask the UN Security Council to refer the situation in Israel and Lebanon to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court. In order to avail themselves of the services of the Commission, states should ratify Protocol I and make a declaration under Article 90(2)(a) which provides that states parties to the Protocol "may at the time of signing, ratifying or acceding to the Protocol, or at any other subsequent time, declare that they recognize ipso facto and without special agreement, in relation to any other High Contracting Party accepting the same obligation, the competence of the Commission to enquire into allegations by such other Party, as authorized by this Article." States which have not ratified Protocol I, such as Israel and Lebanon, may nevertheless declare their readiness to use the Commission, as provided for under Article 90(2) (d) which explains that "In other situations, the Commission shall institute an enquiry at the request of a Party to the conflict only with the consent of the other Party or Parties concerned". The IHFFC is composed of "fifteen members of high moral standing and acknowledged impartiality", including legal and military experts, judges and medical doctors drawn from all regions of the world. The Swiss Government, in its capacity as the depository of the Geneva Conventions and Protocols, acts as the secretariat for the Commission. By the International Criminal Court Neither Israel nor Lebanon has ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The situation in Israel and Lebanon would not come under ICC jurisdiction unless it was specifically referred to the court by the UN Security Council, in accordance with Article 13 (b) of the Rome Statute. Israel and Lebanon could recognize the Court’s jurisdiction by making a declaration under Article 12 (3) of the Rome Statute. -------- japan Jellyfish bung up output at Japan nuclear plant Thu Jul 20, 2006 TOKYO (Reuters) http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060720/od_uk_nm/oukoe_uk_japan_jellyfish_1 A mass of jellyfish forced a Japanese nuclear power plant to slow part of its output this week after the slimy creatures blocked up the plant's seawater cooling system. "It's the first time we have had to lower power output because of jellyfish," a Chubu Electric Power Co. spokesman said. The water intake at Chubu Electric's Hamaoka power plant in Shizuoka prefecture, about 150 km (90 miles) southwest of Tokyo, stopped automatically on Wednesday when the slippery customers got blocked in a filtering device. Without enough seawater coming in to the cooling system, Chubu Electric had to lower the output of two of the reactors at the plant to 60-70 percent of capacity. Output returned to normal by the evening after the company removed the jellyfish, the spokesman said. "We sometimes do the same thing when debris from typhoons sticks to the filter," he said. No radioactive material leaked out due to the incident, he added. Japan's fishing communities have been plagued by schools of giant jellyfish in recent years, prompting local governments to seek new ways to dispose of the problem. -------- latinamerica Peru, Russia sign nuclear co-op agreement 2006-07-20 (Xinhua) http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-07/20/content_4859387.htm LIMA, July 19 -- Peru and Russia have signed an agreement to develop nuclear technology in the field of energy cooperation, Peru's Foreign Minister Oscar Maurtua said on Wednesday. This agreement will contribute to Peru's socio-economic development via energy resources that have a smaller impact on the environment, Maurtua said at a ceremony where he signed the agreement with Serguey Kirienko, the head of Russia's Federal Atomic Energy Agency. He added that the agreement complies with the guidelines of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and avoids violation of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. The agreement includes joint nuclear research projects, an expert exchange program and a technician training program. Russia has signed similar agreements with the United States, Britain, Germany, France, Italy, Canada, South Korea, Brazil, Argentina, Chile and Cuba. Enditem -------- missile defense Vandenberg launches unarmed missile Posted 7/20/2006 (AP) http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-07-20-vandenburg_x.htm VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. — The Air Force successfully launched an unarmed intercontinental ballistic missile early Thursday. The Minuteman III dummy warheads were fired at 3:14 a.m. and traveled about 4,200 miles before hitting a water target in the Marshall Islands. The launch was delayed by a day because of a power outage at a radar facility that handles flights in and out of Southern California. The purpose is to test the defense system's reliability and accuracy. Earlier this month, North Korea shook up the world by firing several missiles into the Sea of Japan, including a failed long-range type believed to be capable of reaching the United States. The North Korean launch raised questions about the readiness of the U.S. missile defense system, which includes two interceptors housed in underground silos at Vandenberg in Central California and nine more at Alaska's Fort Greely. ---- U.S. successfully launches unarmed intercontinental missile in test July 20, 2006 5:45 AM (AP) http://www.newspress.com/Top/Article/article.jsp?Section=NATIONAL&ID=564773154422391869 VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. - The Air Force successfully launched an unarmed intercontinental ballistic missile early Thursday. The Minuteman III dummy warheads were fired at 3:14 a.m. and traveled about 4,200 miles before hitting a water target in the Marshall Islands. The launch was delayed by a day because of a power outage at a radar facility that handles flights in and out of Southern California. The purpose is to test the defense system's reliability and accuracy. Earlier this month, North Korea shook up the world by firing several missiles into the Sea of Japan, including a failed long-range missile. The North Korean launch raised questions about the readiness of the U.S. missile defense system, which includes interceptors housed in underground silos in California and Alaska. On the Net: Vandenberg Air Force Base: http://www.vandenberg.af.mil -------- russia Russia to join international nuclear group 20/ 07/ 2006 (RIA Novosti commentator Tatyana Sinitsyna) http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20060720/51606397.html MOSCOW. At first, no one was eager to invite Russia to join a global nuclear energy partnership initiated by the Americans and aimed to promote joint research in six key areas of nuclear energy. But now there seems to have been a change of heart. Washington has at last extended an invitation to Moscow to join the United States, the European Union and ten other member nations of the Generation IV International Forum. Perhaps it was the effect of the St. Petersburg G8 summit. There are, however, other explanations. First, the "tongue-in-cheek political games" that have been going on since the days of a bipolar world are still going on. No small role is also played by fears of the advantages enjoyed by a powerful rival, which Russia is. But all intrigues, ambitions and fears are pushed aside by the reality that physicists keep telling politicians about: "The end of nuclear energy is not far off." What will we do when the lights suddenly go out? Nuclear experts, of course, know how this scenario can be pushed back. The main solution was aptly described by Yevgeny Velikhov, full member of the Russian Academy of Sciences and president of the Kurchatov Institute Research Center: "Nuclear energy has no future unless it uses fast breeder reactors." His message is that without them, nuclear energy will be no more than a short episode in history whose only consequence will be the need to find ways of getting rid of all the nuclear materials produced by humankind. The fast reactor idea is not new: it has simply been on the shelf since the 1930s and has now been dusted off. Its author was the outstanding Hungarian physicist Leo Szilard, who knew the value of the idea and patented it after World War II in 1946. At the very beginning of the nuclear era, physicists already saw the most practicable road for the world's nuclear development. A fast neutron reactor can operate in a closed cycle and be self-sustaining in terms of fuel. This is very important, both for saving uranium resources and for disposing of radioactive waste, since its volume is drastically reduced. But as nuclear energy advanced, it emerged that water-moderated, water-cooled reactors were more economical and safer for mass construction; and they were given priority. As a result, all countries are now building and operating mainly water-based nuclear facilities. Russia, however, did not overlook Szilard's idea. First it designed and built a small reactor in Kazakhstan, and in 1980 the Beloyarskaya Nuclear Power Plant in the Urals launched Block No. 3 - the BN-600 sodium-cooled fast reactor - which is in service to this day. Russia has done the most with this technology. "We have no equals now, we are absolutely competitive," Sergei Kiriyenko, head of the Federal Agency for Nuclear Power, said recently. The Beloyarskaya Nuclear Power Plant is still the world's only commercial nuclear plant with a fast breeder reactor. Drawing on their unique and invaluable experience, Russian designers have developed a more high-powered and advanced reactor, the BN-800, which is being built next to its cousin at Beloyarskaya. Designers are also working on the BN-1800 reactor. Developing fast-reactor technology has been made a national project, but there are problems that are now in the spotlight of experts' attention. "For the time being the investment component and costs per kWh are higher with these reactors," said the academic supervisor of the TVEL Center for Technologies and Innovation, Mikhail Solonin, member of the Russian Academy of Sciences. "Since we are trying to produce competitive reactors, we should find a trade-off between two key factors: safety and economy. It is also necessary to master the recycling of nuclear material on a pilot scale." Economical and environmentally safe technologies, such as those used by fast reactors, are the goal of the Generation IV International Forum. Russia has accepted the invitation and agreed to join it as a member. All that remains is for it to sign the Charter, and it will have the right to take part in all political, systemic and project activities. A framework agreement, which has the status of an international treaty and defines the legal force and types of cooperation, will take one more year. The world, as it becomes increasingly more conscious of the global energy threat, is well aware that it is more worthwhile both materially and intellectually to concentrate its efforts on really vital issues. With a full nuclear cycle and unique experience under its belt, Russia can doubtless become a global partner. -------- u.s. nuc facilities -------- new york Tapping spiritual values to seek an agreement on Indian Point By LEN MANIACE lmaniace@lohud.com THE NY JOURNAL NEWS (Original publication: July 20, 2006) http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060720/NEWS02/607200354/1204 OSSINING — After decades of protest, politics and legal action, the debate over the Indian Point nuclear plants moves to a different stage tonight: the search for common ground. Representatives of the plants' owner, Entergy Nuclear Northeast, and a leading opponent of the plant, the Tarrytown-based environmental group Riverkeeper, meet not for a debate but at a forum sponsored by Garrison Institute, a nonprofit group based in a former monastery in Putnam County that seeks to bring religious and spiritual values to bear on today's social and environmental issues. "You often hear of religions inflaming problems, but religions also have the capacity to help solve problems," said the Rev. Patricia Ackerman, who is coordinating a series of programs on the environment and the Hudson River Valley. Helping to guide the program will be a leader in the practice of conflict resolution, Andrea Bartoli, a senior research scholar at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs. Members of the clergy will also participate. The group will include one member who supports nuclear power and one who opposes it. Based on interviews with the participants from Riverkeeper and Entergy yesterday and the groups' longstanding positions, the organizers of the 7 p.m. event at the Mariandale Retreat Center in Ossining will face a challenge. "Riverkeeper thinks this is the wrong plant in the wrong location," said Lisa Rainwater, the Riverkeeper's Indian Point campaign director. Her organization wants the plants closed because of safety issues, radioactive waste and vulnerability to terrorism. Entergy spokesman Jim Steets defended the safety of the plants, which began operating in 1974 and 1976, and are licensed to operate until 2013 and 2015, respectively. "Our opponents are adamant in their views, and they haven't conceded anything," Steets said. "I don't know if common ground is achievable." Both did say, however, that they were open toward exploring possible areas of agreement. Bartoli said common ground won't come out of the 90-minute program, but the event could mark a start toward that goal. "It is quite tense and confrontational, not conducive to an agreement," Bartoli said, referring to the relationship between Entergy and Riverkeeper. "But we could be in the beginning of a conversation." The participation of clergy in the event and a brief period of reflection after each speaker are used to establish a respectful and contemplative environment helpful to reaching agreement, Ackerman said. "We are not looking for a magic solution," Ackerman said. "We hope to develop an atmosphere of compassion and trust that can lead to deepening the conversation and identify shared values." -------- MILITARY -------- africa Ethiopia Threatens to Invade Somalia Thursday, July 20th, 2006 Headlines Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/20/1434244 In Africa, the Associated Press is reporting Ethiopia is threatening to invade Somalia if Islamic militias there seize more control of the country. The militias are on the verge of taking the city of Baidoa where the U.N.-backed interim government is based. -------- arms Pentagon OKs $6 bln in arms sales to Saudi Arabia Thu Jul 20, 2006 09:54 PM BST By Andrea Shalal-Esa (Reuters) http://go.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=1347414§ion=news&src=rss/uk/worldNews WASHINGTON - The Bush administration said on Thursday it approved the sale to Saudi Arabia of 24 UH-60L Black Hawk helicopters, radios, armoured vehicles and other military equipment worth more than $6 billion (3.25 billion pounds). Congress has 30 days to block the sales, although such action is rare. The Pentagon's Defence Security Cooperation Agency said the principal contractors for the different sales included Sikorsky Aircraft, a unit of United Technologies Corp., General Electric Co., Harris Corp., ITT Corp., General Dynamics Corp., and Raytheon Corp.. The agency said in a mandatory notice to Congress that the arms sales would help strengthen Saudi Arabia's military and its ability to help the United States fight terrorism around the world. The deal comes amid escalating fighting between Israel and Hizbollah guerrillas in Lebanon. Saudi Arabia had asked to buy 24 Sikorsky Black Hawk helicopters, spare parts, communications and other equipment valued at $350 million, if all options were exercised, according to the agency, which oversees foreign arms sales. Sikorsky and GE would be the main contractors for the new helicopters, which would help Saudi Arabia modernise and increase its rotary wing fleet and respond more quickly to possible threats against its infrastructure. A second deal, valued at up to $5.8 billion, would include 724 lightly armoured vehicles built by General Dynamics, based in Falls Church, Virginia. The deal also would provide more than 2,300 long-range military radio systems built by Harris, based in Melbourne, Florida, and other equipment to help modernize the Saudi Arabian National Guard. The Defence Security Cooperation Agency said the deal would help make Saudi Arabia more capable of defending stability in the region and less reliant on deployment of U.S. forces. ---- FACTSHEET: U.S. Military Assistance and Arms Tranfers to Israel From: "Frida Berrigan" Date: Thu Jul 20, 2006 1:46 pm WORLD POLICY INSTITUTE U.S. Military Assistance and Arms Transfers to Israel: U.S. Aid, Companies Fuel Israeli Military A World Policy Institute Issue Brief By Frida Berrigan and William D. Hartung July 20, 2006 Contact: Frida Berrigan, 212-229-5808 ext. 4254, berrigaf@newschool.edu William D. Hartung, 212-229-5808 ext. 4257, hartung@newschool.edu **A word document version of the Factsheet and Appendix I are attached** Introduction Much has been made in the U.S. media of the Syrian- and Iranian-origin weaponry used by Hezbollah in the escalating violence in Israel and Lebanon. There has been no parallel discussion of the origin of Israel's weaponry, the vast bulk of which is from the United States. "The billions of U.S. arms and aid it provides every year gives the Bush administration substantial leverage in pressing Israel for a cease fire in its attacks on Lebanon," notes William D. Hartung, a Senior Fellow at the World Policy Institute in New York. "Without at least discussing U.S. military support for Israel, it will be difficult-- if not impossible-- for Americans to understand the options available to our government in this crisis," argues Frida Berrigan, a Senior Research Associate at the Institute. During the Bush administration, from 2001 to 2005, Israel has actually received more in U.S. military aid than it has in U.S. arms deliveries. Over this time period Israel received $10.5 billion in Foreign Military Financing - the Pentagon's biggest military aid program - and $6.3 billion in U.S. arms deliveries. The aid figure is larger than the arms transfer figure because it includes financing for major arms agreements for which the equipment has yet to be fully delivered. The most prominent of these deals is a $4.5 billion sale of 102 Lockheed Martin F-16s to Israel. "When it comes to getting arms from the U.S., Israel has money in the bank," noted Hartung. There are precedents for U.S. criticism of Israel's use of weapons in human rights abuses, including "extrajudicial killings" and "excessive use of force." In the State Department's human rights reports for 2003, 2004, and 2005, incidents mentioned include missile strikes on a refugee camp that killed six people and wounded 19; the shooting and killing of four Palestinian children; the demolition of Palestinian homes using tank shells, heavy machine guns, and rockets (deemed an excessive use of force); the use of rocket fire in targeted killing of leaders of Hamas; the killing of 47 civilian bystanders in an operation aimed at suspected terrorists in the occupied territories; and the use of tank shells, machine-gun rounds and rockets fired from aircraft against Palestinian towns and cities that were sources of Palestinian shooting attacks. The human rights reports do not indicate the origins of the weapons used in these cases of excessive force, targeted assassinations, and failure to protect civilians in retaliations against Palestinian attacks. However, given that the many of Israel's tanks, ground attack planes, attack helicopters, and air-to-ground missiles are of U.S. origin, it is likely that U.S. weapons were used in at least some of these attacks. During the last major Israeli incursion into Lebanon, in 1981, the Reagan administration cut off U.S. military aid and arms deliveries for ten weeks while it investigated whether Israel was using weapons for "defensive purposes," as required under U.S. law. At the end of that period, then Secretary of State Alexander Haig suggested that one could "argue until eternity" about whether a given use of force was offensive or defensive, and the ban was lifted. But at least the Reagan administration took some action, which is more than can be said thus far about the administration of George W. Bush. This is not to suggest that Hezbollah is without its own sources of weaponry. A New York Times article on Monday, July 17, 2006 cites Israeli defense experts as it describes Hezbollah's possession of at least a few hundred Fajr missiles, including a "Syrian produced model" of the Fajr-3 which smashed into a railway maintenance building in Haifa on Sunday, killing eight people and wounding as many as 20. Hezbollah reportedly has its disposal a few hundred of the Iranian origin Fajr-3 and Fajr-5 missiles, which have a range of 30 to 45 miles and carry large explosive payloads. The same article mentions the Iranian C-802 radar guided missile that sank an Israeli civilian ship, and the shipment of Syrian rockets intercepted and seized by Israeli military forces. One source has asserted that Hezbollah has thousands of missiles, but does not provide information on their designation or range. On the other side of the ledger, the United States is the primary source of Israel's far superior arsenal (see Appendix I for details on U.S-supplied weaponry in the Israeli military arsenal). For more than 30 years, Israel had been the largest recipient of U.S. foreign assistance and since 1985 Jerusalem has received about $3 billion in military and economic aid each year from Washington. U.S. aid accounts for more than 20% of Israel's total defense budget (see Table II). Israel's dependence on Washington for aid and arms means that the Israeli military relies on spare parts and technical assistance from the U.S. to maintain optimum performance in battle. This point was underscored on July 14th, when the Pentagon's Defense Security Cooperation Agency supported an Israeli request for JP-8 jet fuel worth up to $210 million. Although this fuel will not be delivered immediately, it will allow Israel to replace fuel used in bombing runs in Lebanon. The Pentagon describes the deal as follows: "The proposed sale of the JP-8 aviation fuel will allow Israel to maintain the operational capability of its aircraft inventory. The jet fuel will be consumed while the aircraft is in use to keep peace and security in the region. Israel will have no difficulty absorbing this additional fuel into its armed forces." U.S. Weapons in Israel's Current Military Arsenal The bulk of Israel's current arsenal is composed of equipment supplied under U.S. military aid programs. For example, Israel has 226 U.S.-supplied F-16 fighter and attack jets, 89 F-15 combat aircraft, over 700 M-60 tanks, over 6,000 armored personnel carriers, and scores of transport planes, attack helicopters, utility and training aircraft, bombs, and missiles of all kinds - air-to-air, air-to-ground, surface-to-air, and air-to surface. For a fuller accounting of U.S. weapons in the Israeli arsenal, see Appendix I. Weapons Sales and Grants Israel is one of the United States' largest arms importers. Between 1996 and 2005 (the last year for which full data is available), Israel took delivery of $10.19 billion in U.S. weaponry and military equipment, including more than $8.58 billion through the Foreign Military Sales program, and another $1.61 billion in Direct Commercial Sales (see Table I for more recent weapons sales data). In 2005 alone, documents from the Departments of Defense and State show that Israel received $2.76 billion in weaponry and military hardware from the United States, and another $629 million in defense services like maintenance and training. This figure includes transfers of $188 million in miscellaneous missile spare parts, $7.1 million in tank components, $155 million in ship components, $1.3 million in explosives and $720,000 anti-personnel riot control chemicals. Recent military sales to Israel include propulsion systems for "fast patrol boats" worth more than $15 million from MTU Detroit Diesel; an $8 million contract to Lockheed Martin for high tech infrared "Navigation and Targeting" capabilities for Israeli jets; and a $145 million deal with Oshkosh Truck Corp to build more than 900 armor kits for Israel's Medium Tactical Vehicles. TABLE I: U.S. WEAPONS SALES DELIVERIES TO ISRAEL YEAR FMS DCS TOTAL 2001 $766,026,000 $4,019,000 $770,045,000 2002 $629,426,000 $1,427,000 $630,853,000 2003 $845,952,000 $16,455,000 $862,407,000 2004 $878,189,000 $418,883,000 $1,297,072,000 2005 $1,652,582,000 $1,110,223,000 $2,762,805,000 TOTAL $4,772,175,000 $1,551,007,000 $6,323,182,000 Source: "Facts Book: Department of Defense, Security Assistance Agency," September 30, 2005. Key: FMS, Foreign Military Sales; DCS, Direct Commercial Sales. The Facts Books does not make future projections and thus data for 2006 and 2007 is not yet available. U.S. Military Aid to Israel As mentioned above, despite its relatively small size, Israel is the largest recipient of U.S. foreign military assistance. Over the past decade, the United States has transferred more than $17 billion in military aid to this country of just over 6 million people. In 2005, Israel received $2.25 billion in Foreign Military Financing, and President George W. Bush's budget request for 2007 includes an additional $2.24 billion in FMF aid for Israel. The United States sees its military aid as going to "help foster stability in a historically volatile region," and to support Israel's "multiyear defense modernization plan." In its 2007 request for military aid submitted to Congress, the Department of Defense also mentioned helping its ally "meet cash flow requirements" to procure F-16 fighter planes, Apache Longbow Attack helicopters, field vehicles and advanced armaments. Foreign Military Financing represents a significant chunk of the Israeli defense budget, most of which is spent in the United States on U.S. weapons. In addition to this "special relationship," the Congressional Research Service report on U.S. Foreign Assistance to Israel enumerates a number of other special concessions from the United States around this aid. Unlike other countries, Israel receives its Economic Support Funds in one lump sum early in the fiscal year rather than in four quarterly installments. This forces the U.S. to pay more in interest for the money it borrows to make lump sum payments-- between $50 million and $60 million per year according to Agency for International Development officials. While other countries primarily deal with the Department of Defense when arranging to purchase military hardware from U.S. companies, Israel deals directly with U.S. companies for the vast majority of its military purchases in the United States. Other countries have a $100,000 minimum purchase amount per contract, but Israel is allowed to purchase military items for less than $100,000. Finally, the United States underwrites Israel's research and development of weapons-and has contributed billions of dollars to Israeli systems like the Merkava tank and the Lavi ground-attack aircraft. In November 2003, the first of a new batch of 102 F-16s for Israel rolled off the production line in Texas. The $45 million per copy F-16I Sufa is part of a $4.5 billion deal between manufacturer Lockheed Martin and Jerusalem. The Sufa F-16 fighter planes are co-manufactured with Israel. The Israeli defense company Lahav is providing customized avionics. TABLE II: MILITARY AID TO ISRAEL YEAR FMF ESF SUPPLEMENTALS NADR-ATA TOTAL 2001 $1,975,644,000 $838,000,000 -- -- $2,813,644,000 2002 $2,040,000,000 $720,000,000 -- $28,000,000 $2,788,000,000 2003 $2,086,350,000 $596,100,000 $1,000,000,000 -- $3,682,450,000 2004 $2,147,256,000 $477,168,000 -- -- $2,624,424,000 2005 $2,202,240,000 $357,120,000 $50,000,000 $210,000 $2,609,570,000 2006 (estimated) $2,257,200,000 $273,600,000 -- $526,000 $2,531,326,000 2007 (requested) $2,340,000,000 $120,000,000 -- $320,000 $2,460,320,000 TOTALS 2001-2007 $15,048,690,000 $3,381,988,000 $1,050,000,000 $29,056,000 $19,509,734,000 Source: "Congressional Budget Justification for Foreign Operations," Fiscal Years 2001-2007. Key: FMF, Foreign Military Financing (direct military aid); ESF, Economic Support Fund (open-ended monetary assistance that can be used to offset military spending and arms purchases; Supplementals are special one-time grants meant as a complement to already allocated aid; NADR-ATA, Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining & Related Programs U.S. Aid Provides U.S. Leverage Over Israel Given the billions of dollars of aid it provides to Israel every year and the central role of U.S.-supplied weaponry in the Israeli arsenal, the United States has considerable leverage that it could use to promote a cease fire in the current conflict between Israel and Hezbollah before more Israeli and Lebanese civilians are killed and displaced. President Bush needs to go beyond vague calls for "restraint" to demands for a cease fire between Israel and Hezbollah, bringing in other key actors in the region, including Iran and Syria. ===================== Frida Berrigan Senior Research Associate World Policy Institute 66 Fifth Ave., 9th Floor New York, NY 10011 ph 212.229.5808 x4254 fax 212.229.5579 The Arms Trade Resource Center was established in 1993 to engage in public education and policy advocacy aimed at promoting restraint in the international arms trade. http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms To sign up for our monthly email Updates, please contact Frida Berrigan. -------- china Taiwan holds live war-game, simulates Chinese invasion Thu Jul 20, 2006 (AFP) http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060720/wl_asia_afp/taiwanchinamilitarydrill_060720074716 ILAN, TAIWAN - Taiwan has held its largest live-fire military exercise in years, testing fighter jets, US-made Patriot missiles and ground troops against a simulated invasion by China. Two anti-missile Patriots were fired from mobile launchers on a beach off the northeastern city of Ilan during a drill codenamed "Han Kuang 22". They destroyed a target missile launched some 30 kilometers (18 miles) away. "This is the first time Patriot missiles were launched before the eyes of the public...to show our determination to safeguard Taiwan," President Chen Shui-bian told hundreds of guests and reporters invited to witness the exercise. Chen earlier this week again warned about China's growing military threat, saying it is now targeting 820 missiles at Taiwan. The People's Liberation Army has deployed 784 ballistic and 36 cruise missiles aimed at the island, he said, adding that the number was rising at the rate of 120 per year. These could paralyse Taiwan's communications and transportation and command centers in a 10-hour bombardment, Taiwan's defense ministry says. The war game simulated an attempt by the People's Liberation Army to attack and land on Taiwan's northeast, the defense ministry said. Nearly all the sophisticated weaponry in Taiwan's military inventory was deployed along with more than 13,000 soldiers. Several squadrons of F-16 fighter jets and SuperCobra combat helicopters fired air-to-air missiles and Hellfire rockets to destroy targets in the air and on the sea. China has repeatedly threatened to invade self-governing Taiwan should the island declare formal independence. It has regarded Taiwan as part of its territory since they split in 1949 at the end of a civil war. Tensions between Taiwan and China have escalated since the independence-leaning Chen was elected president in 2000. He was narrowly re-elected in 2004. -------- us Strapped for money, Army extends cutbacks on spending Posted 7/20/2006 (AP) http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-07-20-army-money_x.htm WASHINGTON — The Army, bearing most of the cost for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, said Thursday its money crunch has gotten so bad it is clamping down on spending for travel, civilian hiring and other expenses not essential to the war mission. A statement outlining the cutbacks did not say how much money the Army expects to save, but senior officials have said the cost of replacing worn equipment in Iraq and Afghanistan is rising at a quickening pace. Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, said last week that in 2004 it cost $4 billion to repair or replace war equipment, but now it has reached $12 billion to $13 billion. "And in my view, we will continue to see this escalate," he said, adding that the Army is using up equipment at four times the rate for which it was designed. Schoomaker traced the problem's origin to entering the Iraq war in 2003 with a $56 billion shortfall in equipment. The Army managed the situation by rotating in fresh units while keeping the same equipment in Iraq. Over time, he said, the equipment has worn out without sufficient investment in replacements. The Army chief said there is too little money available to keep up with equipment repairs. He said the Army's five major repair depots are operating at only 50% of capacity, resulting in a backlog of 1,000 Humvee utility vehicles awaiting attention at the Red River Army Depot in Texas and 500 tanks at a depot in Alabama. The Army's 2006 budget is $99.2 billion, and the 2007 budget request not yet approved by Congress seeks $111 billion for the Army. About 100,000 of the approximately 127,000 U.S. troops in Iraq are Army. Most of the rest are Marines. When Congress took longer than the Pentagon expected to approve an emergency spending bill for war costs last spring, the Army imposed temporary spending cutbacks that it expected to lift once the extra money was approved. In its announcement Thursday, the Army said it has decided to extend most of those cutbacks until the end of the budget year on Sept. 30. Among the reasons cited: the high costs of war and an expectation that Congress may approve less money for the Army in the 2007 budget than the White House requested. The Army said it will limit its purchase of supplies to those that are deemed critical to war requirements; cancel or postpone all non-essential travel; stop the shipment of goods unless they are needed for deployed or deploying troops; freeze the hiring of new civilians; restrict use of government credit cards; freeze all new contract awards, and release temporary employees and some service-contract workers. Meanwhile, Army officials traveled to Capitol Hill this week to urge members of Congress not to slash funding for aircraft programs. Brig. Gen. Stephen D. Mundt told reporters that congressional plans to cut about $90 million from the Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter program and eliminate all $109 million for the development of a new cargo aircraft would trigger as much as a two-year delay and increase the overall cost of both programs. Military analyst Dan Goure of the Lexington Institute said cutting nearly a third of the $275 million requested for the helicopter is unwarranted because it is a low-risk program that will provide a much-needed replacement for the Army's aging fleet of Kiowa Warriors. "It makes no sense to delay this program," Goure said. "It is a risk to the soldiers, and it poses additional costs on the Army at a time when it's already struggling." The cargo plane, said Mundt, would be able to take off and land on much smaller runways, and would give the Army and Air Force access to thousands of airfields around the world that existing cargo aircraft cannot use. They include almost 30 additional airfields in Iraq, and 10 more in Afghanistan, he said. -------- POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS / JUSTICE -------- prisons / prisoners Report Confirms Chicago Police Tortured Black Prisoners Thursday, July 20th, 2006 Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/20/1435215 Special prosecutors in Chicago have released a major report confirming that African American men have been systematically tortured inside the Chicago prison system. We speak with one of the lead attorneys in the case and a torture survivor. [includes rush transcript] We take a look at torture and brutality here in the U.S. For nearly two decades an area in Chicago's city jails known Area 2 was the epicenter for the systematic torture of dozens of African-American males by Chicago police officers. Close to 150 people say they were subjected to abuse including having guns forced into their mouths, bags places over their heads, and electric shocks inflicted to their genitals. Four men were released from death row after government investigators concluded torture led to their wrongful convictions. Yet to date no police have been charged with any crime. Well, yesterday the findings of a four-year investigation into the cases were released. The investigation found evidence that several officers in the department tortured criminal suspects but concluded that they cannot be prosecuted because too much time has passed. * Flint Taylor, an attorney with the People's Law Office in Chicago. He represented many of the torture victims and was directly involved in spearheading the special prosecutor's investigation. * David Bates, one of the men to come forward with allegations of torture. RUSH TRANSCRIPT AMY GOODMAN: We’re joined by Flint Taylor and David Bates. Flint Taylor is an attorney with the People’s Law Office in Chicago, represented many of the torture victims, was directly involved in spearheading the special prosecutor’s investigation. And David Bates is one of the men to come forward with the allegations of torture. Let's begin with Flint Taylor. Can you assess for us this report that has -- well, we last talked to you -- what was it? -- a month or two ago. The report had been done, but wasn’t being released to the public. Many were trying to suppress it for good. FLINT TAYLOR: That's right. You want me to talk about the report? It’s a very -- it’s kind of a mixed bag in the sense that the evidence was so strong that the special prosecutor found that over half of the 148 people that said they were tortured and abused were, in fact, that they believed they were. But they used the legal out of saying it wasn't beyond a, quote, “reasonable doubt.” They also found, very interestingly, that there was a high governmental cover-up of the torture, the criminal torture, which they found it to be, of one victim, Andrew Wilson, in 1982. However, what makes it a whitewash at the political level not only is the fact that they did not indict anybody, but they did not condemn the people who were truly responsible for the whitewash and the cover-up that occurred in the Andrew Wilson case. In other words, Andrew Wilson, what they say, was criminally tortured in 1982. They say that the higher ups, the police superintendent, was aware, which he was, of the torture, and he did nothing about it. The reality is, what he did do and what the report in fact whitewashes is that he wrote a letter directly to the Mayor of the -- at that time the State's Attorney of the County of Cook, Richard Daley, who’s now the mayor -- and directly asked him to investigate criminally. And the Mayor, Richard Daley, and his first assistant, Richard Devine, who is now the Cook County State's Attorney, did nothing. But they give Daley and Devine, the ruling powers here in the city of Chicago, a complete pass and blame Richard Brzeczek, who is now a private lawyer, the former police superintendent, for not only covering up the torture of Andrew Wilson, but what follows, which is David Bates and 55 -- many of those 75 men, who they found had been tortured, wouldn't have been tortured if, in fact, there was action in 1982. So what we have here is a report, which, de facto, sets forth the predicate for the indictment -- politically, at least -- of the Mayor and the State's Attorney of Cook County for failing to prevent this torture, and yet blames a subordinate police superintendent. AMY GOODMAN: And the police have -- FLINT TAYLOR: And that’s what’s outraging everybody. AMY GOODMAN: And the police official in charge, Jon Burge, talking about -- admitting that this happened, that people were tortured, but that they will not be prosecuted. FLINT TAYLOR: That’s the other thing that’s outrageous about the whole thing, is we see now that there is a blueprint that’s been developed in various cases for prosecuting people for perjury, for obstruction of justice, when in fact they’re able to cover things up for so long and avoid prosecution until the, quote, “statute of limitations” has run on the acts themselves, that being the torture, etc. If you accept the fact that there's not a continuing conspiracy, which we say there was, that starts with the torture and continues to this day in covering it up, if you just look at it in terms of obstruction of justice and perjury and racketeering violations under the RICO Act, there are still major statutes that you can prosecute under. And we‘ve seen it happen. We saw it in the Judith Miller case. We saw it with regard to Libby. We saw it with regard to many prosecutions of daily subordinates in corruption cases here in the city of Chicago. And we’re going to see it in another field with regard to a baseball player, Barry Bonds. Now, if they can indict Barry Bonds for perjury and obstruction of justice, they can certainly indict Jon Burge, a torturer, for obstruction of justice, perjury, and – AMY GOODMAN: David Bates, we don't have much time. Can you briefly describe what happened to you and then talk about what you think of the conclusion that they cannot prosecute people here? DAVID BATES: Hi. October the 29th, 1983, for almost two days I was tortured, but not Jon Burge, but detectives under him, things such as a plastic bag being placed over my head in a couple of sessions. And I was slapped and kicked and punched. Derogatory terms. Threats. Threatened with killing me. And my whole point, my issue with this report, my issue with this whole thing is that there's a concentration on Jon Burge, but Jon Burge did not torture me. It was people under him that tortured me, and there was not a concentrated effort to deal with those detectives under him. And this is why this report is wrong, because it don't deal with the victims. It acknowledges that we were tortured, but it doesn't offer no type of remedy or recourse to deal with that torture. There is grounds for prosecution and evidence beyond anyone's imagination, but there was not a course for action. And that’s where I think there was an error in spending over $7 million of county money to give us a $500 report that I could’ve did in high school. AMY GOODMAN: David Bates, I want to thank you for being with us. And, Flint Taylor, does it end here? FLINT TAYLOR: Thank you. AMY GOODMAN: Flint Taylor, does it end here? FLINT TAYLOR: Oh, I’m sorry. Does it end here? No, it certainly doesn't end here. AMY GOODMAN: We have ten seconds. FLINT TAYLOR: We’re going to go to the U.S. Attorney. We’re going to demand that there be federal prosecutions and, in fact, reparations for people like David Bates, and to deal with all the cases that are pending in civil court; and we’re certainly just -- DAVID BATES: And we’re going to the streets, too. FLINT TAYLOR: We certainly are. AMY GOODMAN: We will leave it there and certainly cover the developments. David Bates, I want to thank you for being with us, and Flint Taylor, both from Chicago. And we’ll post the report on our website at democracynow.org. -------- ENERGY -------- alternative energy Morocco Pushes Renewable Energy as Oil Prices Soar Story by Tom Pfeiffer REUTERS MOROCCO: July 20, 2006 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/37345/newsDate/20-Jul-2006/story.htm RABAT - Morocco hopes to generate a fifth of its power from renewable sources by 2012 to reduce its reliance on costly energy imports, the head of the country's renewables programme said. Import subsidies to make fuel more affordable for industry and the Moroccan people take a US$1.5 billion slice out of the national budget every year. The value of energy imports rose 29 percent in the first quarter of 2006, causing its trade deficit to widen by 17.3 percent from the same quarter of 2005 and, with world oil prices touching records, there is little relief in sight. The government is redoubling efforts to find oil and end Morocco's status as the only North African country with no fossil fuel production of its own. But for now it hopes to better exploit the potential of its mountain rivers, blustery Atlantic and Mediterranean coastline and sun-drenched interior. "We must make the most of the natural resources we have," Amal Haddouche, General Manager of Morocco's Renewable Energy Development Centre, told Reuters. "We must increase the share of renewable energy in the total to 20 percent by 2012, including large-scale hydro-power." Excluding hydro-electric dams, the goal is 10 percent, according to senior government officials. The kingdom generates 7.6 percent of its energy needs using renewable sources including hydro-electric, wind and solar power and biomass. The vast majority is generated by fossil-fuel power stations. The government says Morocco could potentially generate 6,000 megawatts of electricity from wind turbines. Total installed production capacity last year was 5,250 MW. "Wind power will see a remarkable development in coming years because we expect to install at least 50 megawatts of wind turbines per year from 2007," the energy and mines ministry said in faxed replies to questions from Reuters. ELECTRIFYING THE COUNTRYSIDE Morocco's demand for energy grew 8.8 percent last year and could increase by as much as 7.5 percent per year until 2015, according to government estimates. Much of that increase is due to forecast economic growth but the government is also trying to improve living standards among the rural population by extending electricity supply to isolated communities. Rather than try to link all isolated villages to the national grid, Morocco is promoting the use of solar panels, which are becoming a common sight in villages across the sparsely-populated country. The government has identified 200 new hydro-power sites, and biomass could also become an important contributor, drawing on the rich potential of Morocco's 5 million hectares of forests. "Our targets would certainly put us ahead of all other North African countries in terms of the share of renewable energy," said Haddouche. Hopes for finding oil on Morocco's own territory remain alive even though none of the four exploration wells drilled offshore between 2000 and 2004 have come up with a discovery. Domestic newspapers have said Morocco also aims to launch a bold plan to build nuclear power plants. For now the government says it has no nuclear power programme. ---- Rising Biofuel Use to Drive Up Crop Prices - Goldman REUTERS UK: July 20, 2006 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/37344/newsDate/20-Jul-2006/story.htm LONDON - Rising biofuels demand will probably drive up crop prices and is creating growth opportunities for food processing companies, Goldman Sachs said on Wednesday. The growth in biofuel demand presents a new competitor for food as commercially available biofuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel, use crops that could otherwise be producing food. "The most likely impact of this competition for resources (between food and fuel) will be upward pressure on crop prices," Goldman said in a research document on biofuels and food. "There is evidence to suggest that crop prices have already gone up and will rise further on biofuel growth." "The major concern here is land availability," Goldman added. The investment bank said its analysis of crop demand suggested, for example, that a 20 percent replacement of biofuel for fossil fuel for transport needs in the EU could require the use of up to 61 percent of current arable land in the EU. Currently biofuels account for a little under two percent of fuel transport needs. "The agri-processors appear well positioned to exploit the growth opportunity offered by biofuels, and are increasing investment in this area," Goldman said. Growth in biofuels demand is creating opportunities for food processors that are investing in biofuels such as German sugar firm Suedzucker, which Goldman started with a "Buy" recommendation. Suedzucker shares jumped almost five percent on Wednesday on talk that Goldman had rated the company "Buy". With oil prices off record peaks, the economics of biofuels have become increasingly appealing, particularly when they are sourced using low-cost feedstock, notably from Brazil. Another argument for biofuels is climate change and the Kyoto protocol, as biofuels help cut carbon dioxide emissions. Finally, there is the overall background of increasing demand for energy, notably from rapidly industrialising countries with rising populations, such as China. Goldman Sachs anticipated significant investment in biofuels, particularly from food processors. But it said the main constraint on biofuel growth would be the availability of land and crops. "While the issue of biofuels impacting pricing (of food raw materials) may seem to be a distant threat, it could be argued that the impact is already being seen in markets such as rapeseed oil in Europe (for biodiesel production) and the world price of sugar cane (for ethanol)," it said. Ethanol, the most widely used biofuel, is derived from sugar cane and is used widely in flex-fuel cars in Brazil. ----