NucNews August 1, 2006 -------- NUCLEAR Astrophysicist speeds up radioactive decay Other boffins sceptical By Lucy Sherriff Published Tuesday 1st August 2006 The UK Register http://www.theregister.com/2006/08/01/faster_decay/ A German physicist thinks he may have found a way to accelerate the process of nuclear decay, dramatically shortening the half life of dangerous nuclear waste. Claus Rolfs, chair of experimental physics at Ruhr University, and his team suggest that embedding an alpha emitter in metal and cooling it to just a few degrees Kelvin could reduce its half life to perhaps just tens of years, instead of thousands. If he is right, the whole business of burying nuclear waste in concrete bunkers could be neatly side-stepped. However, critics say his idea doesn't hold up, that it contradicts existing theory as well as other experimental results. Nick Stone, a retired nuclear physicist from Oxford University, told Physics Web that experiments with cooled, metal embedded alpha emitters had already been run by other physicists, and that no reduction in half life had been observed. Rolfs, however, is determined that his work is good, although he acknowledges that the theory needs refining. Rolfs is an astrophysicist, and was working on reproducing stellar fusion when he noticed something odd about alpha decay. He saw that the rate of fusion reactions in his particle accelerator was higher when the target nuclei were encased in metal. Cooling the metal sped the reaction rate even further. This, he says, gave him the idea. He proposed that the phenomenon could be explained using a model that assumes free electrons in a metal behave as though they are in a plasma. As the metal cools, the electrons get closer to the nuclei. This encourages positively charged particles in towards the nuclei, making it more likely that one of them will hit and spark a fusion reaction. Rolfs reasoned that same process might also hasten the ejection of a positively charged particle, such as an alpha particle, from the nucleus, and slow the ejection of electrons from the nucleus. If it did, one could expected shorter half lives for alpha decay, and longer half lives for negative beta decay, or electron capture. Initial experimental results seem to support the theory. Cooled, metal-embedded beryllium-7's electron capture had a longer half life, while the half lives of positive beta decay of sodium-22 and alpha decay of polonium-210 were shorter. Radium-226, a by-product of nuclear power plants, is next on the list for testing. Hubert Flocard, director of the CSNSM nuclear-physics lab near Paris told PhysicsWeb that although he can't explain the results, Rolfs' work contradicts the standard model of solid state physics. It remains to be seen whether this means it is Rolfs' theory, or the standard model needs rejigging. -------- accidents and safety Sweden: Nuclear plant faced possible meltdown Aug. 1, 2006 (UPI) http://www.politicalgateway.com/news/read/27978 FORSMARK, Sweden -- Last week's shutdown of the Forsmark nuclear power plant in Sweden, north of Stockholm, reportedly could have resulted in a meltdown. The emergency -- called by some the most dangerous international nuclear incident since the destruction of the Russian Chernobyl plant 20 year ago -- occurred when two of four generators shut down, officials said. "It was pure luck that there was not a meltdown," nuclear expert and former Forsmark director Lars-Olov Höglund told The Local. "Since the electricity supply from the network didn't work as it should have, it could have been a catastrophe." He said without power, the temperature would have been too high after 30 minutes and within two hours there could have been a meltdown. Ingvar Berglund, head of safety at Forsmark, disagreed. He told The Local there wasn't a risk of a Chernobyl-like accident. "We know exactly what happened and it was an incident that could have been serious ... but that it could have been the most serious incident since the nuclear power incident at Chernobyl is totally wrong," he said. Forsmark went into operation in 1980 and now supplies one-sixth of Sweden's electricity. -------- africa Nigeria moves towards nuclear power Tuesday August 01, 2006 Sapa-AFP South Africa Sunday Times http://www.sundaytimes.co.za/zones/sundaytimesNEW/basket6st/basket6st1154437173.aspx ABUJA - Nigeria has taken another step towards acquiring nuclear technology for civilian use after it officially swore in the board of the National Atomic Energy Commission (Naec). The ceremony on Monday was presided by Nigeria's President Olusegun Obasanjo, who is also head of the body. "In addition to the generation of electricity, nuclear energy finds ready peaceful applications in agriculture and food security, in medicine, industry and in basic and applied scientific research," Obasanjo declared. Nigeria has had a nuclear reactor for research purposes since September 2004 and the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, has visited the site in the north to ensure that it does not pose a security risk. Obasanjo stressed during ElBaradei's visit in January 2005 that Nigeria had no intention of becoming a nuclear power, a vow he reaffirmed during the inauguration ceremony. "I wish to further affirm that Nigeria's aspirations for the acquisition of nuclear technology are for purely peaceful applications and that we are unequivocally committed to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty," Obasanjo said. The Nigerian leader stressed the need for his country to prepare for a period when its massive oil wealth could run dry and to explore other energy sources. Nigeria is the leading African oil producer and the sixth-biggest exporter in the world with an estimated oil production of 2.6 million barrels per day. The ceremony in Abuja was largely symbolic as the Naec has existed since 1976. ---- Nigeria's President Vows Nuclear Plant The Associated Press By BASHIR ADIGUN August 01, 2006 http://www.topix.net/content/ap/1496909406187749050536279003672194890062 "There's not a lot of point generating power you can't distribute" Nigeria's president has pledged his oil-rich but infrastructure-poor West African nation will build a nuclear power plant within 12 years. Despite being Africa's leading oil producer and the fifth biggest supplier of crude to the United States, most of Nigeria's 130 million people remain deeply impoverished. Blackouts are common in major cities and few rural areas have steady access to electricity. 'Today ... marks day one in the timeline of our national nuclear electricity program,' President Olusegun Obasanjo said Monday in the capital Abuja at the inauguration of the Board of the Nigeria Atomic Energy Commission, a state nuclear advisory body. Obasanjo said any nuclear capacity Nigeria develops would be used for peaceful purposes. He asked the Justice Ministry to draft legislation governing the use of nuclear technologies. 'We are unequivocally committed to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty,' Obasanjo said. But analysts said existing systems may have to be upgraded before Nigeria could benefit from a nuclear plant. 'There's not a lot of point generating power you can't distribute,' said Simon James, a spokesman for the London-based Nuclear Industry Association. According to the U.S.-government funded Energy Information Administration, Nigeria's power plants are operating well below capacity due to a combination of poor maintenance and low water levels at hydropower stations. Even in the exclusive enclave of Victoria Island in wealthy Lagos city, slashed power lines dangle from rooftops and telephone poles have collapsed in the main street. Nigeria's energy consumption has more than doubled since 1980, but only an estimated 40 percent of the population has access to electricity. -------- asia Asia Goes Nuclear to Meet Rising Energy Demands By Thomas Rippe Hong Kong 01 August 2006 Voice of America http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-08-01-voa10.cfm Asia's energy needs are soaring, and the region is increasingly turning to nuclear technology to meet the rising demand. Many governments see nuclear power as a way to cut air pollution and ease the need for imported oil. In the face of rising oil prices and chronic air pollution, Asian nations are looking to nuclear power to solve their energy problems. Reactors are being built across the region. Japan and South Korea have the most developed nuclear industries, but China and India are leading the charge with new projects. John Ritch is the director general of the World Nuclear Association. "The two largest nuclear planned programs in the world right now are those of India and China," he said. "I would expect that each of those countries, by the middle of this century, will have 250 nuclear power reactors. Now that sounds like a lot, but it won't be a very substantial portion of their electricity." China alone plans to build 30 reactors by 2020, up from nine now. Eight of those are under construction, with two nearing completion. The reactors are part of an ambitious government effort to rapidly expand electricity output to keep up with its booming manufacturing industry. China has been moving to alternative energy sources such as wind, hydroelectric and nuclear in an effort to cut its use of coal. Pollution from coal burning plants blankets most Chinese cities. And moving coal from the mines in the north and west to the industrialized east is straining the transportation system. India has 15 reactors operating, and nine are under construction. Although nuclear power provides only about three percent of India's electricity, the World Nuclear Association estimates that could increase to 25 percent by mid-century. Unlike China and India, which only recently began rushing to build reactors, Japan and South Korea have long relied on nuclear technology to reduce their need for foreign fuels. Japan depends on imported oil, gas and coal for about 80 percent of its energy needs, which leaves its highly industrialized economy vulnerable to market fluctuations. Nuclear reactors account for about a third of Japan's energy production, and the government says it plans to increase that to more than 40 percent by 2014, after adding more than 10 new reactors. South Korea is even more dependent than Japan on imported fuel - as much as 97 percent of its fossil fuel supply is imported. South Korean government reports show 20 reactors provide 40 percent of electricity production, and at least eight new reactors are planned. There are concerns, however, about this rush to go nuclear. Reactors present the risk of a radiation accident that could kill or sicken thousands of people. They also are expensive to build. Liu Changxin of the China Nuclear Society says one of the main factors in China's nuclear plan is the need to reduce air pollution. Still, he says, it is only part of the solution. "I don't think nuclear power can play the most important, or even a very important role in China's energy supply," he said. "Just a part of our energy policy, just one of the choices." Liu says that China's energy needs are growing so rapidly that the country needs to consider all options. Greenpeace wants to see countries such as China and India explore other choices. Szeping Lo, a Greenpeace spokesman in Hong Kong, says China has taken steps to develop renewable energy sources. "Just last November the deputy minister of energy announced that China will increase its wind energy development target from 20 gigawatts to 30 gigawatts by 2020," he said. That is almost the same amount of energy China plans to produce using nuclear power. Lo opposes all uses of nuclear power because of the dangers and costs. "The nuclear industry is a dying industry. No new nuclear power plant has been built in the U.S. in the last decade, and there's no new nuclear power plants being built either in Western Europe, in many other countries," Lo said. John Ritch at the World Nuclear Association is frustrated by the opposition to nuclear technology. He says nuclear energy is clean and safe and should stand side by side with other clean energy technologies. "The catastrophic effects of an intensifying concentration of greenhouse gasses are going to make the planet unlivable," he said. "And it is incumbent on the governments of Asia and the governments of other regions of the world to shift as quickly as possible to clean energy technologies, and nuclear is the quintessential clean energy technology that can be expanded on a large scale." As the economies of Asia continue to grow, so will the energy needs. The Asia Development Bank says that from 1973 to 2003 Asia's energy consumption grew by 230 percent, compared with an average worldwide increase of 75 percent. With much of Asia seeing economic growth rates above six percent over the past few years, electricity needs are likely to continue expanding rapidly. That means despite concerns over safety and cost, some of the region's smaller economies, including Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam, are looking to nuclear power to fuel their futures. -------- britain TAKE A NUCLEAR PIT AND CASH IN 1 August 2006 UK Daily Record http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/news/tm_objectid=17495612%26method=full%26siteid=66633%26headline=take%2da%2dnuclear%2dpit%2dand%2dcash%2din%2d-name_page.html COMMUNITIES should be invited to volunteer to have a nuclear dump under their feet, experts said yesterday. And they warned that a permanent store a kilometre underground is needed to dispose of deadly waste - and keep it safe from terrorists. Areas that volunteer for the storage pit would get massive investment in return. Similar partnership plans exist in Finland, Sweden and Belgium. Yesterday's recommendation by the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management follows a two-and-a-half year inquiry. As expected, the panel said the waste should be permanently buried - with the terror threat a key factor. Currently, 90 per cent of high-level material is held under close guard at the Sellafield reprocessing plant in Cumbria. The rest is at 25 to 30 smaller sites, including nuclear power plants in Scotland, military bases and medical facilities. Burying it at one site would make it easier to guard and protect from an aircraft attack similar to September 11. Construction will take at least 35 years and the dump will not be filled and sealed for around 100 years. Committee chairman Professsor Gordon MacKerron revealed the scheme will cost at least £10 billion and "frankly it is probably going to be more". Scotland's environment minister Ross Finnie welcomed the report but stressed: "We have no intention of forcing nuclear waste on any community." And Green campaigners claimed it could be "impossible" to find a site in Scotland. ---- Britain's Big Nuclear Waste Dump Seeks a Home Story by Daniel Fineren REUTERS UK: August 1, 2006 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/37459/newsDate/1-Aug-2006/story.htm LONDON - Britain will eventually have to bury its growing pile of nuclear waste deep underground but urgently needs somewhere to safely stash it in the meantime, a government-commissioned study said Monday. The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) called for a nationwide search for a suitable site for an underground dump capable of storing the estimated total 470,000 cubic metres of waste created by the UK's 23 nuclear power plants. "The UK has been creating radioactive waste for 50 years without any clear idea of what to do with it," CoRWM chairman Gordon MacKerron said in a statement. Local communities interested in hosting the radioactive waste dump must be in a geologically-suitable area and should be offered incentives, the CoRWM said. Scientists broadly welcomed the report recommendations but pointed out that underground storage had long been the only practical solution to the nuclear waste problem. "Engineers have known for 50 years that deep geological disposal must be the way ahead," Ian Fells of Newcastle University's energy department said. Last month the government came out in favour of building new nuclear reactors. But the question of how to safely dispose of existing waste still hangs over any new nuclear build. Charles Curtis of nuclear waste disposal company Nirex said government action on the issue was long overdue. "This is a major step forward in dealing with a problem that has effectively been avoided by successive administrations," he said of the report. "Deep disposal must be the only truly long-term solution... The UK is in a stable part of the Earth's crust such that it should not be difficult, technically, to identify a viable solution here." FINLAND Scientists said the British government should look to Scandinavia for guidance on nuclear waste sites. Finland, which is the only European Union country with concrete plans to build another nuclear power plant, has already started building a store for spent nuclear fuel deep in the Finnish bedrock. Finland has only four reactors and until 1996 sent its spent fuel back to Russia, so its storage needs are comparatively small. And because it could take decades to find and build an underground storage site, Britain desperately needs "robust" interim storage capable of safely storing the waste for at least 100 years, the CoRWM said. Finland's solution for interim storage has been to keep spent fuel bundles in water pools at existing nuclear power plants until the permanent storage site is ready. All but one of the UK's 23 nuclear reactors are to be closed down by 2023 but the government sees new nuclear build as key to cutting carbon emissions and reducing its dependency on energy imports. The CoRWM was appointed in 2003 by the British government to look at the problem of nuclear waste disposal. -------- depleted uranium Israel may misuse bunker buster bombs to fulfill broad list of targets By Nusaiba Ben-Shaibah Aug 1, 2006 Kuwait News Agency (KUNA) http://www.kuna.net.kw/home/story.aspx?Language=en&DSNO=892632 KUWAIT -- Israel is pursuing a scorched-earth policy in its war against Lebanon. It does not spare any of its munitions to fulfill its broad list of military targets in Lebanon, and perhaps in the Middle East region. Western reports suggest that the Israeli military forces had already used bunker buster bombs (GBU-28) against a number of populated urban areas inside Lebanon. Israel is using such smart weapons, even though it possesses a large stockpile of high-tech weapons that would accurately distinguish between civilian targets and other strategic ones. The gruesome images of charred and mutilated bodies following these aerial bombings, could indeed be the result of using the GBU-28, which is among the deadliest weapons in the conventional arsenal. An announcement in 2005 that Israel was eligible to buy the "bunker buster" weapons described the GBU-28 as "a special weapon that was developed for penetrating hardened command centers located deep underground." The document added, "The Israeli Air Force will use these GBU-28's on their F-15 aircraft." David Siegel, spokesman for the Israeli embassy in Washington, was quoted as saying, while commenting on the deal that the GBU-28 was "one component in a basket of measures Israel is acquiring". Those efforts come in response to attacks Syria an Iran may launch against Israel, he said, adding that these efforts are also part of serious attempts to persuade Iran to suspend its nuclear activities. This proposed shipment is described by military observers as somewhat "unusual", particularly during July at war time. They said the war was triggered by the capture of two Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah militants on July 12th is absurd. The air campaign against Lebanon is inextricably related to US-Israeli strategic objectives in the broader Middle East including Syria and Iran. In recent developments, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was quoted as saying that the main purpose of her mission to the Middle East is not to push for a ceasefire in Lebanon, but rather to isolate Syria and Iran. While reports suggest that Israel still had a long list of targets in Lebanon to strike, the history of these deliveries of bunker buster bombs to Israel, suggests that they are also intended to be used in the broader Middle Eastern region. In regard to the mechanism of those bunker buster bombs, they are capable of penetrating 30-meter-deep in the ground, or six meters of concrete. Accordingly, Israel tends to use them to abolish Hezbollah net of bunkers under the ground. The artillery barrel of a bunker buster bomb (GBU - 28) is 5,8 meters in length and 37 centimeters in diameters. It is extremely heavy because of its content of about two thousands kilograms of explosives. This is mixture of TNT (80 percent) and aluminum powder (20 percent). The aluminum improves the brisance of the TNT -- the speed at which the explosive develops its maximum pressure. Attached to the front of the barrel is a laser-guidance assembly. Either a spotter on the ground or in the bomber illuminates the target with a laser, and the bomb homes in on the illuminated spot. Attached to the end of the barrel are stationary fins that provide stability during flight. One material that is both extremely strong and extremely dense is depleted uranium. DU is the material of choice for penetrating weapons because of these properties. Therefore it was recently chosen to make up the outer shell of the bombs. ---- Every time I think that things can't get worse, they do Zena el-Khalil writing from Beirut, Live from Lebanon, 1 August 2006 http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article5367.shtml There is a black dust that is filling the air. We are breathing it in ... constantly. It has settled on my clothes, in my kitchen -- it is everywhere. We are guessing it is from the Jiye power station that was bombed. It is still on fire. It is the power station from which the oil spill originated from. Today I had my first experience at queuing for gas. The shortages have arrived. So many gas stations have shut down. The few that are left have long queues. I waited for 40 minutes, and when my turn came, I was give $10 worth only. I only have a few minutes left before the electricity gets cut. we are running on generator now and they usually turn it off at midnight. Everyone is talking about the depleted uranium in the bombs. It is everywhere now. In the air we breathe. In the land. It will soon be in our crops, in our water. Wow. Every time I think that things can't get worse, they do. I am already envisioning myself with cancer. I can feel it all around me. I don't know if I could be as strong as Maya has been. Maya, by the way, is doing ok. She is now on about five different pain killers ... they make her funny. Whenever I call she answers, "Hello. Maya's house of pain. Can I help you?" He he. It's funnier when you hear it on the phone. The sky is so dark tonight. There is no moon. Beirut is quiet. Death is all around me. -------- security Trumpeting the Global Threat Reduction Initiative -- Eric Hundman August 1, 2006 02:12 PM DefenseTech http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002630.html On July 27, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) announced that it had successfully transferred three kilograms of highly enriched uranium (HEU) to Russia from Libya. At first glance, this announcement might seem odd. Three kilograms doesn’t sound like much material – and besides, why are we transferring nuclear materials to Russia? The answer is that this transfer took place as part of the Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI), a collaborative program instituted by the U.S. Department of Energy to repatriate HEU stocks distributed by the nuclear superpowers to their Cold War allies, to keep the HEU out of the hands of terrorists. And while three kilograms is not a huge amount, it is about one fifth of what’s needed to build a simple nuclear bomb. An unannounced transfer from Libya in 2004 returned 17 kg of HEU to Russia. In late 2005, Libya was estimated to have 23 kg of fresh (unused in reactors) HEU left, so today they probably have 20 kg remaining (the Department of Energy has refused to confirm how much fuel remains in the country). GTRI’s initial goal, stated in 2004, was to repatriate all fresh fuel of Russian origin by the end of 2005; in Libya’s case, at least, the program has fallen woefully behind. This snail’s pace has been caused in part by "inadequate staffing and financing, and a disproportionate emphasis on conversion—rather than shutdown—of older, unnecessary facilities." Bureaucratic problems and international suspicion probably play a role as well. GTRI’s mission is to "identify, secure, remove and/or facilitate the disposition of high-risk, vulnerable nuclear and radiological materials and equipment around the world that pose a threat to the United States and to the international community." This specifically includes conversion of reactors to low enriched uranium fuel and securing high-risk nuclear materials. While U.S. funding has actually exceeded its initial commitment of $450 million, it still doesn’t seem to be enough. The program also disproportionately focuses on Russian-made fuel, even while two-thirds of U.S.- made fuel abroad "is not yet covered" (though, to be fair, the U.S. asserts that these stockpiles are in low-risk countries like France and Germany). Worse, around half of the world’s HEU-fueled reactors have not been targeted for conversion efforts yet and some say the timetable is too long. GTRI has succeeded in transferring around 189 kg of HEU back to Russia (though I hesitate to say it is entirely secure there) out of 1,781 kg that have been targeted; it has also converted 40 reactors—out of 106 currently targeted—to LEU fuel. Funding for the program is planned to continue through fiscal year 2011. Russia plans to blend the HEU down to LEU for use as reactor fuel. Let's just hope this happens and that, either way, it doesn't end up floating on a barge in the North Sea. ---- How modern-day menace shut the Cold War's secret mountain Norad now obsolete as threat shifts from nuclear bombs to terrorism By Catherine Philip August 01, 2006 UK Times http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2293700,00.html ITS dark and sinister world, buried deep in a mountain in the Colorado desert, was once the stuff of nightmares for a generation raised on the terrors of mutually assured destruction during the Cold War. But when the 25-ton steel blast doors clang shut on Cheyenne Mountain, they will close on a bygone nuclear era all but eclipsed by new and different threats, from suicide hijackers to terrorists with suitcase dirty bombs. The staff of the North American Aerospace Defence Command (Norad) will emerge, blinking in the sunlight, to head for a more prosaic home in an ordinary hanger at Peterson Air Force Base. After months of speculation about the future of the bunkered mini-city immortalised in Cold War films and pulp fiction, military officials have confirmed that the Cheyenne Mountain facility is to close. “A missile attack from China or Russia is very unlikely,” Admiral Timothy Keating, the commander of Norad, said. “The threat has changed.” The complex was built in the mid-1960s as America became more fearful about Russia’s ability to launch an intercontinental ballistic missile at its mainland. Nearly 2 hectares (4.5 acres) of connecting chambers and tunnels were dug out of the mountain under 610 metres (2,000ft) of granite. Fifteen buildings, two or three storeys high, were constructed inside the mountain. Metal walls and tunnels were built to withstand a five-megaton nuclear explosion within miles. The war room is supported by 1,300 shock absorbers to protect it from direct nuclear attack. The image of a hidden nerve centre with the task of saving America from destruction loomed large in the popular imagination throughout the Cold War era. In War Games a teenager played by Matthew Broderick hacks into the mountain’s computer, bringing the world to the brink of destruction. Dr Strangelove, Stanley Kubrick’s apocalyptic satire, in which runaway technology leads to the end of the world, features a war room like the one at Cheyenne Mountain. In the post-Cold War era its frightening symbolism has waned. Cheyenne Mountain has appeared twice in the irreverent cartoon South Park, once when it is attacked by a giant Rosie O’Donnell, and another time when Cartman’s mutant binder takes control of the Norad supercomputers. In reality computer malfunctions at Cheyenne Mountain have brought the world close to war twice. In 1979 a communications failure caused messages warning of a nuclear attack to flash up at air force bases around the world. A year later another stream of false warnings, intended as a test, were sent to government bunkers and command positions. Data from other sources identified the warnings as false. When Cheyenne Mountain was built, the threat and the strategies for dealing with it were based on the notion of a centralised state enemy, the Soviet Union, countered by a similarly unified defence, the US. As computer technologies were also centralised in a mainframe, defence systems worked from one giant computer deep in the mountains. But just as the Soviet threat has been overtaken by the threat of global terrorism, so has the mainframe been cast off in favour of networks that owe their security to decentralisation. Cheyenne Mountain was no longer required. Over two years Norad’s 230 staff will move to Peterson, where the Northern Command, set up in 2002 to monitor terrorist threats, is based. The complex, however, will not be closed entirely. Commanders will keep it in “warm standby”, ready to be reopened at an hour’s notice — in case the world changes again. BUILT FOR NUCLEAR APOCALYPSE # Built in 1963, the Cheyenne Mountain Operations Centre was built to withstand a multimegaton nuclear explosion 1.5 miles away # It is protected by two 25-ton steel blast doors and buildings within are mounted on shock-absorbing springs # Six 1,750kW generators supply electricity and an underground water supply fills four 1.5 million gallon reservoirs # The complex has a barber shop, chapel, dentist, pharmacy and sauna # Fictionalised versions appeared in films War Games, Terminator 3 and Fail-Safe -------- u.s. nuc facilities -------- florida Uranium Should Be Guarded, Says Group By Galina Stolyarova Staff Writer, Tuesday, August 1, 2006 St. Petersburg Times http://www.times.spb.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=18384 Environmentalists at the local branch of Greenpeace have discovered six containers near St. Petersburg stocked with radioactive material that the ecologists claim is emitting radiation well over the accepted safety level. But representatives of the Atomic Energy Ministry argue the cargo, stationed at the Kapitolovo stain station, 6 kilometers away from St. Petesburg, poses no danger. The material is not guarded. Sergei Novikov, head of the Atomic Energy Ministry’s press office, said Friday that the radiation level of the containers does not exceed the norms set by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The material is owned by the state-controled nuclear energy company Izotop. The ministry’s statement caused an outburst of protest from environmentalists. The containers bearing the labels Uranium-235 and Uranium-236 emitted radiation levels of 1,900 micro-roentgen per hour, which is 100 times more than acceptable norms, according to Greenpeace. The environmentalists registered radiation 40 times greater than what is considered safe on the nearest passenger platform in Kapitolovo. “You can find that much radiation 300 meters away from the sarcophagus of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Station,” said Dmitry Artamonov, head of the St. Petersburg chapter of Greenpeace. “The longer one spends at the platform, and the greater the exposure to additional radiation, the higher the risks. Nobody can predict how one’s body may react to this overdose.” Greenpeace activists were able examine radiation levels unnoticed for longer than half an hour last week. The experts were alarmed by the absense of guards. “This kind of transportation would make a perfect gift for terrorists, both in the sense of accessibility of radioactive material and as a most vulnerable potential object for attack,” said Artamonov. “Destroying these containers does not seem very difficult. Furthermore, it does not even need a terrorist attack. An ordinary traffic accident would easily do it.” The Atomic Energy Ministry’s Novikov said this type of cargo does not require round-the-clock protection. “The type of containers used for this transportation does not entitle the cargo to be accompanied by guards,” he said. Greenpeace has previously found 37 containers marked as “radioactve material” and stationed in Kapitolovo. That was in May, 2006 and the material was again left unguarded. “It has not been a month since leaders of the prestigious Group of Eight were discussing energy security issues in St. Petersburg, and here we go with a bunch of unprotected of radioactive containers at a passenger railway station,” Artamonov said. “If this is the kind of energy security Russia is able to provide for the dozens new nuclear power stations slated to be built in the country within the coming decades, then our citizens have every reason to feel threatened.” -------- illinois Exelon reduces power output at Illinois nukes Tue Aug 1, 2006 12:44pm ET167 (Reuters) http://today.reuters.com/stocks/QuoteCompanyNewsArticle.aspx?view=CN&storyID=2006-08-01T164415Z_01_N01446588_RTRIDST_0_UTILITIES-EXELON-QUADCITIES.XML&rpc=66 NEW YORK, Aug 1 - With a heat wave warming the Mississippi River water used for cooling at the nuclear power plant in Quad Cities, Illinois, Exelon Corp. has cut the power at the plant about 19 percent, a spokeswoman said on Tuesday. The 867-megawatt Quad Cities reactors were producing about 700 megawatts of power each after the reduction. The plant uses river water to condense steam from the turbine before returning the condensed water back to the reactor, while the river water flows back to the river. With temperatures exceeding 90 degrees in the area around the plant, the hot river water can harm fish and other aquatic life and does not cool the reactor water as efficiently. Meteorologists forecast temperatures in the area around the plant would reach 93 degrees Fahrenheit, according to forecaster AccuWeather. This week, nuclear operators have reduced power output at several reactors due to high water temperatures including Xcel Energy Inc.'s (XEL.N: Quote, Profile, Research) Prairie Island 1 and 2, and Monticello units in Minnesota over the weekend, and Exelon's Dresden 2 unit in Illinois on Monday. The 1,734 MW Quad Cities station is in Cordova in Rock Island County, about 155 miles west of Chicago. There are two 867-MW units, 1 and 2, at the station. Each entered service in 1972. One MW usually powers about 800 homes but during a heat wave a megawatt powers fewer homes. Exelon's unregulated Exelon Generation Co LLC subsidiary operates the station for its owners, Exelon (75 percent) and Berkshire Hathaway Inc.'s (BRKa.N: Quote, Profile, Research) MidAmerican Energy Co. subsidiary (25 percent). Exelon owns and operates more than 38,000 MW of generating capacity, markets energy commodities, and transmits and distributes electricity (5.2 million) and natural gas (460,000) to customers in Illinois and Pennsylvania. -------- indiana Nuclear Plant Work Is Headed for Indiana Unistar Nuclear to Manufacture at Least 80 Percent of Components in U.S. Tuesday August 1, 4:58 pm ET By Dan Caterinicchia, AP Business Writer http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/060801/unistar_nuclear.html?.v=3 WASHINGTON (AP) -- UniStar Nuclear, a joint venture of Constellation Energy and French company Areva SA that intends to market nuclear power plants in the United States, said Tuesday that an American firm will manufacture at least 80 percent of the nuclear components, mostly at an Indiana plant. Areva NP Inc. and BWX Technologies Inc., a subsidiary of McDermott International Inc., signed an agreement designed to re-establish commercial nuclear power plant component manufacturing in the United States, and support UniStar's new line of reactors based on Areva's European Pressurized Reactor design. "This partnership signals the renewal of U.S. manufacturing for the commercial nuclear power industry," Michael J. Wallace, co-chief executive officer of UniStar Nuclear and executive vice president of Baltimore-based Constellation Energy, said during a Tuesday news conference. No nuclear power plant has been licensed in the U.S. since the Three Mile Island accident in 1979 and UniStar will compete with General Electric Co., Westinghouse -- now owned by Toshiba Corp. -- and others to develop the first new reactors in the U.S. since the accident. Nuclear energy proponents say it is safer, cheaper and cleaner than plants powered by natural gas or coal. Critics contend the new nuclear reactors being designed may look great on paper, but have yet to be built and tested. Many companies throughout the country, including Dominion Resources Inc., Duke Energy Corp., South Carolina Electric and Gas Co., and NuStart Energy Development LLC, an alliance of 11 utilities and manufacturers, have expressed interest in applying for construction/operating licenses for the new reactors as early as next year. But none have ordered one, according to a list compiled by the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's trade group in Washington. UniStar has yet to receive a U.S. order for a nuclear reactors. But Areva on Monday announced that Pacific Gas & Electric Co. ordered two replacement reactor vessel heads for the Diablo Canyon Power Plant in Avila Beach, Calif. Areva has provided services at the Diablo Canyon site since 1996 and the new order will be the first one that BWX Technology fulfills for UniStar. BWX Technology's nuclear operations division facility, located on the Ohio River in Mount Vernon, Ind., will manufacture the components under the agreement as a subcontractor to Areva. The 580,000-square-foot facility is currently used to manufacture noncommercial nuclear components for the U.S. government, and could begin manufacturing commercial nuclear components later this year. John A. Fees, president and chief operating officer of BWX Technology, said the plant now employs about 125 workers and the facility could ramp up to five times as many man-hours of work in the future. That could lead to new hiring as orders merit, he said. Constellation Energy Group Inc., which announced the UniStar partnership last September, last week reported its second-quarter net income fell 24 percent because of higher fuel costs. It is the parent of Baltimore Gas and Electric Co., which announced a 72 percent rate increase for its customers earlier this year, before the Maryland legislature passed a measure to phase in the rate hike. About $700 million in orders serving the operating plant market are expected within the next six years and UniStar wants to capture as much of that market as it can, company executives said. Areva, the world's largest builder of nuclear reactors, has said it expects to be in position to take orders for new U.S. reactors by 2008, with construction beginning by 2010 and operations starting by 2015. At the height of nuclear power's use in the U.S. in the 1960s, there were 162 nuclear plants on order, said Tom Christopher, CEO of Areva Inc. and co-chief executive officer of UniStar Nuclear. There are currently 103 nuclear plants operating in the United States, producing about 20 percent of the nation's electricity. Interest in new plants has increased sharply since last year, when President Bush signed an energy bill that streamlines applications and offers loan incentives, tax credits and federal insurance for new plants. Licensing could be approved within a few years, depending on when applications are filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Nuclear Energy Institute estimates the potential for up to 18 license applications for new reactors in the U.S. by 2009, and Wallace said that much activity could stress the global supply of forgings and major components for new plants. Christopher said Unistar's agreement with BWX Technology is not exclusive and that the company can accept orders from other firms. He added that Annapolis, Md.-based UniStar is solely focused on the U.S. market and that there is potential for some work to be outsourced from Areva to the American facility. Shares of McDermott International rose $2.15, or 4.7 percent, to close at $47.69 Tuesday on the New York Stock Exchange, while Constellation shares rose 9 cents to finish at $58 on the NYSE. -------- michigan Fire system alarm prompts Fermi evacuation By: Charles Slat, August 01, 2006 Monroe, MI News http://www.monroenews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060801/NEWS01/108010019 Some workers at Detroit Edison Co.'s Fermi 2 nuclear power plant were evacuated as a precaution Monday afternoon and the utility declared a low-level emergency when a fire-extinguishing system unexpectedly activated in an auxiliary building at the plant. The incident didn't affect the reactor control room or otherwise impact the operation of the plant, which was increasing its power after an automatic shutdown over the weekend. The plant is expected to resume generating electricity today. The carbon dioxide fire-fighting system was triggered at 1:26 p.m. Monday in a cable-tray room in an auxiliary building at the plant, according to a report the utility filed with the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It's not known what caused the system to activate, said John J. Austerberry, an Edison spokesman. The plant's fire-fighting team was dispatched to the room, which normally isn't accessible, but found no evidence of a fire. Some personnel in the auxiliary building and adjacent reactor building were evacuated as a precaution because carbon dioxide robs the air of oxygen. Twenty-five people were evacuated from the two buildings, Mr. Austerberry said. An "unusual event," the lowest of four federal nuclear plant emergency classifications, was declared because of the activation of the fire-extinguishing system. The unusual event was canceled at 9:33 p.m. after the air in the buildings were checked to make sure the carbon dioxide had dissipated. Meanwhile, the plant this morning was operating at 18 percent power after recovering from an automatic shutdown over the weekend due to a nearby power outage. The reactor shut down late Saturday due to a loss of electrical power that occurred while work was being done on electrical distribution equipment on the grounds of the Fermi plant, Mr. Austerberry said. The cause of the power loss still is being investigated, but the disruption caused the reactor to shut down automatically and activate its various safety systems, including emergency diesel generators that automatically start up when the electrical feed to the plant is interrupted. Electrical power from the distribution equipment was restored, and operators began restarting the plant late Sunday. The reactor had reached a self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction early Monday, and the 20 percent power level needed to generate electricity was expected to be reached by noon today. Generation resumes as the area began to simmer in a hot spell that's likely to tax Edison's ability to meet demand. Fermi provides about 10 percent of Edison's total electric generation capacity. The utility also said Monday it had revoked the site access rights of a Fermi supervisor who failed a screening test for alcohol on July 27. "He will not be allowed back on site until he has completed EAP (Employee Assistance Program) counseling and gets approval by EAP and the medical officer," Mr. Austerberry said. The supervisor was tested "for cause," meaning it was not one of the random tests for drugs or alcohol that Fermi employees must undergo routinely. "All employees with site access are trained in behavioral observation techniques, so some fellow employees noticed that he might not be fit for duty and they reported him and a test was done," Mr. Austerberry said. ---- Fermi reactor to be back at full power on Wednesday August 1, 2006 (AP) http://www.wwmt.com/engine.pl?station=wwmt&id=28873&template=breakout_state.html FRENCHTOWN TOWNSHIP - The Fermi II nuclear power plant in Monroe County is set to return to full power tomorrow morning. The plant automatically shut down Saturday afternoon because of a problem with an electrical relay. Another problem arose Monday afternoon when fire alarms unexpectedly went off and fire-suppression gas was discharged into an auxiliary building. Officials from plant owner Detroit Edison and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission are trying to figure out what happened. The region's high humidity may have somehow triggered the alarms. About 25 people were evacuated from the auxiliary building and the adjacent reactor building as a precaution. The building had to be ventilated before workers could return. -------- nebraska Senate Race Glows With Nuclear Attack On Nelson August 01, 2006 Nebraska StatePaper.com http://nebraska.statepaper.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2006/08/01/44cec2dc2f166 The GOP has opted for the nuclear option in an effort to unseat incumbent Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson. It was always a matter of when the nuclear card would be played. Republicans long ago made clear they would hammer Nelson with criticism for his refusal as governor to let a multi-state compact build a nuclear dump in rural Nebraska. A full-age ad in the Omaha World-Herald criticized Nelson. The weekend ad was intended to benefit Republican Pete Ricketts, the Omaha businessman opposing Nelson’s bid for a second Senate term. During his second term as governor, Nelson’s administration cited safety issues in refusing to grant a permit that would have allowed a developer to build the concrete bunker in Boyd County. The dispute found its way to federal court. After Nelson left office, then-Governor Mike Johanns agreed to a settlement that cost the state $145 million. Nelson charged that federal Judge Richard Kopf erred in not allowing the state to try the case before a jury, and that Johanns should have pursued an appeal of Kopf’s decision against Nebraska. Kopf ruled that Nebraska had shown “bad faith” in handling the issue of the permit, and that some of the state’s actions were politically motivated. The entire nuke waste mess began during the administration of then-governor and later-Senator Bob Kerrey. He signed the bill that made Nebraska part of the multi-state compact. The other member states wasted no time in deciding that Nebraska should serve as the regional outhouse for low-level radioactive waste. Kay Orr followed Kerrey into the governor’s office, where “the nuke dump issue” was perpetually controversial. It was one of the things that contributed to her being a one-term governor. Nelson was next. He promised that no permit would be issued unless it could be shown that the site would not present a danger. Johanns found an exit strategy in the deal that ended the lawsuit. Kerrey, of course, was elected to two terms in the Senate and never looked back. -------- texas Amarillo developer wants to build nuclear plant Aug. 1, 2006 | Associated Press http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1676335/posts AMARILLO — An Amarillo developer is interested in bringing a nuclear power plant to this Panhandle city. Amarillo Power is proposing the plant that, pending regulatory approval, could be completed and online within a decade, according to a copyrighted story in today's Amarillo-Globe News. The proposal calls for a two-unit, 2,700-megawatt advanced boiled water reactor designed by General Electric, documents obtained by the newspaper through the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and other sources show. A megawatt is enough power to serve between 700 and 1,000 homes. Amarillo Power is controlled by George Chapman, who did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment Tuesday. Though no location was disclosed in the documents, information in them indicated the "selection of the preferred site" would be made in the near future. The Amarillo area has long been home to Pantex, the nation's only nuclear weapons assembly and disassembly facility. Tom Smith, director of the Texas office of Public Citizen, did not immediately return a call seeking comment about the proposed venture. The price tag for the nuclear power plant is unknown, but a similar proposal to add 2,700 megawatts at a South Texas Project nuclear power plant is projected to cost $5.2 billion for two GE reactors, according to Nucleonics Week newsletter. Last month, Princeton, N. J.-based NRG Energy Inc. announced in a news release that it had filed a letter of intent with the commission to increase the megawatts at the South Texas plant in Bay City. That nuclear plant has been providing power to more than 1 million homes in southeast and south central Texas since Unit 1 went into service in August 1988. The second unit began producing power 10 months later. On Monday, commission spokesman Dave McIntyre confirmed that Amarillo Power notified the federal agency of its plans in March, but asked the agency to keep the proposal confidential, which federal regulations allow. Within the past week, Amarillo Power sent the commission a letter saying it no longer considered the information proprietary. Before it obtains a license from the commission, Amarillo Power will seek financing to build the plant, documents show. Federal law requires the commission ensure a company meets financial qualifications to construct and operate a nuclear power plant. -------- MILITARY -------- israel / palestine Survivors of 1996 Qana Massacre Sue Israel Military Chief For War Crimes Tuesday, August 1st, 2006 Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/01/1434249 In April of 1996 the Israeli Defense Force shelled Qana's U.N compound, killing 106 civilians who had been seeking refuge inside. Initially, the Israeli government denied responsibility for the deaths but after a United Nations investigation condemned Israel's actions, the Israeli government changed their story. In December of last year, the Center for Constitutional Rights filed a class-action lawsuit against former IDF Chief of Staff and head of intelligence, Lieutenant General Moshe Ya'alon. The suit alleges that Ya'alon commanded the attack and is guilty of war crimes, extrajudicial killings and crimes against humanity. Ya'alon is currently a “Distinguished Fellow” at the U.S based think-tank – the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. * Maria LaHood. She is an attorney on the case and is with the Center for Constitutional Rights. RUSH TRANSCRIPT AMY GOODMAN: We're joined right now by Maria LaHood. She's an attorney on the case with the Center for Constitutional Rights. We welcome you to Democracy Now! MARIA LAHOOD: Thank you, Amy. AMY GOODMAN: Well, we're hearing a lot about what happened today, actually this weekend in Dearborn, Michigan. There was a protest of up to 1,000 people protesting the current attack on Qana. They gathered at the memorial for the Qana attack of 1996. What happened then? Why are you involved? MARIA LAHOOD: The military operation in 1996 was not dissimilar to what’s happening now. The IDF had started to bomb and shell the villages in Southern Lebanon in order to try to disarm Hezbollah and try to put pressure on the Lebanese government to get rid of Hezbollah. It was going on for probably three weeks. There were about 700,000 displaced persons from Southern Lebanon, and a lot of them had taken refuge in UN compounds. One of the compounds was in Qana, and about 800 people had taken refuge there. On April 18, the IDF actually targeted the compound, killing over 100 civilians, like you said, and wounding even more. We represent the victims of that attack against, as you said, Moshe Ya’alon, who at the time was head of the IDF intelligence. The lawsuit alleges war crimes, crimes against humanity and extrajudicial killing, and the plaintiffs are seeking justice and accountability for this attack. AMY GOODMAN: Who are the plaintiffs? MARIA LAHOOD: The plaintiffs include, well, the named -- it's a class action, so we represent all of the people, all the survivors, all the victims. But the named plaintiffs, for example, Saadallah Ali Belhas, he lost his wife and his nine children. Altogether he lost 31 members of his family. His son, Ali Belhas, lost his wife and three of his children. He saw his newborn decapitated. They weren't able to leave Southern Lebanon, because they had a newborn, and like the people now who have been subject to these attacks, they don't have the means to get out of the area, so are stuck seeking shelter in other places. AMY GOODMAN: We were just listening to Robert Fisk's report, of the Independent of London, who has lived in Beirut for decades, and he was the reporter who exposed that there was an unmanned Israeli drone, when Israel was saying they didn't know refugees were in this compound, that was taking pictures that saw the people below. MARIA LAHOOD: Right. At first they denied that there was a drone, until a UN videotape showed that there was a drone before the attacks and even during the attacks. The video showed the drone at the same time as the shelling was going on. It wasn't only that that showed that they knew that there were civilians inside. The UN actually called the IDF about one minute into the shelling and said, “You are shelling a UN compound.” The shelling continued for 17 more minutes before it stopped. There were no stray shells. Every shell hit the UN compound, and actually, the shells hit the most densely populated areas the heaviest. AMY GOODMAN: The Israeli military official, Ya’alon, you served him with papers where? MARIA LAHOOD: At the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, where he's been a fellow since at least November and still is. AMY GOODMAN: What was his response? MARIA LAHOOD: You know, he tossed the papers aside, and then I think later claimed that he wasn't served. But he was, and he's represented in court by Arnold & Porter. They've claimed that he has foreign sovereign immunity, that he's protected by the cloak of official immunity by the Israeli government. You know, we've argued that a government can't authorize war crimes or crimes against humanity and can't claim immunity for those. AMY GOODMAN: And what is the legal principle on which you are filing this class action suit? MARIA LAHOOD: We’ve sued under the Alien Tort Claims Act and also the Torture Victim Protection Act. The Alien Tort Claims Act, also called the Alien Tort Statute, allows non-citizens to sue for damages for violations of customer international law, such as war crimes or crimes against humanity. AMY GOODMAN: Now, this is a centuries-old statute, is that right? MARIA LAHOOD: 1789, right. AMY GOODMAN: Aimed at pirates on the high seas. So these people don't have to live in the United States who have sued, but they can sue on U.S. soil if the person comes to the United States? MARIA LAHOOD: Right, the plaintiffs actually for the Alien Tort Statute have to be non-citizens, not so for the Torture Victim Protection Act. The court has jurisdiction over the defendant, as long as the defendant is served in the United States. AMY GOODMAN: So where does the case go from here? MARIA LAHOOD: So, right now, the defendant has moved to dismiss the case, based not only on the foreign sovereign immunities grounds I mentioned, but also on so-called political question grounds, claiming that the case will interfere with U.S. foreign relations, because Israel is a key U.S. ally in the war on terror, essentially. The motion has been fully briefed, and we're waiting to hear whether the judge in the D.C. court will have oral argument or will just make a decision on whether the case can move forward. AMY GOODMAN: And have you discovered new information in the process of this lawsuit? MARIA LAHOOD: We have not yet been entitled to discovery. I mean, we have public evidence and other evidence, but nothing from the defendant or from Israel. AMY GOODMAN: Maria LaHood, I want to thank you very much for being with us. Maria LaHood is an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights. I want to thank you very much for being here. -------- landmines U.S.: Senators Move to Stop Landmine Production Human Rights Watch, August 1, 2006 http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/08/01/usdom13886.htm (Washington, D.C.) In introducing legislation against victim-activated landmines, U.S. Senators Patrick Leahy and Arlen Specter took a critical step today toward ensuring that the production of antipersonnel landmines does not resume in the United States, Human Rights Watch said. " “The United States shouldn’t be making and using weapons that can’t discriminate between a soldier and a civilian.” " Steve Goose, director of the Arms Division of Human Rights Watch The Pentagon is expected to make a decision soon to produce a munition called “Spider” with a controversial feature that turns it into an antipersonnel mine. “The United States shouldn’t be making and using weapons that can’t discriminate between a soldier and a civilian,” said Steve Goose, director of the Arms Division of Human Rights Watch. “The U.S. should be moving closer to the community of nations that have banned antipersonnel mines, not farther away.” The United States has not produced antipersonnel mines since 1997, exported them since 1992, or used them since 1991. However, the United States retains the right to produce antipersonnel mines and is not among the 151 countries that have joined the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty, which comprehensively prohibits the use, production, transfer and stockpiling of antipersonnel mines. The U.S. currently stockpiles 10.4 million antipersonnel mines, the world’s third-biggest arsenal. The Victim-Activated Landmine Abolition Act of 2006 would prohibit the procurement of landmines or other weapons that are designed to be victim-activated. In its standard mode, the Spider system is command-detonated, rather than victim-activated. The system has a soldier-operated control unit capable of monitoring up to 84 hand-emplaced munitions that deploy a web of tripwires across an area. When the tripwires are touched, the soldier decides if and when to detonate the munitions. However, Spider contains a “battlefield override” feature that removes the man-in-the-loop and allows for activation by the victim. This feature turns Spider into an antipersonnel mine that would be prohibited by the Mine Ban Treaty. The decision whether to produce Spider was scheduled to be taken by the Pentagon in December 2005, with the first units to be produced in March 2007. However, Congress delayed the decision by including a provision in the fiscal year 2006 defense appropriations bill, passed on 31 December, that requires the Secretary of the Army to conduct a review of new landmine technologies and report on the possible indiscriminate effects of these new systems before any production decision is made. It was the inclusion of the “battlefield override” feature in Spider that led Congress to request the study. The Pentagon has not yet provided the study to Congress. A total of $301 million has been budgeted to produce 907 Spider systems, and another $11.8 million for continued research. On July 3, the Pentagon announced that Alliant Techsystems and Textron Systems had been awarded a $31 million contract for “low-rate initial production” of Spider “network command munitions,” but no mention was made of the battlefield override feature. Thirty-eight countries have stopped the production of antipersonnel mines, including four that have not signed the Mine Ban Treaty: Egypt, Finland, Iraq and Israel. Apart from the U.S., there are 12 countries that continue to produce, or retain the right to produce, antipersonnel landmines: Burma, China, Cuba, India, Iran, North Korea, South Korea, Nepal, Pakistan, Russia, Singapore and Vietnam. -------- mideast King Abdullah’s First Year: A Personal Perspective John Duke Anthony August 1, 2006 Saudi-US Relations Information Service http://www.saudi-us-relations.org/articles/2006/ioi/060801-anthony-essay.html The period since King Abdullah's accession to the position of Custodian of the Two Holy Places has been one of significant change. Overall, the changes have occurred amidst a little appreciated background of considerable constancy whether one is focusing on the domestic environment within the kingdom or on the country’s role in regional and world affairs. Externally, and in the broadest terms, the major areas in which Saudi Arabia’s interests and policies have been affected the most are well known to most SUSRIS readers. They include the international energy situation, major geopolitical tensions related to Israel/Palestine, Iraq, Iran, and most recently Lebanon/Syria, together with the kingdom’s and other countries’ ongoing efforts to combat violent extremism. Alongside major accomplishments in most of these categories there have been undeniable disappointments and in some cases significant setbacks in the same categories despite King Abdullah's efforts and those among the country’s friends and allies. Overall, during King Abdullah's tenure in office to date, Saudi Arabia has made major strides both strategically and tactically in its efforts to confront and counter acts of militancy at home. And what is more, two major reasons these gains in countering those who have perpetrated local violence have occurred is that the government has been especially effective thus far in stressing traditional family values and enhanced law enforcement techniques. To these ends, it has found ways to strengthen and expand its relations with key domestic constituencies throughout the kingdom and with its regional partners as well as the Great Powers. In not only these ways but in numerous other important areas of endeavor, the country has proceeded in tandem with its fellow members in a variety of international organizations to place relations with allies and friends alike on a firmer foundation. To be sure, more than a few objectives have proved elusive not only of achievement in the form of satisfactory resolution but also of even acceptable amelioration or improved manageability in the near term. Even so, it been able to sustain what none would deny has been and continues to be an unstable as well as untenable status quo regarding issues pertaining to Israel/Palestine, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Lebanon/Syria, and elsewhere. NATIONAL AND REGIONAL ISSUES Although various issues dating from the previous year and earlier remain in limbo, efforts thus far to address other specific challenges have met with varying degrees of success. An example was Saudi Arabia's holding of its first nationwide municipal elections. A second was the peaceful transition of power to King Abdullah following the death of King Fahd. A third has been the Kingdom's admission into the World Trade Organization. A fourth was the establishment in Riyadh of the first international center devoted to continuous real-time dialogue between representatives of the world's major oil-producing and oil-consuming nations. A fifth was the June 16, 2006 formal and final conclusion of the kingdom’s border agreement with Yemen. King Abdullah chairs a cabinet session. (Photo: SPA)Several intractable external issues nonetheless continue to threaten the near-term prospects for Gulf stability and security while remaining at the center of regional and international concern. Among several ongoing and in some cases accelerating conflicts and crises, one of the most prominent is the ongoing insurgency in neighboring Iraq as well as the political and economic instability there introduced in the wake of the American-led invasion that toppled the government of Saddam Hussein. From one month to the next in the past year, Iraq has veered ever closer to full-fledged geographic and cultural group civil war, with the ensuing uncertainty showing no sign of abating anytime soon. Further east, the kingdom and its fellow GCC members have mounting reasons for concern about the policy and related implications arising from the extended standoff between Iran and much of the global community. The crux of the issue remains mainly the same as it was when King Abdallah became king. It centers on Iran’s determination to proceed unopposed in exercising its rights to complete a full uranium enrichment cycle. Tehran justifies its right to do so as not only in keeping with its declared goal of advancing the nature and extent of its scientific research and development, but, also, progressing towards the day when the country’s finite and depleting hydrocarbon resources will have been exhausted. RENEWING THE SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE UNITED STATES King Abdullah receives US Ambassador James Oberwetter. (Photo: SPA)Despite many of the best efforts of both the kingdom’s and America’s leaders, all is not well with the Saudi-United States relationship either. This is in spite of major advances on both sides in strengthening the ties between them at the level of their respective executive branches. As an illustration, there have been and remain numerous examples of heightened cooperation on issue-specific matters of importance to both countries. Major cases in point include the working consensuses and common objectives within their respective strategic and foreign policy agencies. These have related substantially to matters pertaining to terrorism, world economic growth, commercial issues, defense cooperation, and the security of oil supplies. Yet, despite these and other success stories, public awareness of them on both sides remains little known or appreciated outside specialist circles. Indeed, the positive and mutually beneficial accomplishments noted continue to be largely overlooked, ignored, or downplayed by special interests or ideological groups in the two countries. This has been the case on the American side. No less troubling is that despite the undeniable reality of the accomplishments cited, they are seen by many non-elites on both sides as inadequate to the needs of the two countries’ individual and/or bilateral interests. Numerous think tanks representing private sector constituencies in the United States, for example, continue to view the Kingdom not exactly as a foe, but also not exactly as a firm and favored friend, an unalloyed ally, or a preferred partner, either. The mirror image of this contentious depiction exists among significant numbers of Saudi Arabians as well. This is in spite of their respective: and continuing extraordinary range of strategic advantages and economic gains. From a more clinical and detached perspective, Saudi Arabia and the US have derived such benefits as a direct result of their ties with one another, for which both countries, separately and jointly, remain the envy of other countries the world over. On balance there is no doubt that Saudi Arabia’s relations in general with practically all of its international partners remain as important to the kingdom as they do to its partners. The ongoing and multifaceted challenges embedded in these relationships notwithstanding, this is not only the result of a mutual preference – it is a natural tendency for countries’ leaders to want to perpetuate whatever assets they have accumulated from their bilateral ties with others over the years. However, in this particular case, it is also partly the result of a stark reality confronting all of Saudi Arab’s international partners. It is the realization that there are no viable short-term alternatives. Each of these partners has coldly but correctly calculated that it has no choice but to do what it can to maintain and where possible strengthen and expand as close and comfortable as well as reciprocally rewarding a web of interdependent relationships with the kingdom as possible. For this reason, if no other, the kingdom itself and practically all of its friends remain committed to trying to do two things as successfully as possible. One is to find more cost-effective and efficient ways to fortify and increase the positive features of their inter-connectedness. The other, to the extent possible, is to reduce the number and the potentially unhealthy nature of consequences stemming from the actual or looming points of contention and divergence between them. Stripped of cosmetics, and apart from heightened concerns in Riyadh and elsewhere about ultimate American intentions regarding the Gulf and the eastern Mediterranean regions, the following reality remains especially haunting. It is the fact that neither Saudi Arabia or many other Arab and Muslim country’s leaders have felt fully comfortable touting their relations and close ties with Washington in the past few years. This is, again, in spite of the numerous positive accomplishments that have occurred. The result has been an ongoing challenge with ominous implications for many international actors’ national security and related interests and the foreign policy objectives of numerous countries. In the case of many leaders on the global stage, it has not made their or anyone else’s job at statesmanship, difficult enough before King Abdallah acceded to the rulership, any easier. None would claim that the perpetuation of this particular situation regarding some of the more controversial things that the United States, as the world’s superpower, and numerous regional powers, have done or not done to advance global and regional stability – or minimize uncertainty -- has been cost-free. Neither would anyone claim that this situation has redounded to what many would argue are not just the legitimate but the increased necessary benefit, whether actual or potential, to the American, Saudi Arabian, and most other peoples. “IT’S THE POLICIES, STUPID” Without exception, all Arab and Muslim leaders find it difficult to explain to those among their citizens who have legitimate grievances not against the American people as a whole but against specific US foreign policies. Among the latter, respected public opinion surveys have repeatedly been quite revealing. They document increasing exception to the political sagacity if not the strategic wisdom of why many of the region’s leaders have chosen to remain as close to Washington politically as in previous decades. The frame of reference for many of these critics differs of course from one person to the next. For many, it is the most recent period since the accession to power in Washington of the Bush Administration. For these, the criticism centers on the de facto extended periods of US unwillingness to follow the precepts of its own exhortations to its international friends and allies regarding respect for the rule of law. A frame of reference dating much further back than: the more recent contentious issues cited continues to be the region-wide view of the U.S. government -- despite its involvement in more than seventy serious peace process proposals -- doing little if anything meaningful, effective, and of lasting value in achieving a satisfactory resolution of the long-standing Israeli-Palestinian issue. Few who follow their country’s international affairs dispassionately disagree that this one issue remains at the core of the pervasive anti-Americanism that has taken root and spread throughout the region. Indeed, what millions agree is that this one problem more than any other remains not only the oldest, largest, and most pervasive obstacle to maximizing regional stability and prosperity – but, also, the one that continues to be the greatest stumbling block to improving Arab-United States relations across the board. In this regard, of particular concern is the pan-Arab, pan-Islamic, and increasingly global perception that Washington officialdom has done so little to constrain Israel’s further seizures of Palestinian land and resources. One respected opinion poll after another has documented that the Bush Administration’s perceived support for Israel’s policy of assassinating prominent Palestinian leaders resisting Israel’s occupation of their land and water – rationalized by repeated but one-sided statements that “Israel has the right to defend itself” – falls far short of international law and the norms of inter-state legitimacy and for those reasons is unacceptable. Whether the reference is to Israel/Palestine, or more recently Lebanon or Syria, numerous other opinion surveys have condemned the Israeli Defense Forces’ brutal oppression of an entire people seeking to defend against the seizure of their property and: water whilst struggling to gain their elemental and legitimate human rights to freedom and dignity in their own land. INTERNATIONALLY AND BILATERALLY LESSER KNOWN ACCOMPLISHMENTS From a more objective viewpoint, this is not to say that the developments in the year since King Abdullah's becoming the kingdom’s head of state are now or have been, on balance, negative – as I have indicated, a remarkable range of accomplishments has occurred. For example, in addition to what was previously highlighted, Saudi Arabia’s business relationships with its largest and most important customer, the United States, have grown more in the past year than in any of the preceding three years prior to Abdullah's becoming king. The value of goods traded between the two countries in the past year – usually a key marker for the state of contemporary trust and confidence between business associates -- is, for both countries, the highest in almost a decade. In addition, the fact that Saudi Arabia was finally admitted to the World Trade Organization (WTO) is an achievement of no small moment. This ended an arduous 12-year quest that at times had to have raised serious questions in Riyadh as to whether the process was worthwhile. In order to overcome major and prolonged American and other reluctance to facilitate the kingdom's entry to the grouping, the government, with Abdallah first as crown prince and then as king leading the drive, eventually enacted more than 40 new business-related laws, rules, and regulations. In so doing, it proved wrong the many critics who had argued that the country would be unlikely to reach such a point. For years previously, many questioned whether Saudi Arabia could do what was necessary to comply with the organization’s continually expanding procedures and approved practices. In terms of the nexus between Riyadh and Washington, there have been other areas of significant and mutually beneficial cooperation as well. Unbeknownst to all but a few in their respective foreign affairs, intelligence, and security agency communities, and among specialists within selected media, academe, and a few think tanks, Saudi-US cooperation in the fields of national security in general and counterterrorism in particular has for some time now been at an all-time high. Indeed, if one is to accept the views of acknowledged authorities on the subject, some of whom SUSRIS has interviewed, the nature and extent of the cooperation at the governmental level for the past year and several in succession before it may prove to be historically unprecedented. The frame of reference is that there are specialists on both sides who with ample reason claim that the cooperation in the several fields I just noted exceeds by a substantial measure that between not only the US and any other government among Arab countries, the Mideast, and the Islamic world. Some go further and claim the level of cooperation that Washington has in these areas with Saudi Arabia exceeds that which it has with most governments in Europe, Latin America, Asia, and Africa as well. Throughout 2005, for more than a year before that, and continuing since the accession of King Abdullah, counterterrorism specialists from the two countries have met together daily in Riyadh and Washington. Seated side-by-side, they have examined and analyzed real-time intelligence data related to possible acts of terrorism, the location of specific terrorists, and support for terrorism. They have done so to ensure that as much as possible was being done to monitor – and where possible, shut down – the conduits through which moneys from any sources anywhere, anytime, and regardless of the rationale, have sometimes made their way into the hands of terrorist organizations and their operatives as well as supporters in the past. The implications of numerous and diverse trends such as these are of course hardly bereft of blemish. While the positive aspects have outweighed the negative ones to date, given what the state of the bilateral relationship was before King Abdullah’s accession, the results overall have been mixed. On the one hand, there can be little doubt that the Kingdom’s admission into the world’s premier commercial grouping, its hosting of a major global conference on terrorism and counterterrorism, its unprecedented establishment of an international energy center in Riyadh, and its delivering in the midst of heightened regional conflict every single barrel of oil promised to its international customers – would not ordinarily be considered as typical of the caliber of achievements registered by any country within the span of a single year. On the other hand, within the United States, the image of Saudi Arabia and its people as well as some of its domestic and foreign policies continues to be laced with ignorance and the prejudice that often accompanies lack of accurate information and insight, something that SUSRIS has long and effectively sought to reverse. And within the kingdom itself, it remains the case that large numbers wonder not only when but whether the United States will live up to its pledge to do whatever is necessary to bring about peace and stability in a region that cries out for both. The same observers and critics also continue to doubt whether Washington officialdom’s policies will cease being a threat to America’s own legitimate national security and related interests in the region. In addition, there are signs that progress towards comparable breakthroughs in the broader public affairs and people-to-people components of the two countries' relationship – signs that would ordinarily accompany the kinds of positive accomplishments reached between them that I have noted -- is still, at best, minimal. LINGERING OBSTACLES TO FURTHER IMPROVEMENTS The reasons for the uneven, incomplete, and less than desired results on both sides have a lot to do with the continuing less-than-positive image of each country in the eyes of the rank and file citizenry of the other. How the reality of the bilateral relationship came to this state of affairs cannot be said to have been associated with accident or coincidence. Aside from irresponsibly excessive hype from some commentators in both countries, part of the prevailing circumstances is reflective of a steady accumulation of disappointment by both sides of the other country’s public policies and positions, together with various among their attitudes and actions, to which large numbers on both sides also take exception. In addition to disagreements over policies, the situation remains periodically exacerbated by reciprocal but no means symmetrically negative stereotypes, hostile media, and critical commentary across the board from educators as well as faith-based and other opinion leaders in both countries. Yet finding fault in two different directions simultaneously is not necessarily the same as implying balance. Certainly it ought not to be mistaken in this instance for anything comparable to Shakespeare’s Mayor of Verona admonishing the Italian families of the Capulets and the Montagues in equal measure -- far from it. On Saudi Arabia’s watch, it is to King Abdullah's credit on the courage and responsibility fronts that he has castigated and called to account substantial numbers of extremist leaders who have publicly spouted defamatory and antagonistic rhetoric wrapped in the raiment of religious rhetoric. In dramatic contrast, confronted with the same kind of challenge, the extent to which King Abdullah's counterpart as American head of state has done anything similarly responsible or comparably courageous has been barely and only intermittently discernible -- many would say if at all. In no known instance to me] has anyone in the White House criticized prominent American leaders for having stated publicly some of the most patently false, bigoted, and inflammatory statements about Islam imaginable. Not only for students of governance but many others who would demand and expect that their leaders adhere to the highest standards of ethical conduct possible, the glaring contradiction in levels of public responsibility and stewardship manifested in this instance between the two heads of state on this particular issue that one would think should be of immense importance, could hardly be more pronounced. Anyone seeking to explain why the voice of the American president and ranking Members of Congress have been notable by: their continued silence on an issue as significant as this is not at a loss for reasons. It is well known that many of the American preachers and media commentators who have publicly defamed Islam the most count themselves to be among the president’s and prominent national legislators’ most fervent constituents and political supporters. Among them are ones who have practically made a cottage industry of disparaging the religious beliefs and moral principles as well as the heritage and culture of Muslims -- not at the dinner table among their friends and associates, but inside large numbers of American churches and repeatedly on nationally televised television shows viewed regularly by millions throughout the United States. EDUCATION AS BRIDGES AND OTHER RESOURCES Given the implications for leadership and the furtherance of legitimate interests at both ends of the bilateral Saudi Arabia-United States spectrum, there is something else about the minimally realized potential for enhancing our two peoples’ benefit that is remarkable. In 2005, King Abdullah announced that as many as 100,000 Saudis who could gain acceptance into recognized foreign universities would be able to do so at full government expense over the next five years. It is my understanding that of the 20,000 students authorized to register for undergraduate and graduate higher educational programs abroad in 2005, 75 percent of those who applied indicated that, more than any place else, and in keeping with the wishes of their parents in the immediately preceding generation, they wanted to study in the United States. One part of what is remarkable in this regard is that even in the half-decade downturn in the relationship since September 11, 2001, the following fact, which continues to drum many who hear it for the first time into silence and awe, continues to exist a fact that has no remotely comparable echo anywhere else in the world. To wit, it remains the case, as it has been on any given day since 1975, that there are more American-trained PhD holders serving in the Cabinet of Saudi Arabia than, on the same day, there are doctorate holders of any kind serving in the United States Cabinet, Supreme Court, Senate, and House of representatives combined. Since King Abdullah's announcement of the new program, each Saudi Arabian scholarship to an American university has been valued at an average of $50,000 per year. However, the matching of applicants and acceptances to American universities has hit an unexpected snag on the visa front. Despite this important and long-sought development in the Saudi-US relationship on the people-to-people stage, the visa processing centers at the American consulates in Dhahran and Jeddah remain closed. So do both consulates in their entirety, as per US policy. Thus far, no other country has decided to emulate the US example or adopt its own version of American official policy in this regard. This has meant that far fewer Saudis have been able to obtain the necessary visas to travel to America and begin their studies there than had been accepted. In the end, the reasons why the consulates and their visa offices were and remain closed are of little relevance, while the result continues to be important. Worse, the damage inflicted upon American and Saudi Arabian interests alike is self-evident. The chief executive officer of a leading corporation in the kingdom recently informed me of the following that will take a long time for me not only to fathom the reason but, if ever, to forget its implications for the bilateral relationship’s needs for the near-term future. “Since 2001, he said, and here I paraphrase, “ the United States has already lost 400 of my company’s employees. These are not run of the mill workers. They are what would have been this key sector of my country’s leaders of tomorrow. They cannot be counted on to be as supportive of promoting the future well-being of our bilateral relationship, as they would be if we did not have this problem. The situation is harming us both. It is spreading ill will on both sides to neither country’s advantage. Because of America’s highly restrictive visa policies, we had no choice but to send them to Australia, Canada, China, Great Britain, Ireland, New Zealand, and elsewhere.” VISA ISSUES AND POSSIBLE LEGISLATIVE ANIMOSITY The ongoing visa issue remains, as it has for five consecutive years, a major obstacle to improving the human element in the bilateral relationship. It is not so much a problem on the Saudi Arabian side of the relationship; to the contrary, it is mainly the opposite: the problem is on the American side of the relationship. This issue continues to constitute a powerful political and bureaucratic roadblock to something else that is of no less importance – as President Bush has so often been fond of saying, “ ..of doing whatever is necessary to defend the United States and the interests of the American people.” Leaders from among America’s nearly 4,000 institutions of higher learning and such professional associations as those that advise foreign students are not alone among those who have expressed their exasperation at the United States failure to do what has been and continues to be necessary to further the American national interest in this regard. They and many others have repeatedly pointed out the self-inflicted damage of policies that have ensued from American policies towards not just Saudi Arabia but also other Arab countries, the Mideast, and the Islamic world in this regard. To that effect, they have denied a much sought-after American component to the education and training of Saudi Arabia’s future leaders – the very people destined to be involved in managing the kingdom’s side of ties between the two countries. At the governmental level, there have also been additional developments that reflect fundamental difficulties in a particularly important aspect of the relationship. In 2006, for example, it is my understanding that the Saudi Arabian Accountability Act (SAAA), which was first presented to the US Congress as a bill for consideration in 2004, remains in suspended animation. The proposed legislation mirrors a similar bill that had been enacted against Syria the year before last. The effect of that legislation was to place Syria – which was already subject to American economic sanctions – at an even greater distance from the United States. Were the same proposed legislation to become a law applicable to Saudi Arabia-US relations, the negative implications for the bilateral ties between the two countries would be self-evident. With the 2004 US elections as a guide, the forthcoming 2006 biennial American elections for the entirety of the House of 435 Representatives and a third of the seats in the 100-member Senate are already illuminative of the kinds of additional stress and strain that a sane person would think neither country needs. Indeed, the heat and tumble of partisan political electioneering has already begun to accelerate the renewed and heightened spate of Saudi Arabia-bashing. Given the reality of the US domestic political climate, some things are as predictable this year as they have been in elections before. For example, it is a given that many American candidates for elected office and those among their supporters who would aspire to an appointed position or have extended to them some personal or other favor following the election, will be unlikely to wage an effective campaign against such bashing. In the current American state and local political atmosphere, for an actual or aspirant leader or would-be political appointee to stand up, be crystal clear, and call for an end to the unwarranted bashing of Saudi Arabia and the special American-Saudi Arabian relationship, would be more than the best of Hollywood fantasia; it would be costly in the extreme to that person’s electoral or appointive prospects. It is on one hand a commentary on the times and on the other the timidity of national leaders to note that not doing so is almost cost-free. In this context, it remains to be seen whether, either before or in the aftermath of the coming American elections, there will be an even greater effort to move the SAAA into law. If so, whether the expected elevation in emotionalism associated with most American national elections would have a decidedly anti-Arab, anti-Muslim, or anti–Saudi Arabian tone greater than has existed of late – which specialists believe would be necessary to ensure its passage -- remains to be seen. OIL In the period since King Abdallah became king, the world has remained as concerned about Saudi Arabian and other Gulf oil issues as before, if not more so. Not only have all the GCC countries been producing flat-out. More importantly but strategically, in the eyes of some, also more ominously, only Saudi Arabia before as now has any significant excess capacity. In dramatic contrast, the circumstances regarding Iraq’s oil industry: -- not to mention Nigeria’s, Russia’s, and Venezuela’s -- remain exceptionally problematic. The situation there, problematic before the American campaign to topple the government of Saddam Hussein, has been exacerbated by the country's invasion and occupation. It has been compounded by the ensuing repeated attacks by insurgents on the country’s oil production, pipelines, pumping stations, refineries, export terminals, and other facilities. Even now, more than three years later, Iraqi production still falls far short of the pre-invasion level of 2.3 million barrels per day – on good days, it is half that. The ongoing setbacks represent more than a massive disappointment to Iraqis -- they constitute formidable domestic and international disincentives for Saudi Arabians or anyone else interested in the possibilities of investing substantially in the country’s oil and gas sectors, economic infrastructure, agriculture, manufacturing, and service industries. The setbacks also negatively impact energy forecasting. For Saudi Arabians no less than Americans and purchasers of oil all over the world, uncertainties associated with the prospects for Iraq’s near-term stability and security have been adding for some time, all by themselves, as much as ten dollars per barrel to the price of oil on world markets. An additional seven to eight dollars’ hike in the price continues to be caused by speculators. These non-production variables in the past three plus years -- none of which can be laid at the feet of Saudi Arabia or any of the other Arab oil producers -- continue to account for as much as a third of the cost per barrel. Added to these factors continue to be the record-high Chinese and Indian demand for oil since King Abdallah became the country’s official head of state. Compounding the situation as noted have been periodic strikes by petroleum workers in Venezuela; recurring attacks against oil facilities in Nigeria; an extreme shortage of refineries in the United States; recent uncertainties regarding whether Russia would continue to supply oil to newly independent countries to its west with guarantees on terms similar to ones in the past; publications in America hyping the view that world oil production has peaked; hawkish talk by high-ranking Americans and Israelis against Iran and now Lebanon and possibly also Syria; and a backlog of orders worldwide to rent oil drilling platforms, all of them being in use. The overall impact should not be surprising – high oil prices are practically guaranteed for the indefinite future. Further, several factors related to the United States in particular continue to play a prominent role in keeping oil prices high. One is American demand. This shows no signs of lessening. Despite having only five percent of the world’s population, the United States continues to consume 25 percent of all internationally traded petroleum. Another factor, recent talk by the Bush Administration of promoting conservation and encouraging substitutes for oil, has come cheap. It has fostered unrealistic expectations about the prospects for early success, especially with regard to transportation fuels, exceeding what is possible in the near term and fueling – no pun intended -- little more, if anything, than false, over-the-horizon hopes, bordering on fantasia. A third factor likely to sustain historically elevated oil prices is that the levying of an added gasoline tax to curb consumption in the United States remains taboo. A fourth is that prominent American voices that might otherwise campaign in favor of the imposition of more stringent limits on the size and fuel consumption of automobiles and other motorized vehicles -- other than the ones presently in effect -- remain silenced. This issue continues to be more than difficult to discuss objectively within the US Congress. With the fall 2006 elections coming nearer by the day, the topic remains politically off-limits. It is not exactly as if the situation in the United States is one where public thinking about new and different ways of meeting the country’s energy requirements is dormant. To the contrary, proposals for automobiles and other modes of land transportation to get the maximum possible mileage as well as other ideas promoting greater fuel efficiency and energy conservation continue to be the stuff of television shows, industry advertisements, administration speeches, scientific seminars, and ongoing research and development. However, despite President Bush’s rhetoric about the need to lessen America's reliance on foreign oil – but not on foreign food, not on automobiles, not on: electronic gear, not on textiles, and not on fashion -- and new but modest budgetary appropriations to spur further research on alternative fuels, growing concerns over high oil prices have had -- and will likely continue to have limited effect. Such measures have not yet forced the United States to urgently undertake truly drastic and revolutionary necessary measures. Indeed, nothing effective has been done in order to curb its seemingly insatiable thirst for manageably priced petroleum and petroleum products. Accordingly, and not surprisingly, the cost for regular grade American automobile gasoline at the pump remains, on average, at just below or above three dollars a gallon. The same amount of gasoline -- as a direct result of substantial taxes imposed not by Saudi Arabia or any of the other producing countries but by most energy importing nations –: costs nearly twice that in Brussels, London, Rotterdam, Tokyo, and many other places. As King Abdallah and numerous other Saudi Arabian officials have noted, a further enormous hindrance to setting right the world’s energy situation is the inadequate level internationally of refining capacity. In 2005, even before two major hurricanes struck the American Gulf coast, the lack of refined products had been driving up the price of oil, although gasoline was not affected much. This factor was rooted in the United States' failure to build a single new refinery for 30 years. The first of the two hurricanes disabled two major refineries. This alone sent prices skyward. The weather could not have affected the country at a more vulnerable spot – nearly 40 percent of US oil imports have traditionally entered the country through this region. In the period since King Abdallah became king a year ago, the world has been nowhere near to solving its multifaceted refinery problems. In fact, and in fairness, it is not as if Saudi Arabia and the other GCC oil and gas producers have failed to be forthcoming in offering to provide assistance. Riyadh, for example, has repeatedly offered to invest in building two or more refineries in the United States. However, Washington and various American state and local governments, the latter for reasons reportedly related to environmental concerns, have been consistently resistant. Who wants to have a refinery within view or walking distance of the left or right side of their apartment or house or near the front or back side of their dwelling either? If this situation were to change, and the building of new refineries or substantial expansions to existing refineries were allowed to occur, this would considerably lessen some of the uncertainties facing the world’s largest consumer of imported oil regarding prices as well as supplies. EASTERN WINDS In mid-2006, the dynamics of Saudi Arabia’s oil relations with the world as a whole continue to stand in marked contrast to its customers’ situations. This is so for reasons unrelated to the developments noted earlier. As a case in point, King Abdallah is recognized as having done much to elevate the kingdom’s ties with China. In return, China’s policies, positions, actions, and attitudes regarding Arabs, Muslims, Islam, and Mideast oil constitute studies in dramatic contrast with the United States. The difference in the political climate between Washington, on one hand, and China, on the other, on matters pertaining to their respective declared interests and relations with key Arab and Islamic countries, is in some ways like night and day. The divergence to date in their stylistic approaches, too, has been profound – they are practically polar opposites. The Bush Administration, in contrast to China, is seen globally as increasingly willing to pay homage to those calling to reduce the country's reliance on foreign – which most see as a thinly veiled reference for Middle Eastern and particularly Saudi Arabian – oil. China thus far has elected to view the matter differently and decided to act quite differently. Beijing’s leaders to date have adopted almost the opposite approach of that of American officials and much of the US public and media. Until now, they could hardly have been more positive, enthusiastic, and forthright in extending a hand of friendship and commercial partnership to their counterparts in Saudi Arabia and the other GCC oil-producing countries. They have repeatedly stated that they welcome the opportunity to forge greater interdependence based on their oil import needs and the oil export objectives of Saudi Arabia and other GCC countries. It is still too soon to determine what the medium-term impact of such developments might be. However, it seems like some of the consequences I have noted could potentially prove problematic for Saudi Arabian and other GCC-US oil relations – possibly sooner rather than later. A major reason is that oil remains a finite and undeniably vital resource driving world economic growth and one, which is constantly being depleted. What is either already clear or may possibly be so earlier than anticipated is the following. One is the growing nexus between Saudi Arabian and other GCC, Iranian, and Chinese, together with Indian, oil and gas interests. A second reason for concern is the following. It is the near-certainty of expanded joint ventures among these key non-U.S. and increasingly important international actors. Such ventures could possibly be not only in energy production but also in the security of energy supplies plus co-investments in mining, railroads, construction, and maintenance. A third, albeit for the moment more remote possibility, is enhanced defense cooperation between Saudi Arabia and its Asian customers and partners. There are no signs that this is imminent but one cannot rule out the possibility that it may occur at some point if only in small increments and with a view to ensuring the prolonged mutuality of increased strategic, economic, and commercial benefits resulting from the two trends that I have noted. PIQUED BY “PEAK OIL?” Beyond the uncertain longer-term results of elevated Chinese and Indian demand for Saudi Arabia’s and other Gulf countries’ fuel deposits, there are additional considerations that investment analysts, bankers, and energy consultants will want to ponder. Market predictions for oil and gas, for example, are confounded to some degree by articles focusing on the future of Saudi Arabia’s energy resources. Of particular concern is the intermittent public fascination with the topic of “peak oil” -- this is in spite of the fact that many specialists believe that the earlier sustained public interest in peak oil has itself begun to show signs of peaking. Some banking and financial publications have caused a stir by hyping the fear that Saudi Arabia’s production will peak years sooner than expected. A few maintain that world reserves peaked as of 2005. Such alarmist reporting has helped sow a degree of doubt among energy planners. No such lack of confidence was evident, let alone as publicly obvious or widely discussed, in years past. Earlier unchallenged views that Arabia and the Gulf would be the main source of world oil supplies, and that Saudi Arabia would definitely be the premier source for the indefinite future, have been, if not exactly shaken, then at least nudged. Lost in the swirl of controversy surrounding this new analysis by some people of world energy dynamics is that few publications have noted that the accompanying scare was originally the result of writings by Matthew Simmons. The latter has been and remains a controversial source. Simmons’ analytical credentials, if not also his prognostic ones as well, are considered by many to be dubious given that he has long been an American investment banker based in Houston, Texas. Even now, relatively few people outside the publications and conferences where Simmons has argued this case would have known the frequency with which his contentions have been soundly rebutted by geologists, petroleum engineers, and oil reservoir technical specialists. These quite differently situated individuals and specialists, almost all of whom have had decades of firsthand experience working with the oil fields in question and whose work has required that they carefully monitor and report on such matters every day, all year round, continue to contest and argue the exact opposite of the “peak” oil theorists. At this point exactly one year after King Abdullah's accession to the rulership of Saudi Arabia, there are some further considerations, amounting to apprehensions for many that relate to concerns about the international energy situation. One of the largest sources of concern continues to be Iraq, which I addressed in passing earlier. Another is Iran. Two scenarios presently relating to that country seem to have the potential to drive oil prices even higher. One is the range of possibilities, however remote or questionable in terms either of feasibility or of dubious certainty in terms of outcome, that are embedded in the much-ballyhooed scenario of a military strike of some kind -- by the United States, by Israel, by some combination of the two -- against Iran. The other is the possibility that Iran could be censured by the UN Security Council in the coming weeks. In the latter case, the Security Council might enact economic sanctions against Iran over and above the ones already imposed unilaterally by the United States. Both scenarios are nightmarish. The first possibility is associated with estimates of oil prices exceeding 100 dollars per barrel in a matter of days. The second one, in the eyes of most energy analysts, would likely prove self-defeating and counterproductive. The reason is that few if any can envision oil-hungry nations other than the United States and Israel refusing to purchase as much Iranian oil as Tehran is willing to produce and place on the market – regardless of whether additional sanctions are enacted. As of today, it is hard to believe that any strategist or foreign policy analyst would disagree that two current developments present challenges of immense international significance. The first is that there has been a major and hard-earned renewal of many of the numerous and undeniable benefits derived nationally, bilaterally, regionally, and globally from the long special relationship between Saudi Arabia and the United States– not this year, not last year, not since the end of the Cold War, but for decades on end. The other is that, despite this, the larger Mideast region, inclusive of the issues I have discussed that impact simultaneously on near-term trends and indications regarding Israel-Palestine, Iraq, Iran, and ominously Lebanon and Syria as well, could inflict great damage upon these notable accomplishments. DR. JOHN DUKE ANTHONY is the founding president and chief executive officer of the National Council on U.S.-Arab Relations. Based in Washington, D.C. and established in 1983, the Council is a nonprofit and nongovernmental educational organization that administers programs to increase American awareness of U.S. interests and involvement in the Arab countries, the Mideast, and the Islamic world. Saudi-US Relations Information Service eMail: info@SUSRIS.org Web: http://www.Saudi-US-Relations.org -------- us General: Guard units not combat ready Updated 8/1/2006 (AP) http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-08-01-guard-combat-readiness_x.htm WASHINGTON — More than two-thirds of the Army National Guard's 34 brigades are not combat ready due largely to vast equipment shortfalls that will take as much as $21 billion to correct, the top National Guard general said Tuesday. Lt. Gen. H. Steven Blum spoke to a group defense reporters after Army officials, analysts and members of Congress disclosed that two-thirds of the active Army's brigades are not ready for war. ON DEADLINE: Post a comment, read Blum's bio The budget won't allow the military to complete the personnel training and equipment repairs and replacement that must be done when units return home after deploying to Iraq or Afghanistan, they say. "I am further behind or in an even more dire situation than the active Army, but we both have the same symptoms, I just have a higher fever," Blum said. One Army official acknowledged Tuesday that while all active Army units serving in the war zone are "100%" ready, the situation is not the same for those at home. "In the continental United States, there are plenty of units that are rated at significantly less than a C-1 rating," said Lt. Col. Carl S. Ey. "Backlogs at the depots, budget issues and the timeliness of receiving funds to conduct training are all critical to the Army's ability keep their force trained, ready and at the highest readiness level possible." Once a taboo subject for the military, often buried deep in classified documents, readiness levels — generally ranked from C-1 (the best) to C-4 (the worst) are now being used as weapons themselves to force money out of Congress and the administration. And while Army officials still won't specify how many units are at which levels, they are being more open about the overall declining state of readiness. A key element of the problem is that Army units returning from the war have either left tanks, trucks or other equipment behind or are bringing them home damaged. Once back, many soldiers either leave the Army or move to other posts, forcing leaders to train others to replace them. As a result, the unit's ratings drop, said Ey, an Army spokesman. Last week, several House Democrats said publicly that two-thirds of the Army brigades are rated not ready for combat, and Army officials have not disputed that figure. On Tuesday, Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn., also declined to be specific, but said the Army is "very much worse off" than it was in late 1999 when the military said two of the 10 Army divisions were ranked at the lowest readiness level, C-4. At the time, two divisions equaled six brigades. The issue gained political momentum when then-candidate George Bush, during his nominating convention, said the Clinton administration let the U.S. military might erode. Now, as the 2006 elections approach, Democrats are saying the Bush administration is shortchanging the military. The Senate late Tuesday agreed to an amendment, offered by Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, to add $7.8 billion for the Army and $5.3 billion for the Marine Corps to the defense spending bill for 2007. The added funding would bring the bill to a total of $467 billion, including $63.1 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Stevens said the new $13.1 billion is for equipment repair and replacement, and to meet the requirements for continued combat operations, primarily in Iraq. The Senate planned to continue debate on the bill Wednesday. Stevens said earlier that lawmakers were talking with the Pentagon "to see if they really need that money." Congress members, including Senate Armed Services Chairman John Warner, R-Va., discussed the issue at a breakfast meeting with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in the Pentagon late last week. In addition to the National Guard's needs, the Army has said it needs $17 billion this year to meet its equipment and combat needs. Dodd said Tuesday he wants to see the Army's full request met, and he plans to offer an amendment to do that later this week. The Army's readiness score is based on four factors: whether a unit has all the equipment needed; whether the equipment is working; whether it has the number and types of personnel needed; and whether they are properly trained. ---- US war costs continue to shoot up By David Isenberg Aug 1, 2006 Asia Times http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/HH01Aa01.html The US military budget has been steadily growing since 2001, sometimes by leaps and bounds. Yet Pentagon officials and most members of Congress say it needs yet more. Why is that? It is true government figures always understate costs. The Pentagon budget is no exception. Congress in December passed a US$453 billion defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 2006. In fact, the total amount to be spent for the Department of Defense in 2006 is $13 billion to $63 billion more, the latter figure assuming full funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. If you also count non-DoD "national defense" costs, add another $21 billion, and if you count defense-related security costs, such as homeland security, the release numbers are low by more than $200 billion. The 2007 budget request of $439 billion marks an increase of about 27% in real terms since September 11, 2001, according to one analysis. This figure does not include $21.8 billion for Energy Department spending on nuclear-weapons activities. Nor does it include spending on the wars the United States is actually fighting. When these costs are added in, military spending for the coming year will be more than $600 billion - a figure that would exceed both the heights of the late president Ronald Reagan's military buildup and the Vietnam War, in inflation-adjusted terms. Of course, Congress pretends to be more of a budget hawk than it is by means of accounting sleight of hand. For example, according to a tutorial by Winslow Wheeler, former congressional military-budget analyst and now director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the liberal Washington, DC-based Center for Defense Information: In the last few years, the annual defense appropriation bill has been supplemented by an additional Title IX, often called "additional appropriations". This year, it amounted to $50 billion, none of it requested by the president. Its declared purpose is to pay for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. This money has a unique characteristic. It is "emergency" spending, which has had a specific legislative meaning since a 1991 budget agreement between Congress and then-president George H W Bush. "Emergency" spending is appropriations that do not count in the "spending caps" Congress imposes on itself for appropriations. For example, the 2006 congressional budget resolution imposed a "cap" on the DoD appropriation bill at $402.3 billion. The $452.8 billion Congress appropriated for that bill was, of course, way over that limit. However, $50 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan in Title IX and $5.9 billion in Hurricane Katrina and avian-flu expenses in other parts of the bill were all exempted from being "scored" to the cost of the bill because they are designated as "emergency". Thus the $452.8 billion bill fits under the $402.3 billion "cap" with room to spare. More to the point, the "emergency" [budget restraint exempt] characteristic of such Title IXs provide Congress, and its budget gamers, an incentive. If Congress can find a pretext to move programs from the regular part of the bill, where the spending counts, to Title IX, where the money does not count, then Congress can advertise itself as saving money. That is precisely what is going on. In addition, the White House has chosen to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq through supplemental appropriations and not through the regular budget. When America invaded Iraq in March 2003, Congress had not yet appropriated a single penny of the costs of that military operation. Instead, Congress waited for President George Bush to submit a request for "supplemental" appropriations. That first request for fiscal year 2003 was insufficient, and another supplemental request was later submitted. That's the pattern. For virtually each year of the war, Bush has submitted at least one, but usually two, supplemental funding requests. For the ongoing fiscal year, 2006, Bush never submitted a first supplemental; instead, in December 2005, Congress tacked on to the 2006 DoD Appropriations Act a $50 billion "bridge fund" to pay for the first part of this year's war. Predictably, just like regular appropriations bills, the supplementals serve as vehicles for dubious spending. Veronique de Rugy, a research fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said supplemental bills amounted to "budget tricks" to evade spending limits. "We have been using supplementals to finance the war, and it might actually make sense the first year," she said. "But three or four years into the war, no war spending should be going through supplementals. It's not as if it's sudden, urgent and unforeseen, or temporary." Interestingly, on June 28 the Pentagon delivered to Congress a report, "Fiscal Year 2007 President's Budget: Department of Defense Budget Allowance Details", that spells out how the Pentagon wants to spend the $50 billion it is seeking to pay for operations in the "war on terrorism" during the first few months of fiscal 2007. The Pentagon refuses to release the report publicly. The Pentagon's budget is being pressured by a corresponding flood of red ink in the federal budget, augmented by rising costs of Medicare, hurricane relief on the Gulf of Mexico coast, tax cuts and the Iraq war. Budget-wise, the war in Iraq has been one of increasing costs. In January, the Pentagon said it spent $4.5 billion a month on recurring operational costs in Iraq in fiscal 2005, nearly $300 million more than the average monthly costs the previous year. But that cost was only a piece of defense spending for the ongoing operations, and does not include more than $1 billion spent each month on procurement and military construction projects, as well as additional funds allocated for intelligence operations in Iraq. Iraq war costs are averaging about $6 billion a month, with Afghanistan costing another $1 billion. Together, that's more than the annual budget of the entire Coast Guard and 15 times what the Homeland Security Department is budgeted to spend this fiscal year on emergency preparedness for floods and other natural disasters. In March, the Congressional Research Service released a report that said spending will rise to $9.8 billion a month from the $6.8 billion a month the Pentagon said it spent last year. The group's March 10 report cites "substantial" expenses to replace or repair damaged weapons, aircraft, vehicles, radios and spare parts. US military spending in Iraq and Afghanistan will average 44% more in the current fiscal year than in 2005. The research service said it considers "all war and occupation costs", and figures in costs for health care, fuel, national intelligence and the training of Iraqi and Afghan security forces - "now a substantial expense", while the Pentagon counts just the cost of personnel, maintenance and operations. War costs are rising despite Pentagon estimates of lower personnel costs. Offsetting that decline is an increased request for procurement of new equipment: $25.7 billion in 2006, up from the $18.8 billion Congress provided in 2005. And year-by-year comparisons show that appropriations for operations and maintenance spending for the US Army and Marine Corps are rising by better than 30%. Higher fuel prices are a factor. In addition, the army must hire more contractors for logistical chores previously handled by National Guard forces, who have returned home after their mobilization has run its course. In fact, annual war costs in Iraq are easily outpacing the $61 billion a year that the United States spent in Vietnam between 1964 and 1972, in today's dollars. And the outlook is for more of the same. In July, the US Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released an analysis that found: The Congress has appropriated $432 billion for military operations and other activities related to the war on terrorism since September 2001. According to CBO estimates, from the time US forces invaded Iraq in March 2003, $290 billion has been allocated for activities in Iraq, of which $254 billion has gone to the Department of Defense and other defense agencies for military operations. Approximately $14 billion has been provided to establish, train and equip Iraqi security forces. Another $22 billion has been appropriated for reconstruction and relief efforts, diplomatic and consular operations, embassy construction, economic support and foreign aid. In addition to the amounts specifically appropriated for the "war on terrorism", the CBO estimates that from 2003 to the end of fiscal year 2006, the Veterans Administration will have spent about $1 billion on medical care, disability compensation, and survivor benefits resulting from military activities in Iraq. The CBO also projected the cost of those activities over the next 10 years under two scenarios. In the first scenario the number of forces deployed in and around Iraq would be reduced from the current level of approximately 190,000 to 140,000 in 2007 and would continue to decline rapidly until all troops were withdrawn from the Iraq theater of operations by the end of calendar year 2009. By CBO's estimates, that scenario would require additional appropriations totaling $166 billion for military operations over the 2007-2016 period. In the second scenario, the number of troops deployed to the Iraq theater of operations would decline less rapidly, from 170,000 in 2007 to 40,000 by the end of calendar year 2010 and would remain at that lower level through 2016. By CBO's estimates, that scenario would require the appropriation of $368 billion for military operations over the 2007-2016 period. Lack of accountability over Iraq war-related spending has been so obvious and blatant that Republican members of Congress agreed to co-sponsor with Democrats a landmark proposal to create a special House committee to investigate Iraq war spending. Previously the proposal to create a modern-day "Truman Committee" - modeled after the oversight board run by then-senator Harry Truman to root out contracting abuses during World War II - has been blocked from consideration by Republican leaders for more than a year. The Iraq war has also had substantial costs in terms of wear and tear on equipment. Last year senior Marine Corps officials admitted that if the war in Iraq ended tomorrow and their units shipped home, it would cost $12.8 billion to re-equip them with vehicles and gear lost in combat and through wear and tear. That outlay would take up a significant portion of the corps's yearly budget, which in 2004 stood at nearly $17 billion. Much of the equipment deployed in Iraq is beginning to wear out as a result of heavy use, harsh operating conditions, and the frequent attacks launched by insurgents. Furthermore, the quantity and quality of weapons in units away from the war zone are eroding as equipment is transferred to deploying units. The latter problem is particularly pronounced in the reserves, which already were functioning with a deficit of modern equipment when the war began. It was reported in February that the army is asking for $9 billion to "reset" its war-depleted stocks - the vast bulk to replace and repair tanks, helicopters and vehicles. Since the Iraq insurgency heated up in autumn 2003, the army's combat losses include about 20 M1 Abrams tanks, 50 Bradley Fighting Vehicles, 20 Stryker wheeled combat vehicles, 20 M113 armored personnel carriers, and 250 Humvees. The number of vehicles lost in battle comes to nearly 1,000 after adding in heavy and medium trucks and trailers, mine-clearing vehicles and Fox wheeled reconnaissance vehicles. Nearly all these losses were caused by improvised explosive devices in Iraq. The army said unfunded repair and upgrade work alone totals more than $3 billion. During fiscal 2005 the army deployed 23% of its trucks, 15% of its combat vehicles and 15% of its helicopters in Iraq, according to the Association of the United States Army. Much of this equipment does not rotate out when troops do, either because the army is trying to minimize transport costs or because it wants to retain key items such as up-armored vehicles in the war zone. As a result, the equipment is exposed to continuous use for long periods of time - more than two years in the case of some Chinook helicopters - and may not receive scheduled maintenance in a timely fashion. The army conducted an analysis of how such stresses affect field equipment and concluded that a single year of deployment in Iraq would cause as much wear and tear as five years of peacetime use. That is hardly surprising, given that much of the equipment in Iraq is being used at a rate several times as high as typically prevails in peacetime. The operating tempo, or "optempo", of helicopters is twice as high in the war zone as elsewhere. Combat vehicles such as the Abrams tank and Bradley Fighting Vehicle operate at five or six times normal rates. And trucks are used at up to 10 times their peacetime rates (which helps explain why so many are washed out by the end of their time in Iraq). But high utilization rates are only the beginning of the problem, because the conditions under which systems operate in Iraq are harsher than those encountered in peacetime training exercises. For example, Abrams tanks are designed to operate in open country, but in Iraq they often travel on paved roads, accelerating wear. Their mechanical and electronic systems are exposed to sand, wind, precipitation and vibration far in excess of what would be experienced in peacetime. Maintenance is deferred, or carried out in sub-optimal circumstances. And then there is the enemy, which seldom misses an opportunity to shoot a rocket-propelled grenade at whatever US vehicle is going by. Considering all the insults visited on army equipment in Iraq, it is impressive that the mission-capable rates of ground vehicles such as Abrams tanks and Humvees have been maintained at 90% in the war zone, and the mission-capable rate for helicopters is a respectable 77%. But this high state of readiness is being bought at a price. The equipment in Iraq is being run down rapidly, while reserve equipment in the US is being transferred to deploying units so extensively that non-deploying National Guard units have virtually no night-vision goggles, up-armored Humvees or chemical-agent-detection equipment. A June 26 memorandum circulated on Capitol Hill by Republican Congressman Joel Hefley, a House Armed Services Readiness Subcommittee chairman, raised concerns that army units training at home are so short on equipment and personnel that they are unready if needed urgently for Iraq, Afghanistan or potentially any other crisis that may emerge domestically or abroad. The document suggested the army had already deployed units to Iraq and Afghanistan officially rated at the lowest levels of readiness. Fixing and replacing army equipment alone could run from $60 billion to $100 billion, according to retired General Paul Kern, a senior consultant to the Cohen Group and the retired head of Army Materiel Command. The total cost for wear-and-tear on US equipment is unclear because it is not known how long US troops will be needed in Iraq and Afghanistan. David Isenberg is a senior research analyst at the British American Security Information Council, a member of the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy, and an adviser to the Straus Military Reform Project of the Center for Defense Information, Washington. These views are his own. -------- POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS / JUSTICE -------- homeland security / national intelligence Border strength hits 6,100 By Michelle Tan Staff writer August 01, 2006 Army Times http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1991374.php More than 6,100 Army and Air National Guard troops are now deployed along the four southern border states, the National Guard Bureau announced Monday. The troops are in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas as part of Operation Jump Start, a two-year effort designed to support U.S. Customs and Border Protection while it hires and trains 6,000 new Border Patrol agents. The added manpower provided by the Guard also allows more Border Patrol agents to return to law enforcement duties along the border. The announcement that 6,199 troops were now serving along the border came one day before the Aug. 1 deadline given to the Guard to have up to 6,000 soldiers and airmen in the four states. Operation Jump Start is part of a plan for sweeping immigration reform announced in May by President Bush. -------- ACTIVISTS Hundreds of Thousands of Protesters Camp Out in Mexico City Tuesday, August 1st, 2006 Headlines Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/01/1434239 In Mexico, several hundred thousand protesters are camping out throughout Mexico City to show support for a full recount in last month’s presidential election. Presidential runner-up Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador called for the massive protest during a demonstration on Sunday that attracted up to 2 million people. The protests have brought the city’s business district to standstill.