NucNews August 21, 2006 -------- NUCLEAR PNNL team discovers bacteria can make pearls of uranium Published Monday, August 21st, 2006 By John Trumbo, Tri-City Herald staff writer http://www.tri-cityherald.com/tch/local/story/8106470p-7999029c.html Pacific Northwest National Laboratory scientists have discovered Shewanella oneidensis bacteria's dirty little secret. It oozes goo loaded with pearls of uraninite, said Jim Frederickson, chief scientist on the research project. Shewanella bacteria have the remarkable ability to oxidize heavy metal uranium, converting the deadly byproduct of nuclear age processes at Hanford into less harmful uranium dioxide, or uraninite. Shewanella bacteria have the ability to "breathe," or reduce, metals the way human beings process oxygen. When oxygen is unavailable, Shewanella can pass excess energy during respiration in the form of electrons to metal and alter the metal's chemistry in the bargain -- for instance, turning soluble uranium into solid, insoluble uraninite (uranium dioxide). Researchers have known for 10 years that Shewanella microbes can do all this, but they haven't been able to figure out how, until now. Fredrickson's team has observed that Shewanella microbes secrete a slime, or extracellular polymeric substance, that contains the pearls of solid uraninite. And because it is slime, the uraninite tends to stick in the soil rather than flow. Fredrickson said this is a new direction for the research because it focuses on how the bacterium gets rid of the uraninite, almost as an intentional excretion. "It is an extension of the cell itself, kind of like growing a new appendage and then decorating it with these deposits," he said. "This may represent some kind of disposal mechanism for the cell," he added. Fredrickson and colleague Matthew Marshall are intrigued by why the Shewanella bacteria do this. If researchers can understand why the microbes convert the heavy metal uranium into uraninite, it could open new areas for how to use bacteria in cleaning up soil contaminated with radioactive waste. The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that uranium contaminates more than 2,500 billion liters of ground water nationwide. The agency has supported research for over a decade on the ability of naturally occurring microbes like Shewanella to slow or stop the underground migration of contaminates from streams, rivers and lakes. "The future is to work backwards and think like a bacterium," Fredrickson said. Lab scientists want to know why the uraninite pearls are no larger than five nanometers in size. "There has to be some kind of biological control going on," Fredrickson said. Marshall noted that uranium is very soluble and diffusible in water, which is why there is concern about the radioactive uranium plume at Hanford working its way to the Columbia River. But once the hot waste meets the Shewanella bacteria and changes into uraninite, it is much less soluble. Even more interesting is that the particles get enmeshed in the microbial slime, and become stuck in a "bacto-glue," Fredrickson said. "This stuff is sticky and goopy," he said. Marshall and Fredrickson used high resolution micropscopy to analyze the bacteria's proteins, which are suspected of being the key to understanding the processes. PNNL's team also collaborated with the Argonne National Laboratory to discover metal-reducing proteins in the uraninite that had become locked up in the slime. "The data Argonne gathered for us cemented our story," said Fredrickson. Most of the research at PNNL about Shewanella and the uraninite pearls was done in the 300 Area building, which is essentially right over the radioactive plume that is heading to the river. The research was funded by DOE's Office of Biological and Environmental Research, Environmental Remediation Sciences Program and Genomics: Genomes to Life. Part of this research was performed as a bio-geochemistry grand challenge at the W.R. Wiley Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory, a DOE national user facility located at PNNL, said lab spokesman Bill Cannon. -------- depleted uranium Scientists suspect Israeli arms used in South contain radioactive matter By Mohammed Zaatari Lebanon Daily Star staff Monday, August 21, 2006 http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=1&article_id=74891 MARJAYOUN: Mohammad Ali Qobeissi, a member of the National Council for Scientific Research, said on Sunday that a crater caused by an Israeli munition in Khiam contained "a high degree of unidentified radioactive materials." Qobeissi, along with Ibrahim Rashidi from the Faculty of Sciences at the Lebanese University, have inspected the crater - which is 3 meters deep and has a diameter of 10 meters - in the Jlahiyyeh quarter in Khiam, with a Geiger-Muller radioactivity counter and nuclear material detector. "A team from the council will test a sample from the crater in order to find out what kinds of radioactive materials it contains," Qobeisi told The Daily Star. He added that the Israeli weapons launched on Khiam and the neighboring areas of South Lebanon "probably contained a high level of uranium." The scientific team doubted, however, that the dust caused by these weapons was likely to contain the kind of radioactive materials which would later lead to cancers. -------- europe French Anti-Nuclear Group to Take EDF to Court Mon Aug 21, 2006 (Reuters) http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=naturalResources&storyid=2006-08-21T170625Z_01_L21904031_RTRIDST_0_SP_PAGE_024-L21904031-OISNR.XML&src=rss PARIS - French anti-nuclear association, Sortir du Nucleaire, said on Monday it will bring a court action against the building of French power giant EDF's (EDF.PA: Quote, Profile, Research) third reactor at a power station in northwest France. EDF wants to build a 1,600 megawatt European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) at Flamanville, near Cherbourg, which already houses two older reactors. Work is scheduled to start in 2007 with the reactor expected to be in functional by 2012 France is Europe's top power exporter with a fleet of 58 reactors that account for 80 percent of the country's power. Benoist Busson, the association's lawyer, said they were using an existing law on coastal protection -- which specifies that building permits should be granted only if the planned building is attached to a town or a village -- to try and delay the contruction of EPR. Flamanville's site is one kilometer away from the town. EDF said it did not comment on court actions in progress. "I think we should be able to delay the start of the work by a few months," Busson added. "EPR will just be used as a shop window to sell rectors to China," Busson said. "We don't need to build any more reactors as those we have can still be used until 2025," he said, adding that France was already producing more power than it needed. He said the aim of the action was to delay the building of the reactor in order to allow a debate on the country's energy policy ahead of the presidential election in April 2007. "We know that all the government needs to do is change a few words in the law to solve the problem but we are trying to be a thorn in their side," he added. -------- india Iran to start up heavy water plant for nuclear research reactor TEHRAN, Aug 21 (AFP) Aug 21, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/2006/060821125709.2dw88mee.html Iran said on Monday it would soon start up its heavy water plant in Arak which will feed a nuclear research reactor currently under construction, the semi-official news agency Fars reported. "The Arak heavy water production plant will become operational in the near future," Atomic Energy Organization deputy head Mohammad Saeedi was quoted as saying. He said it would make Iran one of nine countries that have heavy water plants. In February, the International Atomic Energy Agency asked Iran to reconsider its plans to work on a heavy water research reactor at Arak, a demand reiterated in a UN Security Council resolution of July 31. The research reactor, 250 kilometers (150 miles) south of Tehran, is due to be completed in 2009. It could produce plutonium and the West fears it could be used to make nuclear bombs, as neighboring Pakistan has done. ---- No Sign Iran Will Accept Atomic Offer By REUTERS August 21, 2006 http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-nuclear-iran.html?pagewanted=print TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Monday Iran would press ahead with its pursuit of nuclear energy, indicating it will not heed a U.N. demand it stop enriching uranium or face possible sanctions. Khamenei, who has the final word, did not mention enrichment by name but senior officials have repeated in recent days that it would not be stopped, with the deputy head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization joining the chorus on Monday. ``Considering the technical advancement of Iranian scientists, the suspension of uranium enrichment is not possible any more,'' Mohammad Saeedi was quoted as saying on Iran's Fars News Agency. Saeedi said Iran would formally reply on Tuesday to a nuclear package offered by six world powers, in return for an end to enrichment, that is aimed at allaying the West's fears that Iran wants atomic bombs. Khamenei said Iran would pursue its nuclear plans. ``The Islamic Republic of Iran has made its decision and, in the issue of nuclear energy, will continue its path powerfully ... and it will receive the sweet fruits of its efforts,'' state television quoted him as saying. The United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany presented the package in June, offering Iran economic and other incentives if it first halted uranium enrichment, a process that has both military and civilian uses. The U.N. Security Council has demanded Iran halt enrichment by August 31 or face possible sanctions. Iran has suggested it will not give a simple 'yes' or 'no' to the package but said the reply would be ``multi-dimensional.'' Iranian officials say they want more talks, but Western diplomats say Iran must halt enrichment first. Anything short of that that is likely to be considered a rejection of the offer in Western capitals. Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, visiting South Africa, repeated a call for negotiations to end the dispute. Iran has not said precisely how it will give its formal reply. One Iranian official suggested it could deliver a letter to European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana, who handed the package to Tehran. But this could not be confirmed. Solana said in a statement that he had spoken by phone with Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, on Sunday. ``We both agreed on our openness, under the right circumstances, to further contacts with the aim of establishing confidence in the purely civilian nature of the Iranian nuclear program,'' he said without mentioning a deadline for a reply. Solana's office gave no reaction to Khamenei's statement, only saying Solana expected a reply from Larijani. ``The Larijani-Solana channel is the one that counts,'' an EU diplomat said. SWIFT ACTION The world's fourth largest oil exporter insists it has the right to enrich uranium under international treaty and says it will use the technology to produce electricity. Western diplomats say Iran must first prove its aims are entirely peaceful to enjoy that right but the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy (IAEA), says questions must be answered before it can give Iran a clean bill of health. Washington has said it expects the United Nations to act swiftly if Iran refuses to stop the sensitive atomic work. But last month's resolution does not include an automatic trigger for sanctions, so any such move could take weeks or more. Iran may calculate that U.N. divisions mean it faces only modest measures such as asset freezes or travel restrictions on officials, which it feels it can tolerate, analysts say. Western leaders regard Iran as an urgent risk to peace, while Russia and China, key trade partners of Tehran, do not. Some Iranian analysts say Iran may feel strengthened after Lebanon's Iranian-backed Hizbollah scored what the group and Tehran called a victory in its conflict with Israel. Although the United States has called for a diplomatic solution, it has refused to rule out military action. ---- Defiant Iran vows to press on with nuclear work by Aresu Eqbali Mon Aug 21, 2006 (AFP) http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2142561,00.html TEHRAN - Iran's supreme leader has said the country would press on with its controversial nuclear work, paving the way for a likely showdown with the UN Security Council despite appeals for Tehran to bow to international demands. "The Islamic republic has made up its mind and on the nuclear programme and other issues it will continue on its path with strength, with God's help," Ayatollah Ali Khameini was quoted as saying on state television Monday. Khamenei, who has the last word on key policy issues, made the remarks on the eve of a Tuesday deadline for Iran to formally respond to an offer by major powers proposing a package of incentives in return for a suspension of uranium enrichment. The comments prompted Washington to repeat a call on the United Nations to move swiftly to impose sanctions against Iran if it refuses to stop nuclear enrichment activities by an August 31 deadline set by the Security Council. "There must be consequences if people thumb their nose at the United Nations Security Council. We will work with people on the Security Council to achieve that objective," US President George W. Bush said. But Khameini dismissed the US position as a conspiracy against the Islamic world. "Arrogant powers, led by the United States, are fearful of progress of Islamic countries in various dimensions," he said. "Therefore, in the nuclear issue, even though they know Iran is not seeking nuclear weapons, they are piling on the pressure to prevent our scientific progress as an Islamic country." A nuclear official said Iran would submit a "comprehensive written response" to the offer from the international community on Tuesday. The proposal, backed by the five UN Security Council permanent members -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- plus Germany, offers Tehran incentives in return for a freeze of sensitive nuclear work. Iran has been flexing its muscles in nationwide war games in which it has testfired new missiles. In a further indication it is unlikely to back down, the country's Atomic Energy Organisation said that suspension of uranium enrichment was "no longer possible" ahead of the August 31 deadline. "Given the technical progress of Iranian scientists, suspension of uranium is no longer possible under the current circumstances," deputy head Mohammad Saeedi, was quoted as saying by the semi-official Fars news agency. But Tehran, which has faced a long investigation by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) over its activities, insists it has the right to nuclear technology under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Saeedi said Iran was also planning to start up a plant in the city of Arak to produce heavy water for a research reactor due for completion by 2009. The IAEA is concerned about the risk of diversion of nuclear materials as the reactor could produce 8-10 kilogrammes (about 20 pounds) of plutonium a year, enough to make at least two nuclear bombs. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan appealed Sunday for Iran to reply positively to the incentives package. "I appeal to the government of Iran to seize this historic opportunity," Annan said. "Iran's reply will, I trust, be positive and that this will be the foundation for a final, negotiated settlement." France too said it hoped Iran would "seize the offer made to it". But a prominent member of the hardline-controlled parliament warned that MPs would block IAEA inspections of Iranian nuclear sites if the Security Council decided to impose sanctions. Ahead of the latest flurry of statements from Tehran, EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said he was to open "further contacts" with Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani. "We both agreed on our openness, under the right circumstances, to further contacts with the aim of re-establishing confidence in the purely civilian nature of the Iranian nuclear programme," he said after a phone call with Larijani. IAEA chief Mohammed ElBaradei is to report back to the Security Council on Iran's compliance with the deadline and if it is deemed to have failed to comply, the Security Council will consider adopting "appropriate measures" under Article 41 of Chapter Seven of the UN Charter, which sets out enforcement powers. Iran, the number two producer in the OPEC oil cartel, has threatened to halt exports if the Security Council imposes sanctions and world crude prices jumped on Monday after Iran said it would ignore the UN deadline. In London, benchmark Brent North Sea crude for October delivery jumped 1.03 dollars to 73.18 dollars per barrel in electronic trade. New York's main contract, light sweet crude for delivery in September, climbed 56 cents to 71.70 dollars per barrel in pit trading. ---- Iran Denies Inspectors Access to Site Aug 21, 2006 By GEORGE JAHN Associated Press Writer http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/D8JKSG081.html VIENNA, Austria - Iran has turned away U.N. inspectors wanting to examine its underground nuclear site in an apparent violation of the Nonproliferation Treaty, diplomats and U.N. officials said Monday. The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the confidentiality of the information, told The Associated Press that Iran's unprecedented refusal to allow access to the facility at Natanz could seriously hamper international efforts to ensure that Tehran is not trying to make nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, Iran's supreme leader said Tehran will pursue nuclear technology despite a U.N. Security Council deadline to suspend uranium enrichment by the end of the month or face the threat of economic and diplomatic sanctions. "The Islamic Republic of Iran has made its own decision and in the nuclear case, God willing, with patience and power, will continue its path," said Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, according to state television. His declaration came on the eve of Iran's self-imposed Tuesday deadline to respond to a Western incentives package for it to roll back its nuclear program. The United Nations has given Tehran until the end of August to suspend uranium enrichment. In his latest comments, Khamenei accused the United States of putting pressure on Iran despite Tehran's assertions that its nuclear program was peaceful. "Arrogant powers and the U.S. are putting their utmost pressure on Iran while knowing Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons," he said. Iran said Sunday it will offer a "multifaceted response" to the incentives proposal. It insisted that it won't suspend uranium enrichment altogether. At a news conference Monday, President Bush said the United States is getting an inkling of Tehran's response. "We are beginning to get some indication, but we'll wait until they have a formal response," Bush said. "Dates are fine, but what really matters is will. And one of the things I will continue to remind our friends and allies is the danger of a nuclear-armed Iran." The U.N. Security Council passed a resolution last month requiring the halt to enrichment under threat of economic and diplomatic sanctions. Also Monday, German Chancellor Angela Merkel pressed for a "solid answer" from Iran on the package. "I still hope that it will be positive, although some signals have been very confused," said Merkel, whose country drew up the package with the five permanent Security Council members. The proposal includes promises that the United States and Europe will provide civilian nuclear technology and that Washington will join direct talks with Iran. Tehran says uranium enrichment does not violate any of its obligations under the Nonproliferation Treaty, and that its nuclear program aims to produce electricity. Khamenei accused the West of wanting to obstruct scientific progress in the Islamic world and called for Islamic countries to stand together in the face of such pressure. ---- Bush wants UN to act swiftly against Iran by P. Parameswaran, Mon Aug 21, 2006 (AFP) http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060821/pl_afp/irannuclearpoliticsus WASHINGTON - US President George W. Bush urged the United Nations to move swiftly against Iran if it refuses to stop nuclear enrichment activities by a Security Council deadline of August 31, warning that there must be "consequences" for ignoring UN demands. Bush's warning came as Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said defiantly that Tehran would press on with nuclear enrichment, paving the way for a likely showdown with the world body. The UN Security Council has given Iran until the end of this month to halt enrichment -- a process that makes fuel for nuclear power plants but can be diverted to make weapons -- or face possible sanctions. Asked at a White House news conference whether he was confident the council would move quickly on sanctions if Iran defied the decision of the international community, Bush said, "I certainly hope so. "There must be consequences if people thumb their nose at the United Nations Security Council. We will work with people on the Security Council to achieve that objective," he said. "And one of the things I will continue to remind our friends and allies is the danger of a nuclear armed Iran," Bush said, again blaming the Islamic republic for fuelling the recent bloody conflict in Lebanon. The US leader's criticism also came on the eve of Iran's formal response to an offer by major powers proposing a package of incentives in return for a suspension of its uranium enrichment activities. A nuclear official in Tehran said Iran would submit a "comprehensive written response" about the package to European nations on Tuesday. The proposal -- backed by the five permanent UN Security Council members, Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States, plus Germany -- offers Tehran incentives in return for a freeze of sensitive nuclear work. In another indication that Iran would not bow to international demands, the country's Atomic Energy Organisation said that suspension of uranium enrichment was "no longer possible." Bush called for political will to resolve the Iranian nuclear question by the August 31 deadline, reminding that the ultimatum imposed on Iran was an international one, including Russia and China. "Dates are fine but what really matters is will," he said. "And so therefore it's up to the international community, including the United States, to work in concert for effective diplomacy," he said. The US leader said while the world should wait for the formal Iranian response to the UN deadline, he did not know whether the nuclear dispute would drag on. "You know, I don't know," he said when asked if the dispute would prolong. "I certainly want to solve this problem diplomatically and I believe the best chance to do so is for there to be more than one voice speaking clearly to the Iranians, and I was pleased that we got a resolution," he said. Bush was referring to the July 31 UN Security Council resolution passed by a 14-1 vote with Qatar in opposition ordering Iran to halt its nuclear activities by August 31 or face possible sanctions. Resolution 1696 took the international community one step closer to a confrontation with Tehran that has been building for the past three years. Iran insists its nuclear program is for civilian purposes but the United States and other Western countries believe the Islamic republic is keen on developing nuclear weapons. ---- Iran seeks "comprehensive" nuclear solution: minister Mon Aug 21, 2006 (Reuters) http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-08-21T101707Z_01_L21906216_RTRUKOC_0_US-NUCLEAR-IRAN-SAFRICA.xml&archived=False PRETORIA - Iran has completed its consideration of Western demands that it halt nuclear enrichment and still hopes to reach a comprehensive solution to the impasse, Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said on Monday. "We have completed our considerations," Mottaki told reporters in South Africa's capital Pretoria, where he is holding two days of talks with South African officials. "We hope, based on cooperation, negotiation, respecting the right of Iran to have nuclear technology and removing any questions, to catch a comprehensive solution (to the nuclear question)." Mottaki did not elaborate and his spokesman declined to say if his comments meant Tehran had decided on proposals made by the United States, Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany, which have offered incentives for Iran to suspend enrichment, a process that has military and civilian uses. Iran says it will formally respond by Tuesday to the proposals. -------- japan Japan Peace Committee and Our Struggles against the realignment of US military bases in Japan and for the protection of Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution Jun Chisaka Secretary General, Japan Peace Committee August 21, 2006 PEACE TOUR to the State of Washington, U.S.A. I. Japan Peace Committee: founded upon the regrets of the Japanese invasion war and the experience of A-bombs. The Japan Peace Committee is an NGO with individual membership founded in 1949, organizing some 20,000 members at present. It was originally founded in regret of the Japanese militarism and invasion war, which sacrificed the lives of 20 million people in Asia and 3.1 million citizens of its own, and with the bitter experience of A-bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which instantly killed more than 200,000 people. Based on the lessons, we have been active in the works for the abolition of nuclear weapons and against the moves that may lead Japan to war again. In order to prevent Japan from taking the war path again, we have especially struggled against the Japan-US military alliance which makes Japan to be a part of the US global strategy and to play a role in US war. We also take importance in the works to protect the Article 9 of The Japanese Constitution which declares the renunciation of war and no possession of military forces based on the remorseful experience of the invasion war. II. Roars, Crimes, Destruction of environment, War Bases …… the truth for US forces in Japan. Under the Japan-US Security Treaty, there are 135 US bases and facilities in all over Japan. The features are as follows: 1. Under the so-called "Whole Nation Base Formula" to implement military function onto entire Japan, US bases are carelessly stationed even in Capitol Tokyo and in the middle of other heavily populated areas, causing variety of problems to the nearby residents, such as the roaring noise, plane crashes, environmental contamination, US soldiers' crimes, and impediment of urban development. Especially, in Okinawa, which was under US occupation until 1972, 20% of its land is seized for US forces' use. The 1.2 million Okinawa people are forced to live in an abnormal state of constantly fearing the problems brought by US military bases. Due to the Japan-US Agreement on the facility use and status of forces, US military bases are actually treated as extraterritoriality, and we cannot hold Japanese law against the US soldiers, who commit crimes, to impartially judge them. 2. All the US forces in Japan are the "raiding forces" whose duty is the invasion in overseas, indifferent from Defense of Japan. These US forces have been the key sally forces for Vietnam War and Gulf Wars. During the wars in Iraq, more than 100,000 soldiers stationed in Japan were dispatched to the Gulf. The US aircraft carrier deployed in Yokosuka launched the Tomahawk missile, making the first strike against Iraq, and the carrierborne planes carried out air raids that killed civilians. The Marine Corps stationed in Okinawa plays main roles in the operations including the slaughtering of civilians in Fallujah. 3. Japan has experienced the A-bomb and we have the Three Non-nuclear Principles as national policy that says "no possession, no development, and no ENTRY of nuclear weapons." Nevertheless, the Japanese government made the "secret agreement" surreptitiously with the US, virtually allowing free-visit of US warships armed with nuclear weapons. 4. The Japanese government continues to cover 75% of the costs for US forces deployment (approximately 600 billion yen), which is a very strange situation. We believe the current state of the US bases in Japan is no different from violation of the sovereignty and human rights of the nation, threatening the public lives, safety and environment. We demand from the US to withdraw from Japan. We also believe that the people of the US would understand our feeling, since you have also experienced English colonization that deprived your sovereignty, and then made the "Declaration of Independence" to get away from infringement of human rights. 3. US bases are to be reinforced, consuming \3 trillion Japanese taxes We would like to make an indictment to the friends of the US that the governments of Japan and US are going to make a further reinforcement of these US bases in Japan. Moreover, 3 trillion yen of our tax money is about to be consumed. It is equivalent to making a 100,000 yen payment for a 4-member family. This realignment is planned to make the US forces in Japan to be the axis of the US global strategy to conduct preemptive strike wars just as the Bush administration did in Iraq. Furthermore, they are trying to establish a system to mobilize the Japanese Self Defense Forces in US war, in order to take over the pain of US, as the lives of many American youth are being sacrificed in the Gulf and the US war expenditure is rising tremendously. Examples of planned realignments are as follows: # To relocate the US Army Headquarters I Corps from Fort Lewis in Tacoma, Washington, to Camp Zama in Kanagawa, Japan, nearby Tokyo. This impedes the wishes of Zama and Sagamihara Cities, the hosting grounds of Camp Zama, because they have requested over the years to close and withdraw the base. # To deploy the nuclear powered aircraft carrier George Washington to the Base Yokosuka, neighboring Tokyo. This puts 30 million people in the greater Tokyo Metropolitan area to the risk of possible radiation contamination. # To relocate the Carrier Air Wing squadrons to Marine corps Air Station (MCAS) Iwakuni, neighboring A-bombed Hiroshima, and establish the largest air station in Far East, concentrating 120 fighters. The residents of the region will be exposed to roaring noise on daily basis. # To construct a new and huge MCAS in Okinawa, destroying the lagoon rich with rare corals and the home of dugongs (sea pig), the Internationally protected wild animal. This leads to environmental destruction and brings roars and danger of plane crush to the residents. # To construct Marine Corps facilities in Guam, consuming 700 billion yen from Japanese tax. # To establish a Japan-US bilateral Command headquarter in Base Yokota, widely bringing roars to the Tokyo metropolitan area. 4. Realignment of US military base is enforced despite the oppositions by the local governments and residents ---- is it acceptable? We strongly wish the US people, who appreciate freedom and democracy the most, to know that the governments of Japan and the US are about to enforce such realignment of US forces in Japan despite the definite oppositions by the local governments and residents where bases are located. For instance, the mayors of Zama and Sagamihara, planned cities for the relocation of the Headquarters I Corps, are organizing growing protest in tandem with the municipal assemblies and citizens, determined to prevent the realignment "even if attacked by missiles" or "run over by tanks." In Iwakuni City, the majority of citizens opposed in a ballot against the relocation and deployment of the US Carrier Air Wings, and the mayor stands in front of the opposition forces. In Okinawa Prefecture, more than 70% of the people opposed against the construction of new base, and the governor also declared himself to be against the plan. In Yokosuka City, though the mayor announced to accept the deployment of nuclear aircraft carrier, more than 60% of citizens are opposed and 30,000 people joined a protest on July 9th. From the democratic perspective, is it acceptable if the governments enforced such realignment of bases despite the firm opposition by the local governments and residents? Japan is not a colony of the United States. We would like the US people to know the situation in Japan. We ask for your support to stop the governments from trampling on people's will and forcing the unwanted US bases. 5. We make our best effort to protect the Article 9 of The Japanese Constitution which renounces war and possession of military. The US government is pressing the Japanese government to revise the Article 9 of The Japanese Constitution which renounces war and military forces, because, the Article 9 will be the greatest impediment, in order for the US to make the Japanese Self Defense Forces participate in the US war. We are now making our best effort to protect this Article 9, a complete realization of the Charter of the United Nations that seeks peaceful resolution of conflicts. The majority of the public speaks for no change of the Article 9 and against being a nation to conduct warfare in overseas. The "Article 9 Association," a citizen's network for protection of Article 9, has been formed at over 5000 places in Japan, and the number is growing. Friends of the US, Let us work together for abolition of nuclear weapons, the weapon of demons that leads us to the human annihilation. Let us work together to bring an end to the unjust Gulf War and occupation of Iraq. Please enhance public opinion against enforcing the realignment of US bases to the Japanese people. We also ask for your understanding on our struggle to protect the Article 9 of The Japanese Constitution, a complete realization of peace policy of the UN Charter, and all the more solidarity is appreciated. Let us work together to bring about a nuclear free world with peace and justice, based on the UN Charter. Let us enhance the real friendship between the people of the US and Japan. ---- Japan steps up search for nuclear fuel supply Bloomberg News August 21, 2006 http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/21/business/uranium.php TOKYO Companies are urging Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi of Japan to secure uranium mining rights when he visits Kazakhstan next week in an effort to beat China in the race for nuclear fuel supplies. Kansai Electric Power and Marubeni, one of Japan's largest trading companies, will be among those closely watching the outcome of Koizumi's meeting with President Nursultan Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan on Monday. The two governments agreed last November to cooperate in developing uranium mines to supply Japan's nuclear power plants. More than 50 percent of uranium worldwide is produced by four companies, including Cameco of Canada and Kazatomprom, which is owned by the Kazakhstan government. Competition for uranium in Kazakhstan, the world's third-biggest supplier, is increasing as the country seeks buyers in China, South Korea and Japan. "Kazakhstan and Japan will talk on possible co-development of various resources, such as uranium," said Tetsuo Ito, Japan's ambassador to Kazakhstan. "There is room for Japan, as Kazakhstan wants our expertise in the nuclear fuel business." Koizumi will visit Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan from Monday until Aug. 31, becoming the first Japanese prime minister to visit Central Asia. In Uzbekistan, he will meet with President Islam Karimov. Dissiyukov Almas, an official in the economic division at the Kazakhstan Embassy in Tokyo, confirmed that uranium development would be discussed at the meeting. "We are very much interested in gaining uranium mining rights for our future business plans," a spokesman for Marubeni, Taigo Noguchi, said. "We are keenly watching Koizumi's visit." Marubeni was one of several Japanese trading companies that visited Kazakhstan last November. Also on the tour were Sumitomo, Itochu, Mitsubishi, Mitsui, Sojitz, Kansai Electric and the Japan Bank for International Cooperation. Japan is the third-biggest generator of power from nuclear reactors, after the United States and France, with 29 percent of its electricity coming from the plants, according to the World Nuclear Association. Kazakhstan trails only Canada and Australia in producing uranium. "China and South Korea are aggressively courting Kazakhstan for its uranium," said Takeshi Sakata, an official at Japan Oil, Gas & Metals National. "It's tough competition for Japan, as Kazakhstan has not made it clear how much of its uranium mining will be open to foreign companies." Global uranium demand was 66,000 tons in 2004, according to the nuclear association. About 40,000 tons of it is produced from mines, with the rest - called secondary supply - coming from demolished Russian nuclear weapons and stockpiles. The association expects secondary supply to run out in 2013. Growing power demand in China and India is fueling concern about future scarcity of uranium, helping to quadruple prices in the past three years to $47.50 a pound as of last Wednesday. In May, Kazatomprom increased its forecast of uranium output for 2010 by 17 percent to 17,500 tons. Kazakhstan intends to triple uranium output by 2010, surpassing Canada and Australia to become the leading producer. Areva, the largest maker of nuclear power plants, started production in June at a uranium mine operated in a joint venture with Kazatomprom that has reserves of 27,000 tons. Uranium demand in Japan totals about 8,000 tons a year. In January, the trading company Sumitomo said it would develop a mine in Kazakhstan together with Kansai Electric to secure stable supplies of the nuclear fuel. The two companies and Kazatomprom will invest about $100 million in the mine in Western Mynkuduk, planning to start test production in 2007. -------- korea Bush asks Chinese leader to help end North Korean nuclear threat Mon Aug 21, 2006 (AFP) http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060821/pl_afp/usnkoreachinanuclear_060821162533 WASHINGTON - US President George W. Bush said he had pressed Chinese leader Hu Jintao for sustained Sino-US pressure on North Korea's dictator Kim Jong Il to end his country's nuclear weapons program. At the same time, Bush recommitted himself to six-country talks aimed at defusing the crisis and flatly rejected any easing of US pressure on Pyongyang over what Washington calls a campaign of counterfeiting US dollars. "I talked to Hu Jintao this morning about the six-party talks and about the need for us to continue to work together to send a clear message to the North Korean leader that there is a better choice for him than to continue to develop a nuclear weapon," Bush told reporters. "We talked about how we'll continue to collaborate and work together," the US president said at a hastily arranged press conference. Asked whether US energies might be devoted more to concerns about North Korea's nuclear and missile programs, Bush replied: "Counterfeiting US dollars is an issue that every president ought to be concerned about." "And when you catch people counterfeiting your money, you need to do something about it," said the president. White House national security spokesman Frederick Jones said the two leaders spoke for about 21 minutes and also touched on issues like "ways to further improve US-China economic relations" as well as an upcoming visit to China by US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. Bush also "conveyed the sincere condolences of the American people for the loss of life resulting from Typhoon Saomai," which left at least 441 people dead in China. ---- South Korea And US Launch Joint Military Exercises by Jun Kwanwoo Seoul (AFP) Aug 21, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/reports/South_Korea_And_US_Launch_Joint_Military_Exercises_999.html South Korea and the United States on Monday launched joint military exercises despite protests from North Korea, which raised tensions by firing missiles last month and is reportedly preparing a nuclear test. Some 9,000 US troops and an undisclosed number of South Korean military soldiers were taking part in the annual military drills, according to military officials from both sides. "The Ulchi Focus Lens exercises began today as scheduled to run until September 1," a South Korean defense ministry spokesman said. The drills, which involve a massive computer-simulated war game, have been denounced by North Korea as a prelude to war against the communist country. But Seoul and Washington deny the North Korean claims, saying the exercises are "defense-oriented" and have been held annually since 1975. "They are purely defensive, defense-oriented drills," said Kim Yong-Kyu, a spokesman of the US-South Korea Combined Forces Command in Seoul. The exercises largely feature computer-simulated war games conducted at command posts and not field maneuvers, he said. Some 4,000 US troops -- more than the 3,000 initially announced -- were brought in from the Pacific and elsewhere to join another 5,000 US troops, part of the American contingent permanently stationed here, he said. South Korea, which is seeking rapprochement with North Korea, refuses to disclose the number of its troops taking part in the military maneuvers. Pyongyang's official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) last week again condemned the joint exercises as "grave military provocation". "They are nothing but a very dangerous military adventure driving the situation of the Korean peninsula to the brink of war," KCNA said Friday. North Korea, in defiance of international warnings, test-launched seven ballistic missiles into the Sea of Japan (East Sea) on July 5. The UN Security Council unanimously condemned the move and imposed sanctions on Pyongyang. In protest at the UN measures, North Korea warned it could take "stronger physical actions" in response. US television network ABC said Thursday Pyongyang may be preparing an underground nuclear test. The governments in both Seoul and Washington remain cautious about the authenticity of the report. ABC said a US intelligence agency had recently observed "suspicious" activities, including the unloading of large reels of cable outside a suspected underground test site called Pungyee-yok in northeast North Korea. North Korea announced in February 2005 that it had manufactured nuclear weapons but nuclear weapons tests have never been reported. North Korea has boycotted six-way nuclear disarmament talks -- also including China, the United States, South Korea, Japan and Russia -- since November, citing US economic sanctions. Seoul said Sunday it was stepping up its monitoring of North Korean nuclear activities, admitting it had stationed military personnel at a state seismology institute capable of detecting underground nuclear tests. Some 20 anti-war activists staged a protest rally on Monday in front of the main US military base in downtown Seoul, demanding the military exercises stop. "Stop the military training for invading North Korea! Pull the US military troops out of South Korea!" the protesters chanted. The US military presence in South Korea dates back to the bloody 1950-1953 Korean War and was cemented by a mutual defense treaty signed afterwards. In a major change to the military alliance, the United States is reducing its forces in South Korea from 37,000 two years ago to 25,000 by 2008. South Korea is pushing to secure wartime control over its troops which are currently under a US-led combined command. US troops are stationed in the South to help its 650,000-strong army face up to North Korea's 1.2 million-strong army. Source: Agence France-Presse -------- russia Security Issues Surround Russian Nuclear Stockpile Voice of America News Mon, 21 Aug 2006, 00:18 http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-08-17-voa52.cfm http://intelligence-summit.blogspot.com/2006/08/security-issues-surround-russian.html MOSCOW, Russia: It's been almost 15 years since the United States launched its program to help secure the world's largest nuclear stockpile -- in Russia. But analysts warn that the efforts on improving the security have been going at a terribly slow pace. They say the issue of securing the Russian nuclear arsenals is starting to fade from the two countries' agenda, leaving more than half of the Russian nuclear arsenal vulnerable to possible terrorist attacks. Experts agree that one of the most serious security threats in the world today is a terrorist detonating a nuclear device in a large city. Modern Russia possesses about 16,000 nuclear warheads and 600 tons of nuclear material and is believed to be the likeliest source of material for such a device. And it takes only a small amount of that material to put together a so-called "dirty bomb." At least several dozen cases of suspected smuggling of nuclear and radiological materials were reported in Russia over the last several years -- despite all the international efforts to secure Russian nuclear arsenal. Robert Berls, Senior Advisor for Russia Programs at the Nuclear Threat Initiative says only a part of Russian nukes have been secured. “Russia has the largest stockpile of weapons-usable material, enough to make from 40,000 to 80,000 nuclear bombs, to some of the estimates. So that’s a lot of material, and a lot of it has been secured, but only about 50 percent. The United States spends about half a billion dollars a year in threat-reduction projects. Since the early 1990s, the U.S. and Russia have worked to destroy or deactivate the Russian nuclear arsenal -- missiles, strategic bombers, submarines. But the Russian nuclear research reactors are also at risk -- many of them are poorly guarded and very unlikely to be able to defend themselves against possible terrorist attacks. “It's a problem that's worldwide,” says Mr. Berls. “There are approximately 128 research reactors around the world -- these are relatively small reactors quite often located in universities or scientific institutes that have relatively small amount of highly-enriched uranium. But this highly-enriched uranium could very easily be used for developing nuclear weapons just as it could from a major storage facility in Russia or someplace else. And the problem with these research reactors is that they are in most cases very poorly secured.” In 2002, when some 40 armed men took over a Moscow Dubrovka theater with some 800 people inside, it was revealed that they were also planning to take over the capital's Kurchatov Research Institute, which has several research nuclear reactors. But despite the remaining threat, the Russian military seems to be increasingly opposed to having Americans too involved in securing the Russian nuclear facilities, fearing that such inspections could give the United States valuable insights into the Russian weapons' technology. In the past, the Russian officials have said no foreign access will ever be provided to at least two facilities: large Russian weapons factories which store a quarter of Russian highly-enriched uranium and plutonium. Rose Goethemuller, at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, says that in the last five years, Russia and the United States have fallen away from the rich nuclear reduction dialogue they used to have. “We do continue to target our weapons at the Russians and the Russians target their weapons at us. So we have a Cold War deployment of nuclear forces even if we don't consider the threat to be there anymore and we don't think the Russians are our enemies in the way we did in the past. I think it's very important that, just by accident or carelessness, that because they are still in this hair-trigger kind of deployment against each other, that we don't end up with the nuclear disaster. Observers say that if the current rate of effort on dismantling Russian nuclear arsenal continues, it would take up to 14 years to complete the job, but since no one knows exactly how large the Russian nuclear arsenal is, it might take even longer. -------- u.s. nuc weapons US Makes Nuclear Missile Data Secret Again by Staff Writers Washington (AFP) Aug 21, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/reports/US_Makes_Nuclear_Missile_Data_Secret_Again_999.html The administration of US President George W. Bush has begun reclassifying information about the numbers of US strategic weapons during the Cold War, even though it had been once provided to the Soviet Union, The Washington Post reported Monday. Citing a new report by the National Security Archive, the newspaper said the Pentagon and the Department of Energy are again treating as secret information about Minuteman, Titan II and other missiles, blacking out the information on previously public documents. "It would be difficult to find more dramatic examples of unjustifiable secrecy than these decisions to classify the numbers of US strategic weapons," the paper quoted William Burr, a senior analyst at the archive as saying. The Post said the report comes at a time when the Bush administration's penchant for government secrecy has troubled researchers and bred controversy over agency efforts to withhold even seemingly innocuous information. Major Patrick Ryder, a Pentagon spokesman, is quoted in the report as saying that "the Department of Defense takes the responsibility of classifying information seriously." "This includes classifying information at the lowest level possible," Ryder said. Bryan Wilkes, a spokesman for the National Nuclear Security Administration, a division of the Energy Department, said his agency focused on scrubbing declassified documents for sensitive US nuclear weapons information that, in the wrong hands, could be used to harm Americans, The Post said. -------- u.s. nuc facilities Nuclear energy in U.S. fights for a second act By Matthew L. Wald The New York Times Published: August 21, 2006 http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/21/business/nukes.php WASHINGTON Nobody in the United States has started building a nuclear power plant in more than three decades. Mayo Shattuck could be the first. As the chief executive of Constellation Energy, a utility holding company in Baltimore that already operates five nuclear reactors, Shattuck is convinced that nuclear power is on the verge of a renaissance, ready to provide reliable electricity at a competitive price. He has already taken the first steps toward that goal, moving this month to order critical parts for a new reactor. But Constellation's neighbor, PPL Corp., takes a different view. Even though PPL has successfully operated two reactors since 1983, its chairman and chief executive, William Hecht, has avoided putting even a toe in the water on a new nuclear project and is investing in coal technology instead. When nuclear reactors were first commercialized almost half a century ago, every self-respecting electric utility wanted one. They were encouraged by a U.S. government that saw nuclear energy as a peaceful, redemptive byproduct of the deadly power unleashed at Hiroshima. The American official in charge of promoting nuclear energy said it would produce electricity "too cheap to meter." It has never given consumers anything like that. But with the industry now consolidated so that most reactors are in the hands of a comparatively few operators, utility executives are sharply divided over whether nuclear power offers an attractive choice as they seek to satisfy a growing demand for electricity. For them, the question comes down not so much to safety and environmental impact but to whether the potential reward is worth the financial risk. And those who already operate several reactors are prone to want more. The debate within the utility industry over reviving nuclear power has taken on added importance, though, because this energy source, unlike coal and other fossil fuels, does not produce gases that contribute to global warming. That is a key point as well in Europe, which has signed up for the Kyoto Protocol requiring measurable reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. With a legal imperative to cut emissions by up to a fifth within the next six years, European power companies face a clearer challenge than those in non- Kyoto countries, like the United States and China. Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, who once opposed nuclear power, introduced last month an energy plan for the next 50 years that says nuclear power could make a "significant contribution." The issue remains a live political topic even in countries that are phasing out their nuclear plants, like Germany and Belgium. While the debate rages in Europe, Washington is encouraging U.S. utilities to push ahead. Energy legislation last summer offered a generous production tax credit, insurance against regulatory delays and loan guarantees. Earlier legislation gave the industry money to help plan new plants. And they continue to enjoy a ceiling on liability damages in case of an accident. Despite its promise as a clean energy source that could hold down emissions of global warming gases, most environmentalists are skeptical of the latest claims of nuclear power's advocates. In the United States, they say that utilities, at best, will move ahead with a handful of plants that will receive lavish incentives from the government. But the risks of nuclear power are still so high, they argue, that no utility will be willing to put its own money into building a new plant unless the federal government subsidizes it. "What dismays me about the present situation is the extent to which the Congress and the administration, and now an occasional state legislature, have rushed to anoint it as the solution to climate change," said Peter Bradford, a former member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and former chairman of the public service commissions of both Maine and New York. If nuclear plants cannot compete without subsidies, he said, they should not be built. Today, nuclear power supplies just under 20 percent of the electricity used in the United States - roughly the same as in Britain or Spain, but far behind France, where nuclear accounts for 78 percent of its energy production, or Sweden, with 50 percent. With the price of natural gas increasing, coal has emerged once again has the most popular way to generate electricity, a trend that - if it continues - is expected to lead to a significant rise in emissions of carbon dioxide. The utility sector emits about one-third of the carbon dioxide produced in the United States, nearly all of that from coal. Adding dozens of nuclear reactors to that mix could reverse the rise in carbon dioxide from the electricity generating system, but nuclear power would also run up against certain limits. Nuclear plants cannot replace all of the fossil fuel used in power generation, because current nuclear designs do not easily alter their power output. Plants running on natural gas and coal, by contrast, can adjust their output over the course of a day to match demand. For a long time, utilities' underlying confidence in nuclear technology was moot because the economics would not support a new reactor; all those ordered after 1973 in the United States were canceled. But now, because of high prices for natural gas and uncertainty about how emissions from coal plants will be regulated in future decades, the nuclear industry is moving from near death to the prospect that perhaps a handful of new plants will be ordered within the next few years. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission in Washington counts 27 potential reactors under consideration; 103 are now operable in the United States. For all the momentum behind the push, however, there is still a high degree of skepticism within the utility industry. PPL, for example, has successfully operated two reactors in Berwick, Pennsylvania, for 23 years. But while some utilities around the country are making preliminary moves or joining consortia to explore new designs, PPL is not. There are better places to put his shareholders' money, Hecht, PPL's chief executive, said. At the moment, he sees an advantage in cleaning up his coal-fired plants, investing $1.5 billion to scrub out most of the sulfur dioxide. That would not only benefit the environment but also generate pollution credits that PPL can profitably sell. That decision was "dull and basic," Hecht said, but adheres to a paramount goal - maximizing shareholder returns. He would not rule out nuclear plants forever, Hecht said during an interview, but the business case would have to be a lot clearer than it is now. By contrast, Constellation Energy, the Baltimore company, not only wants to build reactors for itself, it has also formed a partnership with a reactor manufacturer to build and operate them for other utilities. "This organization has a history of feeling that they have done well in nuclear," Shattuck, its chief executive, said. Constellation says it will apply for a reactor operating license by the end of next year, probably at either Calvert Cliffs, Maryland, where it runs two nuclear reactors that it built in the 1960s and '70s, or at Nine Mile Point, in Scriba, New York, on Lake Ontario, where it operates two reactors it bought in 2001 from Niagara Mohawk Power and other utilities. Its decision has implications beyond the corporate bottom line. There are also arguments over nuclear waste and the risk of accidents. In the New York area, especially, there is concern over reactors as terrorist targets. But the risk that really matters to utility executives is financial. Among the companies that would actually build these plants, executives focus more on uncertain factors like the future price of power in the market, the cost of producing competing fuels, and the cost of cleaning up coal plants to meet standards for the pollutants that Washington does regulate - sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and soot. At this point U.S. companies do not face any constraints on carbon emissions. Those that want to build - among them Entergy, Dominion and Duke Energy - talk about new designs intended to further reduce the risk of an accident and their ability to manage nuclear waste until the government eventually opens a national waste repository. Companies that do not want to build say they are not particularly worried about those factors, either. But they have other reasons to hold back. When PPL builds a power plant, it usually sells the power first and uses the signed contracts to reassure the investors and bankers from whom it is seeking financing. "I'm not going to build any large generation unhedged," Hecht said. But this is not easy with a nuclear plant. For one thing, Hecht said, no one could be sure when it would be finished. And despite the industry's efforts to shorten the time between order and completion, it could still be 10 years, he said. Constellation, which doubled its nuclear bet in the 1990s by buying more reactors as the utility industry restructured, believes it has demonstrated one marketable skill - running reactors profitably - and that it could quickly follow a new plant with a copycat, building both on time and on budget. Constellation proposes a fleet of plants, identical down to the "carpeting and wallpaper," Shattuck said, reducing the design costs on subsequent reactors to near zero. Operating processes would be identical, and operators could be shuffled among the plants, something that is often impossible today even with adjacent reactors. The company wants partners who would offer either equity or operating skills. Constellation has a partnership, called Unistar Nuclear, with Areva, the French-German company, comprising Framatome and Siemens, to build a model. One is already under construction on the Olkiluoto island in Finland. In fact, if there is a nuclear renaissance in America, it will be in large part a transplant from the rest of the world. In addition to the Areva technology, another big contender is Westinghouse. Despite Westinghouse's Pittsburgh roots, it was purchased by British Nuclear Fuels and recently sold to Toshiba. Last December, Constellation and FPL announced that they would merge, creating the country's largest competitive marketer of power. That would put the company in an even better position to build new reactors, Shattuck said. Some experts, however, remain skeptical that new reactors should be built, although they acknowledge that it is increasingly likely. In the last 20 years or so, said Bradford, the former regulator, utility restructuring has often shifted the risks of new construction from ratepayers to investors. "What the Congress has done now, for the first six or so plants, is to find a third pocket," he said. "Now they've called upon the taxpayer to pony up." But even if a few plants get built, industry insiders do not expect nuclear power to assume a significantly greater role. Roger Gale, an electricity expert and former Energy Department official, asks several hundred utility executives each year what they foresee in their industry. While they are now convinced that a new plant will be ordered soon, the more than 100 senior utility executives who responded also said they do not expect "a future where nuclear generation represents a larger share of generation" than today. -------- alabama Southern Nuclear's Plant Hatch Completes Used Fuel Inventory Monday August 21, 2006 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060821/clm070.html?.v=45 BIRMINGHAM, Ala., Aug. 21 -- Southern Nuclear, a wholly owned subsidiary of Atlanta-based Southern Company, today informed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) that it has completed its reconciliation of the physical inventory of spent nuclear fuel with its special nuclear material inventory records at the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant near Baxley, Ga. The announcement concludes an extensive inventory conducted as a follow-up to a November, 2005, initial notification to the NRC of a discrepancy between the amount of spent fuel in inventory versus the amount on record. The results have concluded that fuel material equivalent to approximately 18 inches remains unaccounted for. The fuel inventory at Plant Hatch totals more than 77 million inches. The audit of spent fuel inventory was conducted because of fuel-inventory discrepancies at three other U. S. nuclear power facilities and a subsequent NRC Bulletin requiring that all nuclear power plants verify their spent fuel inventories. In its November, 2005, notice, Southern Nuclear reported its preliminary findings of approximately 68 inches of unaccounted for special nuclear material. In the intervening nine months, Southern Nuclear continued its extensive search and retrieval program, using specialized equipment and cameras to visually inspect and retrieve additional material in the spent fuel pools. The retrieved material consists of fuel rod segments, fragments, chips, and small granules resulting from rod breakage which occurred in the early- 1980s as a result of unanticipated corrosion of fuel cladding -- the material surrounding the fuel pellets. This corrosion issue, affecting only boiling water reactor fuel, has been resolved and has not recurred since at Plant Hatch. From a volume perspective, the amount of unaccounted for used fuel is less that 1.5 fluid ounces -- or less than one-fourth of a cup. While small portions of the 18 inches may have been inadvertently shipped to a licensed waste disposal facility, Southern Nuclear believes that the balance of the unaccounted for material remains in the spent fuel pools in areas that are either unobservable by camera or otherwise inaccessible. Future plant activities and preparations for low-level waste shipments will take into account the possibility of the material's presence in the pools, and any residual amount will be retrieved when the plant is decommissioned. Nuclear fuel within a reactor vessel is located within fuel assemblies. During a normal power cycle, there are 560 fuel assemblies in each of the two reactors at Plant Hatch. Each reactor core contains over 49,000 fuel rods. Within these rods, fuel pellets are stacked. A single fuel rod may contain approximately 150 inches of fuel in the form of fuel pellets less than one- half inch in length and less than one-fourth inch in diameter. Theft or diversion is not plausible because of plant defense in depth provided by various physical barriers, procedures and measures such as: sophisticated radiation monitoring instrumentation, extensive security, and the size and type of container required for transporting nuclear material of this nature. State and local officials have also been notified of the conclusion of the inventory reconciliation. Southern Nuclear, a subsidiary of Southern Company operates the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant in Baxley, Ga., the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant in Dothan, Al., and the Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, located near Waynesboro, Ga. With 4.3 million customers and more than 40,000 megawatts of generating capacity, Atlanta-based Southern Company (NYSE: SO - News) is the premier energy company serving the Southeast, one of America's fastest-growing regions. A leading U.S. producer of electricity, Southern Company owns electric utilities in four states and a growing competitive generation company, as well as fiber optics and wireless communications. Southern Company brands are known for excellent customer service, high reliability and retail electric prices that are significantly below the national average. Southern Company has received the highest ranking in customer satisfaction among U.S. electric service providers for seven consecutive years by the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI). Visit our Web site at www.southerncompany.com. -------- georgia Nuclear fuel still missing from U.S. plant August 21, 2006 United Press International http://www.topix.net/content/newscom/3895646461248748613939700729330164744759 Southern Nuclear confirmed late Monday that a small quantity of spent nuclear fuel was still missing from a power plant in Baxley, Ga. The company said in a statement that an in-depth inventory at the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant failed to account for 18 inches of used fuel, which amounts to a little over an ounce, and discounted the possibility of theft. While small portions of the 18 inches may have been inadvertently shipped to a licensed waste disposal facility, Southern Nuclear believes that the balance of the unaccounted for material remains in the spent fuel pools in areas that are either unobservable by camera or otherwise inaccessible, the company said. Southern Nuclear, a subsidiary of Southern Company, launched the inventory after the Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued a notification in late 2005 that there was a discrepancy between the plant's records and the actual spent-fuel supply. The original discrepancy was pegged at 68 inches; however all but 18 inches of material was found by technicians who went over the plant's nuclear segment with a fine-tooth comb. Much of it apparently got loose during a corrosion incident in the 1980s. Spent fuel is measured in inches. A single fuel rod measures 150 inches, and each of Hatch's two reactor cores uses 49,000 fuel rods. The total fuel inventory at the 924-megawatt plant totals more than 77 million inches. -------- minnesota Judge OKs nuclear waste storage The Minneapolis-St. Paul Pioneer Press BY DENNIS LIEN August 21, 2006 http://www.topix.net/content/kri/2736783348331296592535401760881684262311 An administrative law judge recommended allowing Xcel Energy to store highly radioactive nuclear waste in above-ground containers at its Monticello, Minn., power plant. The judge's recommendation sends the matter to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, which is expected to take it up next month. Its decision will be final next year unless the Legislature gets involved. Minneapolis-based Xcel wants to store fuel in as many as 30 steel and concrete containers at the Monticello plant as part of its application for a 20-year license extension. Xcel uses a similar 'dry cask' system at its Prairie Island nuclear plant near Red Wing, Minn. More storage is key to extending the life of the Monticello plant, located about 50 miles northwest of the Twin Cities. The plant's 40-year license expires in 2010. Reprocessing the spent fuel or storing it elsewhere aren't options, Judge Steve Mihalchick decided. Moreover, he said closing the plant would hurt Xcel's customers and the public. Replacing the plant with other types of power generation would drive up prices and result in more pollution, he added. At hearings in February, several people and groups questioned the health, safety and environmental effects of storing spent fuel in the casks. But others called the approach safe and said the plant is a critical source of low-cost electricity. Xcel has contended that keeping the plant open is the best option for supplying low-priced electricity and for avoiding air pollution from plants that burn coal or natural gas. Since 1994, the Legislature has twice endorsed storing spent fuel in casks at the Prairie Island plant. A permanent site to store the nation's spent fuel has been proposed at Yucca Mountain, Nev., but that site won't be available soon enough to take the Monticello plant's fuel. Xcel also is pursuing a private-storage option in Utah, but that option is being challenged. Dennis Lien can be reached at dlien@pioneerpress.com or 651-228-5588. -------- MILITARY -------- afghanistan Afghanistan destroys over 100,000 acres of poppy fields Xinhua August 21, 2006 http://english.people.com.cn/200608/21/eng20060821_295146.html Afghan government has destroyed more than 100,000 acres of poppy-cultivated lands over the past five months, Interior Minister Zarar Ahmad Muqbal said Sunday. "The government has smashed 101,614 acres of poppy fields since the beginning of Afghanistan's new year, the year of 1385, over the past five months," Muqbal told a seminar, which opened on Sunday, of the country's provincial governors and police chiefs here. In the two-day conference, strengthening security, good governance and war on illegal drug would be discussed. Afghan administration, he also added, had destroyed nearly 70 tones of narcotics since the start of 1385 falling on March 21. 293 drug smugglers have also been arrested during the period, he added. The post-Taliban Afghanistan, with an output of 4,100 tones of opium poppy in 2005, became the single largest supplier of the raw material used in manufacturing heroin in the world. However, there are concerns that the menace would further increase in the current year of 2006 as more farmers have allocated swathe parts of their lands for poppy cultivation. Under a counter-narcotics strategy launched in May 2003, the post-war Afghanistan has been fighting to reduce a poppy cultivation by 75 percent by 2008. -------- arms U.S. charges 8 over 'Tiger plot' Group tried to buy missiles, bribe officials, prosecutors say Monday, August 21, 2006 (CNN) http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/21/srilanka.terror/index.html NEW YORK -- Eight men have been charged with plotting to buy surface-to-air missiles for Sri Lanka's Tamil Tiger rebels, U.S. federal prosecutors have announced. The men also are accused of plotting to bribe U.S. State Department officials into removing the Tamil Tiger group from a list of terrorist organizations and of trying to obtain classified information. All eight are charged with conspiracy to provide material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization, according to the U.S. Attorney's office in New York. Prosecutors said the men were "closely connected" to the Tamil Tiger leadership, but disclosed little else about the suspects. According to prosecutors, the men conspired to buy surface-to-air missiles from a black-market source in the United States. They also sought to have the group -- formally known as the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam -- removed from the U.S. list of terrorist organizations and obtain classified intelligence by bribing State Department officials. "As charged for more than 15 years, the LTTE has waged a war of terror, assassinations, and suicide bombings in Sri Lanka and elsewhere," Roslyn Mauskopf, the U.S. attorney in Brooklyn, said in a statement announcing the charges. "We refuse to allow the LTTE and its supporters to use the United States as a source of supply for weapons, technology, and financial resources." The group was made up of Canadian and Sri Lankan nationals, and only one was living in the United States, said Bob Nardoza, a spokesman for Mauskopf's office. The investigation was still going on, and more arrests were expected, Nardoza said. The Tamil Tigers have fought for a separate homeland for Sri Lanka's ethnic Tamil minority for decades in a conflict that has killed tens of thousands of people. The group was behind the 1993 assassination of Sri Lankan President Ranasinghe Premadasa and the 1991 killing of Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. The State Department added the Tamil Tigers to its list of international terrorist organizations in 1997, barring it from raising money, obtaining weaponry or lobbying for support in the United States. The defendants -- Sathajhan Sarachandran, Sahilal Sabaratnam, Thiruthanikan Thanigasalm, Nadarasa Yograrasa, Murugesu Vinayagamoorthy, Nachimuthu Socrates, Vijayshanthar Patpanathan, and Thirukumaran Sivasubramaniam -- were being held without bail and had initial appearances before a federal judge in Brooklyn on Monday, Nardoza said. Prosecutors said Vinayagamoorthy and Socrates met an informant and two people posing as State Department officials numerous times beginning in 2004, offering them $1 million in advance to get the LTTE off the terrorism list and to provide U.S. secrets to the group. The plan was later shelved, according to court papers. Reached at his home in Simsbury, Connecticut, Nachimuthu Socrates' son, Aristotle Socrates, told CNN that the charges were "absurd," that his father was innocent and that he would be contesting the charges. Socrates said his father was a businessman who had lived in Simsbury for 24 years. "They've made a gross miscalculation," he said. Three of the defendants traveled to New York from Canada last week in an attempt to purchase hand-held anti-aircraft missiles from an undercover FBI agent, prosecutors said. Those three, and a fourth defendant, were arrested on Long Island last week, prosecutors said. Attempts to reach any of the defendants or their attorneys were unsuccessful. According to court papers, the defendants wanted the missiles to bring down Sri Lankan government warplanes. Prosecutors allege the defendants also used several U.S. e-mail accounts to make inquiries about buying weapons; unmanned aerial vehicles; submarine design software; flight lessons; and radio and satellite-navigation equipment. -------- europe Europe balks at Lebanon troop commitment By MARIA SANMINIATELLI, Associated Press Writer Mon Aug 21, 2006 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060821/ap_on_re_mi_ea/europe_mideast_force_2 ROME - An Italian coalition leader said Rome would be willing to lead the military peace mission in Lebanon should the United Nations ask it to, while Germany's chancellor said Monday she is confident that Europe will contribute ground troops. With the United States viewed by many as too closely allied to Israel, Europe is uniquely positioned to take the lead to help end the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah militants. But so far, no European countries have stepped up with a large contribution of troops. European Union diplomats will meet on Wednesday to consider the number of troops the 25 EU nations will contribute to an expanded U.N. peacekeeping force in Lebanon. German Chancellor Angela Merkel said Monday she believes "there will and should be a European contribution with ground troops" in Lebanon. "However, all the countries are saying what Germany is saying: We need the right rules for the deployment" and the approval of the Lebanese government, she said. President Bush on Monday called for quick deployment of an international force to help uphold the fragile cease-fire. "The international community must now designate the leadership of this new international force, give it robust rules of engagement and deploy it as quickly as possible to secure the peace," the president told a news conference. Piero Fassino, who leads the largest party in Premier Romano Prodi's center-left coalition, told Rome daily Il Messaggero in an interview published Sunday that Italy "will not refuse, even though it is not seeking it." "The Middle East is close to us, and a great nation like Italy cannot shirk its duties," Fassino was quoted as saying. "You cannot only invoke peace and security, you have to build them." A U.N. cease-fire resolution has authorized up to 15,000 U.N. peacekeepers to help an equal number of Lebanese troops extend their authority into south Lebanon, which has been controlled by Hezbollah, as Israel withdraws its soldiers. The U.N. wants 3,500 troops on the ground by next Monday. Italy did not commit itself to specific numbers, but has indicated it would be prepared to send 3,000 soldiers, the largest contingent to date. Germany has said it would not send troops, but will offer naval forces to help patrol the country's coastline. With their country's Nazi-era past in mind, German officials have expressed concern about deploying German troops in any situation that might bring them into confrontation with Israeli soldiers. A key worry for many countries is whether the force will be called on to disarm Hezbollah fighters, as called for in a September 2004 U.N. resolution. Analysts also said the latest cease-fire resolution is unclear and open to interpretation. "Europe has an aversion to sending troops to places where long-term stability is not ensured," said Jana Hybaskova, the European Parliament's main expert on the Middle East. "There is a major difference between peacekeeping and peace enforcing, and peace enforcing is something the Europeans may not be so keen on." France, which commands the existing force U.N. peacekeeping force in Lebanon known as UNIFIL, had been expected to make a significant new contribution that would form the backbone of the expanded force. But Chirac disappointed the U.N. and other countries last week by merely doubling France's contingent of 200 troops. French Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Agnes Romatet-Espagne said Monday that France "was waiting for details about the means granted to this force to guarantee security." Finland said it would send up to 250 peacekeepers to Lebanon, but said they would not be deployed until November. Turkey has indicated it will contribute troops but wants to study the forces' mandate before making any decisions. Spain has discussed sending troops but is yet to make a concrete offer and Austria, the Czech Republic and Switzerland have made no offer at all. "It's pretty self-evident that nobody wants to send troops if they think they are going to have to do peacemaking rather than peacekeeping, or if they think they are going to get caught in the crossfire," said Charles Grant, director of the Center for European Reform, a London-based think tank. "And given how many French soldiers died in Lebanon in the '80s, I think that kind of reluctance is understandable." At a meeting last week of 49 potential troop-contributing nations, the only countries to offer mechanized infantry battalions, which will be the front line of the expanded force, were three Muslim countries that do not have diplomatic relations with Israel — Bangladesh, Indonesia and Malaysia — and Nepal, which is predominantly Hindu. But Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Sunday that countries which don't have diplomatic relations with the Jewish state should not participate in the force, further complicating the effort. Analysts blame Europe's weak response in part on France's unexpectedly meager offer. As leader of the UNIFIL force in Lebanon, France had a critical role to play, said Michael Kerr, an expert in Lebanese politics at the London School of Economics. "Whatever France does will create confidence — or vice versa," he said. Its disappointing contribution "sends the message that the French have grave concerns about the stability of the cease-fire." Grant, of the Center for European Reform, said Europe's slow response was reasonable. "I don't think the fact that Europeans are unwilling to send forces unless certain conditions are met means they're wimpish or not in favor of a European defense policy or foreign policy. It just means they're being prudent and sensible," he said. "I think there's going to have to be a peace to be kept, or nobody — Europeans or anybody — is going to want to send troops." Associated Press Writers Paul Ames and Jan Sliva in Brussels, Belgium, Raphael Satter in London, Geir Moulson and David McHugh in Berlin, and Angela Doland in Paris contributed to this report. -------- iraq Length of Iraq War Exceeds Length of U.S. Involvement in WWII Monday, August 21st, 2006 Democracy Now! Headlines http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/21/1348216 More than 1250 days have passed since the U.S. invaded Iraq. The length of the ongoing war in Iraq is now a week longer than the U.S. involvement in World War II. -------- israel / palestine Palestinian drowns trying to save Israeli teenagers Mon Aug 21, 2006 (AFP) http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060821/wl_mideast_afp/mideastisrael JERUSALEM - A 24-year-old Palestinian man died over the weekend trying to save four Israeli teenagers from drowning in waters just off a beach south of Tel Aviv, an Israeli newspaper has reported. Ahed Tamimi, from Israeli-occupied east Jerusalem, was on the Rishon Le Tzion beach with his relatives when he heard four teenagers in the water cry for help,the Maariv daily reported Monday. "He heard our cries for help and he dove into the water without hesitation," of the teenagers, Denis Mihayev, 15, told the newspaper. "He swam towards me, grabbed my hand and pulled me forcefully back to shore," he said. Tamimi then returned to the water to try and help the three others, but was caught up in a strong current and disappeared from view. "He dove in to help my friends. I saw him battle against the current and in a few minutes, he disappeared," he said. The three other teenagers managed to safely get back to shore. "He didn't think twice about it, even though he wasn't a good swimmer." Ashraf Tamimi, Ahed's uncle, told the newspaper. "He came to their help and he paid for it with his life." -------- landmines Israel Accused of Carpeting Lebanon With Cluster Bombs Monday, August 21st, 2006 Democracy Now! Headlines http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/21/1348216 A British group that clears landmines has accused Israel of "carpeting" Lebanese border villages with deadly cluster bombs. The Telegraph newspaper of London reports that the Mines Advisory Group has found that extreme quantities of cluster bombs had been dropped on scores of Lebanese villages during the final days of the conflict last week. At least four people, including two teenage boys, have died after stepping on the cluster bombs. 16 other people been injured. -------- mideast Kofi Annan: Israeli Raid Violated Ceasefire Monday, August 21st, 2006 Democracy Now! Headlines http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/21/1348216 The United Nations is warning the week-old ceasefire in the Middle East could soon unravel. On Saturday, Israel airlifted a team of commandos to raid a Hezbollah outpost. Dressed as Lebanese troops, the Israeli soldiers carried out the attack apparently as part of a rescue mission or to capture a high-ranking Hezbollah official named Sheik Mohammed Yazbek. One Israeli officer was killed in the raid. No Hizbollah leaders were arrested. Israel claimed it was trying to stop the shipment of arms to Hezbollah. United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan called the Israeli raid a violation of Security Council Resolution 1701. * Senior UN Envoy, Terje Roed-Larsen: "At the same time, we are at the tilting edge still and this can easily start sliding again and lead us quickly into the abyss of violence and bloodshed. This is why diplomacy is so important because it is only forceful, energetic diplomacy in the political field, nationally in the region and internationally, which can produce that up side and prevent that horrible down side which we have seen the results of over the last few weeks." Israeli Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Mark Regev defended the raid. * Mark Regev: "We had specific information that a weapons shipment from Syria for Hizbollah. That is in direct violation of the U.N. Security Council resolution that established the ceasefire and we were responding to that violation of the ceasefire. Had the Lebanese forces and the international forces been there at the border as the resolution says they should be preventing such a shipment of weapons of course we wouldn't have had to act." Over the weekend, Israeli officials vowed to assassinate Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah. In addition, Defense Minister Amir Peretz said Israel is making preparations for what he called the "next round" of war. Israel Accused of Carpeting Lebanon With Cluster Bombs A British group that clears landmines has accused Israel of "carpeting" Lebanese border villages with deadly cluster bombs. The Telegraph newspaper of London reports that the Mines Advisory Group has found that extreme quantities of cluster bombs had been dropped on scores of Lebanese villages during the final days of the conflict last week. At least four people, including two teenage boys, have died after stepping on the cluster bombs. 16 other people been injured. Israeli Reservists Sign Petition Criticizing Gov’t Handling of War In Israel, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, is coming under increasing pressure over his handling of the war. Hundreds of Army reservists have signed a petition criticizing the military’s top brass for failing to clearly define the goals of the war. The reservists wrote "The heavy feeling is that in the echelons above us there is nothing but under-preparation, insincerity, lack of foresight and inability to make rational decisions. It leads to the question: were we called up for nothing?" Many critics of Olmert are calling for the establishment of a state commission to investigate the government’s handling of the war. Israeli Gov’t Abducts Two More Palestinian Parliamentarians The Israeli government has abducted two more members of the Palestinian Parliament. On Saturday, Israeli troops detained the Palestinian Deputy Prime Minister Nasser Shaer. Then on Sunday, another senior Palestinian parliament figure, Mahmoud al-Ramahi, was seized by Israeli troops. Both officials are members of the ruling Hamas party. In late June, the Israeli military arrested seven Hamas government ministers and some 20 legislators. Palestinian Government Spokesperson Ghazi Hammad accused Israel of trying to destabilize the government. * Palestinian Government Spokesperson Ghazi Hammad: "It is an obvious message to the world that Israel does not want a Palestinian political system or even stability in the Palestinian life. You can realize that this arrest comes after two days of (Palestinian) dialogues to perform a unity government. Israel wants to abort this and all the efforts to form this government." Israeli Blocks Airplanes From Photographing Oil Spill Clean-up crews are continuing to help contain the massive oil spill off the coast of Lebanon. The spill has now polluted about 124 miles of the Lebanese and Syrian coastlines. The spill began when Israel bombed a fuel tank on the Lebanese coast. Over the weekend, the Israeli government rejected a request from the French government to allow an expert in cleaning oil spills to be allowed to fly over the contaminated areas. The expert, Rick Steiner, criticized Israel’s decision. * Rick Steiner: "Even with well defined flight plan, in a very clear symbol mission to asses the oil from air we were not allowed to do it. That is really unfortunate in my point of view. I really appreciated that the French made this request on our behalf and were willing to this to support us. I am very disappointed that the Israeli military refused the request." Meanwhile Lebanese fisherman say the oil spill has devastated their livelihood. ---- Lebanon spy agency led Germans to bombmakerAdd story to my swissinfo panel August 21, 2006 (Reuters) http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/swissinfo.html?siteSect=143&sid=6992917 BERLIN - Lebanon's military intelligence agency gave German authorities information that led to the arrest of a Lebanese man the Germans suspect planted suitcase bombs at two train stations, German prosecutors said on Monday. "The decisive tipoff about the arrested suspect came on Friday evening from the military intelligence agency in Lebanon," said Frauke-Katrin Scheuten, spokeswoman for the German Federal Prosecutors office. On Saturday, German police detained one of two men they suspect came close to exploding makeshift bombs on two trains in the cities of Dortmund and Koblenz last month. Police are still searching for the other man. They were caught on video cameras in Cologne train station, dragging the suitcases which contained the explosive devices onto the trains. Monika Harms, the federal prosecutor, told reporters over the weekend that the man who police nabbed in the northern city of Kiel was a 21-year-old Lebanese student who had been living in Germany for two years. German ARD public television reported that the information came from a tapped telephone conversation. Without naming its sources, ARD said the student had seen his picture on German television and called his family in Lebanon for advice. This conversation was recorded by the Lebanese and its contents were passed on to German authorities who then arrested the man, ARD said. Police have said the bombs -- made with propane tanks, gasoline bottles and crude detonating devices -- may have been part of a plot designed to show anger over the Middle East crisis. -------- nato NATO's 21st-century task: going from 'Europe' to 'global' By Howard LaFranchi | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor August 21, 2006 http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0821/p02s02-wogi.html BRUSSELS – Ever since the breakup of the Soviet Union, NATO has been working to transform itself from a cold-war, Europe-focused bulwark against a communist threat to a military and political alliance relevant to the world of the 21st century. The answer has been for an expanded NATO - now including some of the very Eastern European nations that were formerly considered the enemy - to broaden its sense of defense and to take on out-of-area challenges that are seen as crucial to global security broadly and the West's well-being specifically. Perhaps most notably so far, that has meant an expanding role for the alliance in Afghanistan - NATO's first assignment outside Europe. There, the United States has increasingly turned over operations supporting the government of President Hamid Karzai to NATO command. The fact that the transatlantic alliance has gone in less than a decade from doubts about its purpose to requests for its participation in even the most intractable international disputes - from the Darfur region of Sudan to the recent Mideast war - suggests the pact's transition is considered a success. "It's no longer 'What's its purpose?' when the topic turns to NATO, but rather 'How can we best use it?' " says NATO spokesman James Apathurai. "That's a big transition." But officials say the transition from "Europe" to "global" is still incomplete, with major challenges remaining in areas ranging from capacity for intervention to efficiency and member financial commitments. Some observers worry that demands on NATO are surpassing its abilities and jeopardizing its transition process. The Afghanistan assignment, which involves 16,000 NATO-led soldiers now and a projected 25,000 by the end of the year, has the leadership of some member countries holding their breath, as NATO forces face increasing attacks and an entrenched enemy. But officials here say the growing violence was to be expected as units moved into more of the country beyond the capital of Kabul. And they say that assignments like Afghanistan and even Iraq, where NATO operates a training center for security forces, are preparing the alliance for the 21st-century functions envisioned in its transition. "Yes, it's a hot summer in Afghanistan," says US Ambassador to NATO Victoria Nuland. "But it's also a very important summer for stabilizing the country." Explaining the intensifying heat that NATO forces are facing there as a result of their penetration into more sectors of the country, she adds, "There's more permanent pressure in more of the country ... and neither the Taliban nor the narco-traffickers are happy about it." Ambassador Nuland says NATO has come a long way since its Balkans intervention in the mid-1990s, including reforms that streamlined military operations. "We've gotten a lot more flexible - but there's still a lot of work to do in that regard," she says. For example, she notes that during NATO's bombing campaign against Serbia designed to stop Serbia's ethnic-cleansing operations, each target had to be approved by NATO's highest decision-making structure, the North Atlantic Council. Now in Afghanistan, operations are more in the hands of a country mission command. As fraught with dangers as it may be, NATO's role in Afghanistan is still putting the alliance on the world stage. "The international community recognizes that NATO has unique assets among international institutions," says Mr. Apathurai. "It's still the best organizer of large multinational military operations. In terms of robust peacekeeping," he adds, "it's still the only game in town." This fall, the alliance is also planning for a summit to be held in Riga, Latvia. NATO officials hope the summit, in November, will inaugurate a fully operational NATO Reaction Force. It's also expected to push ahead with plans to endow the alliance with "strategic lift" - the means of getting rapid-reaction forces where they need to be. The US is proposing that a consortium of NATO countries purchase eight C-17 transport planes. But such an expensive proposition raises the touchy topic of spending - and the concerns of NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer and some members, such as the US, that many NATO countries simply aren't spending enough on defense. "Low European defense budgets are a brake on our transformation," says Apathurai. Germany, under Chancellor Angela Merkel, is one country that has expressed a desire to spend more on defense. That willingness, however, is being held back by slow economic growth. This year's summit will take up an expansion of cooperation to "global partners," including Japan and Australia, but it is also expected to mark a pause in the 26-country alliance's expansion. Mr. De Hoop Scheffer has spoken of the summit offering an encouraging "signal" on membership to several countries including Albania and Macedonia, and a less direct signal to Georgia and Ukraine - countries whose potential membership worries Russia. "Maybe the bumper sticker for this year's summit is, 'Building a NATO that has global partners and a wider reach,' " says Apathurai. Yet NATO officials acknowledge an in-house resistance to an alliance that is too broad in its membership and aims. France expresses concerns about a "weakened core," while others fret NATO could become a "mini UN" - with all the inefficiencies and lethargies that comparison entails. Still, in an era of growing pessimism about the utility of international institutions, NATO has won respect among the doubters. "NATO is one of the few international institutions that has proved its relevance and not fallen into the traps of bureaucracy and grandstanding," says Joshua Muravchik, an analyst of international institutions at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. The Bush administration has tended to favor ad hoc efforts or "coalitions of the willing" to spearhead its international efforts - whether in Iraq or in "soft" diplomatic initiatives such as on global warming. But it has also bucked that trend with its growing reliance on NATO - as in Afghanistan. How NATO stacks up against the growing expectations of its capabilities will be tested over coming months as its engagements grow outside its traditional European arena. -------- spies First CIA Civilian Contractor Convicted for Assaulting Detainee Monday, August 21st, 2006 Democracy Now! Headlines http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/21/1348216 In news on Afghanistan, a CIA civilian contractor has been found guilty of assaulting a detainee in Afghanistan. David Passaro is the first civilian to be convicted of abusing prisoners in Iraq or Afghanistan. Human Rights Watch criticized the Justice Department for not prosecuting other civilians who have been involved in the deaths and torture detainees in U.S.-run prisons. --- U.S. Names CIA Official to Head Venezuelan & Cuban Spy Ops Monday, August 21st, 2006 Democracy Now! Headlines http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/21/1348216 The Bush administration has named a longtime CIA official to oversee spy operations on Venezuela and Cuba. The official, Patrick Maher, was appointed last week. Up until now, a comparable post had only existed for Iran and North Korea. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez decried the decision and nicknamed Maher “Jack the Ripper.” * Hugo Chavez: On one hand, this honours us, that they put us with revolutionary Cuba; it honours us that they catalogue us with rebel, heroic and revolutionary Cuba and together with comrade Fidel Castro and the Cuban people, with comrade Raul Castro and all the Cuban political and military officials. It says here: 'the director of intelligence for Cuba and Venezuela co-ordinates the efforts of the U.S. spy community to obtain and analyse intelligence information in both nations.'" -------- POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS / JUSTICE -------- courts / tribunals U.S. Judge Throws Out Iraqi Contractor Verdict Monday, August 21st, 2006 Democracy Now! Headlines http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/21/1348216 A U.S. federal judge has thrown out a $10 million verdict against private military contractor Custer Battles for defrauding the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq. ---- Bush “Strongly Disagrees” With NSA Ruling Monday, August 21st, 2006 Democracy Now! Headlines http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/21/1348216 President Bush says he strongly disagrees with last week’s judicial ruling that his administration’s warrant-less surveillance program is unconstitutional and must be stopped. On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor found that the program violated freedom of speech, protections against unreasonable searches and a constitutional check on the power of the presidency. In her ruling, Taylor wrote: "There are no hereditary kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution." On Saturday President Bush criticized the ruling. * President Bush: "This country of ours is at war and we must give those whose responsibility it is to protect the United States the tools necessary to protect this country in a time of war. The judges decision, I strongly disagree with that decision, strongly disagree that's why I instructed the justice department to appeal immediately and I believe our appeals will be upheld." TV Networks Focus on JonBenet Ramsey Case Over NSA Ruling The major court ruling on the National Security Agency surveillance program has received scant coverage from the nation’s three major networks. On Thursday, ABC, CBS and NBC all led their nightly broadcasts with the latest in the 1996 murder case of child beauty queen JonBenet Ramsey. ABC devoted twice as much time in its broadcast to Ramsey as it did to the NSA story. CBS offered seven times as much airtime to Ramsey as it did to the NSA story. And NBC devoted 15 times more airtime to Ramsey. -------- drug war Venezuela to reconsider anti-drug accord with US Mon Aug 21, 2006 (Reuters) http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060821/pl_nm/venezuela_usa_drugs_dc_1 CARACAS, Venezuela - Venezuela has doubts about signing a stalled anti-drug accord with the United States after Washington last week opened a special intelligence bureau for Venezuela and Cuba, a Venezuelan minister said on Monday. Interior and Justice Minister Jesse Chacon said the drug accord and other agreements with Washington should be reviewed in light of a move last week by the United States' director of intelligence to create a new "mission manager" for Cuba and Venezuela. The decision effectively gives a similar U.S. intelligence priority to the two Latin American nations as to Iran and North Korea. "Following the most recent statements by the United States, we have to analyze whether or not it makes sense for us to sign that (anti-drug) accord," Chacon told reporters. "I think we have to re-evaluate all the accords that we could sign with the U.S." President Hugo Chavez, a persistent critic of Washington, last year halted cooperation with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and accused it of spying on him. The DEA is one of the agencies that reports to the U.S. national intelligence director. Earlier this year, Chavez also declared the U.S. naval attache persona non grata on similar spying accusations. The United States and Venezuela have been working to amend a previous drug accord to allow the DEA to resume activities in Venezuela, but signing of the agreement has been repeatedly delayed as ties between the two nations have soured. Venezuela, the world's No. 5 oil exporter, has become a popular transit route for drugs flowing from neighboring Colombia toward the United States. The White House said last year Venezuela had failed to provide adequate cooperation in the war on drugs and Washington's ambassador said authorities had revoked visas for several Venezuelan military officers because of suspicions they may have been involved in the drug trade. Chavez has repeatedly accused the United States of plotting to oust him, while the State Department accuses Chavez of violating democratic principles and questions his warm relations with Cuba and growing ties with nations like Iran. -------- POLITICS -------- propaganda wars Why Does Tom Friedman Still Have a Job? Friedman botched the biggest foreign-policy story since the Cold War but those who got it right are naïve? By Robert Parry, Consortium News. Posted August 21, 2006. http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/40648/ http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/082106.html Why NYT's Friedman Should Resign New York Times foreign policy analyst Thomas L. Friedman finally has come to the conclusion that George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq -- which Friedman enthusiastically supported with the clever slogan "Give war a chance" -- wasn't such a good idea after all. "It is now obvious that we are not midwifing democracy in Iraq. We are babysitting a civil war," Friedman wrote. "That means 'staying the course' is pointless, and it's time to start thinking about Plan B -- how we might disengage with the least damage possible." (NYT, Aug. 4, 2006) Yet, despite this implicit admission that the war has unnecessarily killed tens of thousands of Iraqis and more than 2,600 U.S. soldiers, Friedman continues to slight Americans who resisted the rush to war in the first place. Twelve days after his shift in position, Friedman demeaned Americans who opposed the Iraq war as "anti-war activists who haven't thought a whit about the larger struggle we're in," presumably a reference to the threat from Islamic extremism. (NYT, Aug. 16, 2006) In other words, according to Friedman, Americans who were right about the ill-fated invasion of Iraq are still airheads when it comes to the bigger picture, while the pundits and politicians who were dead wrong on Iraq deserve pats on the back for their wise analyses of the larger problem. The rabbit hole At times, it's as if Official Washington has become a sinister version of Alice in Wonderland. Under the bizarre rules of Washington's pundit society, the foreign policy "experts," who acted like Cheshire Cats pointing the United States in wrong directions, get rewarded for their judgment and Americans who opposed going down the rabbit hole in the first place earn only derision. As for Friedman, despite botching the biggest foreign-policy story in the post-Cold War era, he retains his prized space on the New York Times op-ed page, which, in turn, guarantees that his books, even ones with obvious and pedantic themes, such as "The World Is Flat," jump to the top of the bestseller lists. Friedman, who once liked to call himself a "Tony Blair Democrat" (before the British prime minister was unmasked as one of Bush's chief enablers), now positions himself closer to formerly pro-war Democrats who have triangulated their way to positions critical of Bush's execution of the Iraq war but not the invasion itself. In other words, Friedman has rebranded himself as what might be called a "Hillary Clinton Democrat." He also has begun promoting as a favorite new theme something that was obvious to many Bush critics years ago: that one pillar of a sane Middle East policy would be to aggressively confront America's addiction to oil. Some readers might praise Friedman for his belated second thoughts on Iraq and for his new enthusiasm for energy independence. But is it fair for Friedman to keep disparaging Americans who were prescient about the Iraq fiasco -- and who have urged a less violent approach to the Islamic world? Many Iraq war critics, from former Vice President Al Gore to the hundreds of thousands of Americans who took to the streets in early 2003, proved they had a more reasonable strategy on Iraq -- letting U.N. inspectors finish their search for Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction -- than did Bush's war council and his cheerleaders in the U.S. news media. As for the larger concern about reducing Islamic extremism, many Bush critics point to the traditional advice of counterinsurgency experts who warn against an over-reliance on force to quell unrest, because excessive violence tends to alienate a country's population and drive them toward rebellion rather than toward peace. To win hearts and minds, more subtle strategies are required, targeting the root causes of popular resentments, offering realistic options for a better life, and then systematically isolating die-hard extremist elements. In the Middle East, such a strategy would demand an equitable settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, steady support for political reform, and expanded economic opportunities for the region's common people, not just the wealthy elites. A sensible U.S. energy policy -- less desperate for oil -- would help, too. Violent outbursts Given the bitterness felt by many Arabs over what they see as their decades of humiliation by the West and for the corruption of U.S.-backed Arab leaders, there also must be some forbearance for outbursts of violence. Overreaction to provocations by small bands of Islamic extremists may be understandable from an emotional viewpoint, but tit-for-tat violence can be counterproductive in stopping the region's cycles of violence. Indiscriminate counterterrorism plays into the hands of the terrorists. Many Americans understood this reality in 2001-2002, supporting targeted attacks against al-Qaeda in retaliation for 9/11 while opposing Bush's strategy of using military force to remake the Middle East. They recognized that Bush's vision of Americans' being either "with us or with the terrorists" was simplistic and dangerous; his one-sided approach to backing all Israeli policies was harmful both to Arabs and Israelis by eliminating the key U.S. role as "honest broker"; and his crypto-racist rounding up and imprisoning of Muslims on the flimsiest of evidence was destructive to America's reputation for justice and equality. In this view, Bush's black-and-white reaction to a world of grays was a recipe for disaster. But this reasonable opinion was largely excluded from the national debate. Yet, while major news outlets turned mostly a deaf ear to these voices, influential pundits like Friedman preached the glorious benefits of war, from the Op-Ed pages to the TV studios. Indeed, Friedman has been among the highest-profile foreign-policy analysts who have advocated the use of U.S. air power, especially against Iraq. Give war a chance As media critic Norman Solomon wrote in March 2002, Friedman's pro-bombing influence stretched from his Times op-ed column to regular segments on PBS news programs, not to mention appearances on "Meet the Press," "Face the Nation" and even the David Letterman show. Solomon wrote: Friedman has been a zealous advocate of "bombing Iraq, over and over and over again" (in the words of a January 1998 column). Three years ago, when he offered a pithy list of prescriptions for Washington's policymakers, it included: "Blow up a different power station in Iraq every week, so no one knows when the lights will go off or who's in charge." Solomon continued: In an introduction to the book "Iraq Under Siege," editor Anthony Arnove points out: "Every power station that is targeted means more food and medicine that will not be refrigerated, hospitals that will lack electricity, water that will be contaminated and people who will die." But Friedman-style bravado goes over big with editors and network producers who share his disinterest in counting the human costs. Many journalists seem eager to fawn over their stratospheric colleague. "Nobody understands the world the way he (Friedman) does," NBC's Tim Russert claims. Sometimes, Friedman fixates on four words in particular. "My motto is very simple: Give war a chance," he told Diane Sawyer on "Good Morning America." Seeking vindication Though the disastrous consequences of these cavalier recommendations became apparent fairly soon after the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, Friedman instead searched for slivers of vindication amid the carnage. Finally, in early 2005, he penned a column entitled "A Day to Remember," calling himself "unreservedly happy" about the Iraqi national election and declared "you should be, too." (NYT, Feb. 3, 2005) A few weeks later, Friedman was adding tentative progress in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations and Lebanese demands for a full Syrian withdrawal as further evidence of the wisdom of invading Iraq. Friedman hailed the three developments as historical "tipping points" possibly foreshadowing "incredible" changes in the Middle East. (NYT, Feb. 27, 2005) Four days later, Friedman added a touch of self-pity to his sense of vindication. "The last couple of years have not been easy for anyone, myself included, who hoped that the Iraq war would produce a decent, democratizing outcome," he wrote. (NYT, March 3, 2005) But the reality was never as Friedman presented it. The Iraqi election was a means for pro-Iranian Shiite parties to consolidate their dominance over the previously powerful Sunni minority, setting the stage for more sectarian violence, not some democratic national reconciliation. The tentative progress in the Israeli-Palestinian talks resulted from the death of longtime Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat, not as a consequence of the Iraq war. Indeed, a post-Arafat election in the Palestinian territories led to a Hamas victory and to the latest round of Israeli violence against Palestinians in Gaza, now including Israel's arrest of Deputy Prime Minister Nasser al-Shaer and more than two dozen Hamas cabinet members and legislators. As for Lebanon, Bush's encouragement of Israel to launch a heavy assault against Hezbollah strongholds in south Lebanon -- echoing his "shock and awe" strategy in Iraq -- has left much of Lebanon's economic infrastructure in ruins and has elevated the status of Hezbollah guerrillas in the eyes of many Lebanese and across the Middle East. Catching the wave In other words, few of Friedman's assessments have turned out to be either thoughtful or accurate. Rather than anchoring his work in objective fact and unbiased analysis, he seems instead to have mastered the skill of catching the wave of Washington's latest "conventional wisdom." While that ability has proven very profitable for Friedman, it has hurt U.S. foreign policy and contributed to the deaths of 2,600 U.S. soldiers and tens of thousands of civilians in the Middle East. But Friedman is not alone. Many major news organizations fill their opinion columns and their on-air commentary with well-paid pundits who also cheered on the Iraq war. The Washington Post's editorial section offers up nearly the same line-up of columnists who ran with the pro-war herd from 2002 through 2005. Some, like David Ignatius, have slowly begun to retreat from their enthusiasm for invading Iraq; others, like Charles Krauthammer, remain true believers in the neoconservative cause. Editorial page editor Fred Hiatt stays ensconced, too, despite admitting that his pre-war editorials shouldn't have treated the alleged threat from Iraq's WMD as a "flat fact" instead of an allegation. Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen -- who like Friedman presents himself as a slightly left-of-center thinker -- is another pundit who admitted misjudgments on Iraq without really accepting blame or showing remorse. "Those of us who once advocated this war [in Iraq] are humbled," Cohen wrote in a column on April 4, 2006. "It's not just that we grossly underestimated the enemy. We vastly overestimated the Bush administration. "Victory in Iraq is now three years or so overdue and a bit over budget," Cohen wrote. "Lives have been lost for no good reason -- never mind the money -- and now Bush suggests that his successor may still have to keep troops in Iraq." It may be positive news that the likes of Friedman and Cohen have finally acknowledged realities long apparent to many other Americans. Still, the halfhearted mea culpas -- often combined with continued slights against those who were right -- fall far short of the accountability that the deaths and maiming of so many people would seem to justify. Under principles of international law applied from Nuremberg to Rwanda, propagandists who contribute to war crimes or encourage crimes against humanity can be put in the dock alongside the actual killers. Though such a fate may not await America's pro-war pundits, Friedman and other commentators who helped ease the way to Bush's unprovoked invasion of Iraq, and thus contributed to the ongoing slaughters in the Middle East, might at least have the decency to admit their incompetence and resign. Robert Parry's new book is "Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq." http://www.secrecyandprivilege.com/ Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at http://secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.' ---- "I Was a Propaganda Intern in Iraq" - Fmr. Lincoln Group Intern Describes Paying Iraqi Press to Plant Pro-American Articles Secretly Written by U.S. Military Monday, August 21st, 2006 Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/21/1348229 We speak with Willem Marx, a former intern with the Washington-based government contractor, the Lincoln Group. He spent a summer in Baghdad paying to plant pro-American articles secretly written by the U.S. military in the Iraqi press. [includes rush transcript] He held a loaded submachine gun while being driven through Baghdad by two Kurdish security men. He had three million dollars in cash locked inside his bedroom in the Green Zone. Armed with a gun, he interrogated Iraqi employees about whether they were doing their job. He spent a summer in Baghdad paying to plant pro-American articles in the Iraqi press that were secretly written by the US military. He was just 22 years old and he was an intern at the Lincoln Group, the Washington-based government contractor. The company gained notoriety last November after the Los Angeles Times first revealed it was being paid by the Pentagon to plant stories in the Iraqi press as part of a secret military propaganda campaign. A subsequent Pentagon investigation in March cleared the Lincoln Group of any wrongdoing. Today, we speak with that former intern of the Lincoln Group. Willem Marx is a freelance writer and a graduate student in journalism at New York University. His article detailing his experience is published in the latest issue of Harpers Magazine. It's titled "Misinformation Intern: My summer as a military propagandist in Iraq." He joins us on the line from Uzbekistan. * Willem Marx, former intern with the Lincoln Group in Iraq. RUSH TRANSCRIPT AMY GOODMAN: Today, we speak with that former intern of the Lincoln Group -- his name, Willem Marx. He joins us on the line from Uzbekistan. He's a freelance writer and a graduate student in journalism at New York University. His piece -- his latest piece appears in Harper's magazine, detailing his experience. It’s called “Misinformation Intern: My Summer as a Military Propagandist in Iraq.” Willem Marx, thank you for joining us. WILLEM MARX: Hi, Amy. Good to be with you. AMY GOODMAN: It's good to have you with us. Well, why don't you start out just explaining, how did you get this job? WILLEM MARX: Well, it started when I was approaching my final exams at Oxford just over a year ago, and a cousin of mine who lived in New York told me about a company that was offering internships in Baghdad. I had a place to study at NYU the following September, and I thought that a summer working in Iraq would be a very good experience for me as a burgeoning young reporter. And I sent off my resume. I saw a sort of position offered as a media intern. It didn't give a huge amount of detail. And it seemed like an opportunity that very few people my age would get. And having sent off my resume, I was contacted by the company, went through a few telephone interviews, and soon found myself flying over to D.C. to pick up a military identification card and then, a few days later, landing in Baghdad. AMY GOODMAN: When you came to this country, you met the founders of the Lincoln Group? WILLEM MARX: Yes, I did. Two men -- one called Christian Bailey, who is a Brit like me, and another former Marine called Paige Craig, who -- they have their headquarters in Washington, D.C. AMY GOODMAN: And can you tell us any more about them and about that part of -- WILLEM MARX: Absolutely. Absolutely. I arrived in D.C., having not been there for a few years, since I visited a cousin at a university there. I didn't know the city very well. They put me up in a hotel near their office, and the morning after I had arrived, I walked up there. It was on K Street, the heart of the lobbying industry. And I was introduced to both of them. Paige Craig was very military, not particularly friendly, and just, you know, muttered a few words to me, whereas Christian Bailey had also gone to Oxford, and so we chatted about that for a while. Neither of them were very forthcoming really about what I would be doing out in Iraq. Pretty sort of sketchy on details. But both, you know, were telling me there were great opportunities for young people like me. They were a company that was growing rapidly. And they welcomed me on board and wished me good luck. AMY GOODMAN: Willem Marx, we're going to break, and then we're going to come back to hear about your time in Iraq, your time in the Green Zone and out. Willem Marx, former intern with the Lincoln Group. Stay with us. [break] AMY GOODMAN: Our guest is Willem Marx. We're speaking to him now in Uzbekistan, a freelance writer and graduate student, spent the summer, last summer, in Iraq as an intern with the Lincoln Group and has written a piece about it in the latest edition of Harper's magazine called "Misinformation Intern: My Summer as a Military Propagandist in Iraq." Willem Marx, had either man who founded the Lincoln Group been to Iraq? WILLEM MARX: Yes. Paige Craig, the former Marine, had certainly spent a lot of time there, I think after the initial invasion in March 2003, and from what I understood, he went out there to try and facilitate business opportunities for foreign investors and in a very roundabout way ended up with a contract for, I think, what they call “strategic communications” with the U.S. military. The other, the Brit, Christian Bailey, had never, when I first met him, been out to Iraq, and he explained to me that every time he meant to go out there, something would come up in D.C., and he was needed to stay behind. Just after I left, at the end of August, I think he made a trip out there for a few days, but as far as I’m aware, that's the only time he's been there. AMY GOODMAN: So you got on a plane and went to Baghdad. Describe your experience there. WILLEM MARX: Well, I arrived in Baghdad airport and was taken to a villa in the Green Zone via Camp Victory. After about a week of twiddling my thumbs and not really doing a lot, I became rather impatient and emailed people back in D.C., saying, you know, "What am I doing here? I thought I was going to be doing some work." And within a day or two, I was taken to lunch by another employee, and he explained to me in detail what exactly it was the Lincoln Group was doing. And I was going to take over his position, because he was going on holiday, so -- on vacation, I should say. And what he was doing was receiving English-written articles by soldiers in a certain unit inside Camp Victory, the major U.S. base just south of Baghdad. He was choosing which of those articles would be published in Iraqi newspapers. He was sending them to Iraqi employees, getting them translated into Arabic, getting them okayed by the command back at Camp Victory and then having other Iraqi employees run them down to Iraqi newspapers, where they would pay editors, sub-editors, commissioning editors to run them as news stories in the Iraqi newspapers. And that was the role, you know, after about a week or ten days of me being there, that I took over. And for the first two or three weeks of that, things seemed to go according to plan. I obviously wasn't hugely happy about the work I was doing, but I saw it as a very, very interesting insight into how both the U.S. military operate in Iraq and also how contractors operate there. And things started to get slightly more exciting, in that the company was offered a much larger contract to do all sorts of other types of media placement, both on television and radio, and the internet and through posters around Baghdad. And I was involved in setting up some of the budgeting and the execution of this larger contract, which was worth $10 million a month for the company. AMY GOODMAN: $10 million. According to MSNBC, "In December 2005, Pentagon documents indicate the Lincoln Group […] received a $100 million contract to help produce these favorable articles, translate [them] into Arabic, get them placed in Iraqi newspapers and not reveal the Pentagon's role.” WILLEM MARX: I think MSNBC has got it slightly confused. The Lincoln Group was one of three companies also offered -- also contracted for up to $100 million for a contract with the Psychological Operations Joint Task Force, I think it’s called, down in Florida. And that $100 million was dependent on pictures they made, ideas they came up with and could then sell to the military. That contract, with Lincoln Group at least, has been canceled, I think as recently as this month. I think I saw a piece in the Washington Post reporting that. So that $100 million, very little of it was ever given to the company, I think, and it was certainly touted by them as one of their major crowning achievements. But these are $20 million over two months, the $10 million a month for media placement in Iraq, was a separate contract with the military in Iraq. AMY GOODMAN: So, Willem, talk about how you chose these articles. Talk about the generals you communicated with, what the content of the articles were. WILLEM MARX: Sure. Well, I'd get about five a day from this unit inside Camp Victory. And they'd vary from profiles of an Iraqi policewoman, maybe, to stories about factories opening, hospitals opening, terrorists being eliminated. And I tried as much as possible to stay away from those that dealt with terrorism and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. I thought they were particularly inflammatory, often badly informed about local feelings towards insurgents in Iraq. And I tried as much as possible to push pieces which talked about reconstruction. I'd pass those ones onto Iraqi employees, that talked about hospitals being rebuilt, and they were very clinical stories. There was not often a lot of art to the writing, but I felt that those were definitely stories that, you know, the mainstream media, both in Iraq and elsewhere, would not be writing about, purely because they would have no access to them. And it was the kind of positive spin on the situation that I felt more comfortable with using. AMY GOODMAN: And then -- WILLEM MARX: And I'd -- sorry, yes? AMY GOODMAN: Talk about then what you would do once you chose these articles? Who would you transmit them to? WILLEM MARX: I would send them to an Iraqi in Lincoln Group's downtown Iraqi office, which was staffed entirely by local Iraqis, and he would choose one of the translators they had there, get it turned into Arabic, send back to me. I unfortunately don't read Arabic at all well. And I would then send it to the command. I think they had an Iraqi translator there themselves, who would check that it more or less followed the original English. They would rubber stamp it, and I would then send it back to the Iraqi office saying, “This is good to go. Put it in newspaper A, B, or C.” And from there, the process really was beyond my control, and they would do their best to place it in the newspaper I'd ask them to put it in, and often they didn't, and I began to grow suspicious about why exactly they weren't putting it in certain newspapers. And that led to what was, to me, the most shocking episode of my time in Iraq, when I was called upon to question some of the Iraqi employees at the downtown office as to why articles were being placed in newspapers we hadn't asked them to be put in and also why they were charging these newspapers far more than they had when I'd first arrived, the suspicion being that Iraqi employees were taking a cut of the money they then expensed the company. AMY GOODMAN: Why don't you explain that whole journey, how you left the Green Zone and went to conduct this interrogation? WILLEM MARX: It was extraordinary. I was asked by my boss at the company to look into -- you know, I'd noticed these discrepancies myself in the kind of flow charts we kept, which monitored how many articles were published and where, and I saw there were some very strange goings on in these records, and I was sent to go and investigate, myself. So I took a friend from the Green Zone, an Iraqi guy who lived nearby and worked more or less as a handyman for another American contractor. He agreed to come down as a mutual sort of friend of mine and translator, who the other Iraqi employees wouldn't know and would not be able to follow or suspect, in case there was any foul play to be experienced. And he and I drove down to this downtown office through all the checkpoints, sort of mid-afternoon, I would say, arrived at this office, which, of course, is bolted and relatively heavily guarded inside this apartment building. And I went straight to the head of the Iraqi office and said, “I want to speak to such-and-such and such-and-such and ask them about these discrepancies.” And I, at this stage, had no idea who was really involved, who was guilty and, because my Arabic was very rudimentary, I very rarely understood much of what was sort of said in front of me, so it was difficult to know who I should be trusting. And I sat down with one employee after another and really questioned them about their involvement in the publishing of these stories and whether they had been taking kickbacks in connivance with local editors. And the really startling episode I write about is sitting down with one of these men, who I'd never really trusted, and he very angrily was protesting the accusations I was laying against him. And I carried a gun very often with me when I traveled outside of the Green Zone, a small sort of Glock revolver, and carried it in my belt, and as I sat down to talk to this man, after a few moments, I realized that the revolver was very uncomfortably placed inside my belt. And as I started asking these very accusatory questions, I pulled the gun out of my belt