NucNews August 29, 2006



-------- NUCLEAR 


-------- accidents and safety

Pills In Case Of Nuclear Accident?

POSTED: 12:24 pm EDT August 29, 2006
-John Paul, Ohio - WTOV NEWS9

http://www.wtov9.com/news/9755342/detail.html

The Hancock County Health Department handed out potassium pills so people would have them in case of a nuclear accident.

The pills are the first line of defense in case of a radiation leak, and were distributed to people living within 10 miles of the nuclear power plant in Beaver County.

The clinic was to prepare people in the event of a radiation leak at the nuclear plant in Beaver County.

"I've heard for probably all my life that we were close to this radiation," said Joan Rees, who picked up pills at the clinic.

Rees said she got the message and wanted to be prepared for an accident. She also was hoping to protect her pets.

"I wanted one for my dogs, but they said I couldn't have that," said Rees.

The potassium pills block radiation from saturating the thyroid glands in your neck and prevent cancer -- a lesson learned from Three-Mile Island and Chernobyl.

"They need one in case there's an actual nuclear accident," said Anthony LaPosta, of the Hancock County Health Department.

If there was an accident, the Harv at Mountaineer Racetrack and Gaming Resort would become a point of distribution, which is one of the reasons the clinic was held there Tuesday.

While the pills are important, the best thing to do in an emergency is leave.

"Evacuate. That's really prime. Evacuate. Get out of the 10-mile radius," said Cindy Webster, a nurse with the health department.

Not everyone needs these pills, but the health department suggests people who live within a 10-mile radius of a nuclear plant has them on hand.

Anyone can get the pills for free by going to their local health clinic.



-------- africa

SA mulls plan to enrich uranium for power

JAMES MACHARIA
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Nampa-Reuters 

http://www.namibian.com.na/2006/August/world/06430F36C0.html

JOHANNESBURG - South Africa, which has backed Iran's right to enrich uranium, says it is contemplating processing its own uranium to boost power generation and envisages building up to six new nuclear reactors.

But Minerals and Energy Minister Buyelwa Sonjica said in a speech at the weekend that any enrichment of uranium by South Africa would be pursued within international obligations.

South Africa has said it hopes to grow its economy by around six per cent in the future and would need new energy capacity to fuel the expansion of the continent's biggest economy.

"I therefore believe that time has come for South Africa to conduct a cost benefit analysis into the beneficiation (processing) of uranium.

I will soon be making certain announcements in this regard," Sonjica said in the speech, a copy of which was obtained by Reuters yesterday.

South Africa abandoned its nuclear arms programme before the end of apartheid in 1994.

But it opposes forcing nations to abandon uranium enrichment, saying this could hurt its potential commercial activities to supply the nuclear power industry.

"The expansion of peaceful uses of nuclear energy worldwide is looking more and more irreversible," Sonjica said.

"Clearly there is potential in this country and in this continent for us to look at ways of increasing the role nuclear technology plays in our economies."

Speaking at the launch of the 200-strong South African Young Nuclear Professionals, Sonjica said nuclear technology could increase at least 5 000 megawatts of nuclear energy to the country's power output by 2030.

Sonjica said the proposed plan would require the building of four to six new nuclear reactors, and that the country had enough uranium reserves to fuel such a nuclear energy programme.

She cited the growth of nuclear energy in India, China and Russia.

South Africa produces nuclear electricity from its Koeberg power plant in the Western Cape province, which accounts for six per cent of its electricity generation.

Koeberg, Africa's only nuclear-fired facility, imports all its fuel requirements, a spokesman said.

Its two nuclear reactors each generate about 900 megawatts of electricity.

South Africa, which has a seat on the International Atomic Energy Agency, has said it supports Iran's right to develop peaceful nuclear technology under the terms of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Iran denies US accusations that it wants to use its nuclear facilities to make bombs and says its atomic ambitions are limited to generating electricity.




-------- asia

Experts fret over human shortage for Vietnam nuclear plant

Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Source: Vietnam News Agency – Translated by Thanh Tuan

http://www.thanhniennews.com/politics/?catid=1&newsid=19444
	
The Vietnam Atomic Energy Commission (VAEC) has voiced concern over a possible shortage of technical staff to operate a planned nuclear power plant around 2020.

At a workshop held in Hanoi Tuesday in cooperation with the Japan Atomic Industrial Forum Inc, it estimated that 3,500-4,500 experts, including 500-700 university graduates and post graduates, 700-1,000 technicians, and 2,200-3,000 skilled workers would be needed to run the plant.

Professor Hoang Dac Luc, a senior VAEC official, pointed out that the country’s universities were only training 70-80 experts annually while many of the 600 experts working in the nuclear industry now, mainly for VAEC, would be too old when the plant was opened.

Agreeing that human training was key to the plan’s success, Japanese experts called for training 90 people in 2005-2007, 240 in 2008-2010, and 880 during 2011-2020.




-------- australia

SXR Uranium to Dig Honeymoon Mine in South Australia (Update3)

By Antony Sguazzin and Janice Kew 
August 29, 2006 (Bloomberg) 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601081&sid=aHUR1CXPqXCs

Aug. 29 -- SXR Uranium One Inc., which is developing uranium mines in South Africa and the U.S., said it will dig a mine for the nuclear material at its Honeymoon deposit in South Australia.

The mine may cost as much as $41.5 million to dig and produce 400 metric tons of uranium a year, the Toronto-based company said today in a statement. It would have a lifespan of six to seven years and production costs of $14.13 a pound.

``Australia contains the world's largest-known uranium deposits in pounds,'' Chief Financial Officer Jean Nortier told journalists in Johannesburg today. ``We are also looking for projects in North Australia.''

SXR is seeking to take advantage of surging uranium prices. Global supply is currently 40 percent below annual demand of 175 million pounds and that deficit may widen as nuclear reactors are started up in China, India and Russia.

The price of uranium has gained 58 percent over the last year to $47.50 a pound, according to Metal Bulletin, a London-based industry publication.

On July 28, SXR said it will spend $180 million digging the Dominion mine in South Africa and earlier in the month announced plans worth $200 million to expand in the U.S.

Construction of the Honeymoon mine, which would exploit a deposit with 1.2 million tons of ore, will be funded from debt and ``internal resources,'' SXR said.

Financing Strategy

``We have so many funding opportunities,'' Nortier said. ``We will probably announce a financing strategy this week.''

The mine, located 800 kilometers northeast of Adelaide, may start up in first quarter of 2008 and will probably reach full production shortly after that, Nortier said. It will be Australia's fourth uranium mine.

SXR plans to build power and water infrastructure in the mining area within the next three months, Nortier added.

Shares of SXR rose 20 cents, or 0.4 percent, to 51.95 rand in Johannesburg. The stock has gained 57 percent this year, giving the company a market value of 5.8 billion rand ($812 million).

To contact the reporter on this story: Antony Sguazzin in Johannesburg asguazzin@bloomberg.net



-------- china 

China vows to fulfill int'l obligations on nuclear non-proliferation: official

Xinhua August 29, 2006

http://english.people.com.cn/200608/29/eng20060829_297683.html

China will spare no efforts to fulfill its international obligations on nuclear non-proliferation and enhance international cooperation in peaceful utilization of nuclear energy,said Jin Zhuanglong, deputy director of the Commission of Science, Technology and Industry for National Defense (COSTIND).

Jin told a COSTIND meeting on international cooperation held on Monday that China will promote bilateral and multilateral cooperation and enhance its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN's nuclear watchdog, in the nuclear field during the Eleventh-Five Year Plan period (2006-2010).

Jin said China will introduce and absorb advanced technologies pertaining to large pressurized-water reactor nuclear power plant, spent fuel commercialized reprocessing facility, high temperature gas cool reactor, fast reactor, nuclear desalination, uranium mining and nuclear security, and take an active part in the international research of nuclear fusion reactor and the forth-generation nuclear energy.

China will also strengthen nuclear export control by establishing a nuclear exporters' qualification scrutiny system.

Jin said China will set up a training center of nuclear safeguards supervision and nuclear security in the Asia-Pacific region and develop a domestic system for obligations fulfillment by building experts and supporting teams.

In international cooperation of peaceful utilization of nuclear energy, China has signed 70 international treaties and inter-department agreements in total, said Jin.

China entered the Nuclear Suppliers Group in 2004, a major step for the country to join international non-proliferation efforts.

Jin said China has continued to deepen nuclear cooperation with Russia, and established regular meeting mechanisms at the ministerial level and the multi-level working mechanisms with France, the Republic of Korea and Japan respectively.

The first phase of the Chashma Nuclear Power Plant in Pakistan, a China-Pakistan cooperative project, has been completed and put into operation as scheduled, and the second phase is under construction.

The COSTIND is mainly responsible for researching and drafting guidelines, policies and laws concerning science, technology and industry for national defense, organizing and managing quality, safety, measurement, standards, statistics and records in the area of defense-related science, technology and industry.

The COSTIND is also responsible for undertaking the organization and management of all international cooperation and exchanges and overseeing matters relating to bilateral and multilateral international cooperation in the area of science, technology and industry for national defense.



<a name="du"></a>

-------- depleted uranium

Stryker teams train with new vehicles

By Jason Kaye
Fort Lewis, Wash. Northwest Guardian
August 29, 2006

http://www4.army.mil/news/article.php?story=9467
http://www.ftleavenworthlamp.com/articles/2006/08/31/dod_news/dod3.txt

FORT LEWIS (Army News Service, Aug. 29, 2006) – A long wait is over for Stryker Mobile Gun System (MGS) crews of the 4th Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division.

The 2nd Battalion, 23rd Infantry, received its complement of MGS vehicles last month after more than a year of waiting. They are the first vehicles to be fielded in the Army.

“I think its going to give the infantry a whole new dimension of what they can do. Armor and infantry have kept each other at arm’s length for years and years," said Sgt. 1st Class David Cooper, an MGS platoon sergeant with B Company, 2-23 Inf. "We’ve got some growing pains, but once we get out there and they see what we can do, we’re going to be everybody’s friend.”

Each infantry company is slated to receive three vehicles, though crews don't expect to operate together except on rare occasions.

The vehicles carry crews of three, and are equipped with a 105 mm main gun and a state-of-the-art fire control system. The MGS also has an onboard coaxial machine gun that’s fire controlled.

“You can literally shoot smiley faces with it at 900 meters,” said Cooper. “Even minus the big gun we can give the infantry a lot of support.”

The 105 mm is capable of firing four types of rounds: SABOT, a depleted-uranium armor-piercing round; HEAT, high-explosive anti-tank; HEP, high-explosive plastic; and a canister round. The rounds are loaded using a hydraulic auto-loader in the rear of the vehicle.

The HEP and canister rounds give Stryker units new capabilities, especially in urban areas. The HEP can blow holes in reinforced concrete walls, but unlike the rounds from an Abrams, won’t continue through the target and into surrounding buildings. The canister provides as effective anti-personnel capability.

“The vehicle’s basic role is to support the infantry. It’s not there to take on tanks or go toe-to-toe in the wide-open desert like we did with the Abrams,” said Sgt. 1st Class William Ozmet, an MGS instructor from Fort Knox, Ky. “Its primary function is blowing a hole in the wall or blowing up bunkers.”

Over the past year, the crews have been training with TOW-ITAS Humvees or other Stryker variants. Finally having the vehicles gives the crews a chance to delve into training.

“I can actually start focusing on our training, both on our mission tasks and working with the infantry,” said 1st Lt. Christopher Lilley, the MGS platoon leader in B Co.

The MGS also comes equipped with training software that allows Soldiers to train on various engagements in their own vehicles, instead of going to a simulator somewhere else.

Once the 4th Bde. completes training, instructors from General Dynamics Land Systems will move on to equip and train Soldiers in Hawaii and Pennsylvania. Training for those units may change according to lessons learned here, but the vehicle itself is expected to remain mostly unchanged.

“I’m confident that this will turn out to be a successful piece of equipment for us, the infantry and the Army,” said Lilley.



-------- india 

All Eyes on the Senate as India Plays Hardball

By Anirudh Suri
August 29, 2006 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/npp/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=18661

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh recently made speeches in the Rajya Sabha (August 17th) and the Lok Sabha (August 23rd), the two Houses of India’s Parliament, forcefully defending the merits of the India-US nuclear deal and clearly outlining the Indian Government’s position on various aspects of the deal. Facing criticism from opposition parties as well as the Left, Singh addressed all the concerns in turn and claimed that he had the assurance of President Bush that the final India-US nuclear deal would not represent any shifts away from the goalposts established in the agreement of July 18, 2005.

In his speeches, Singh emphatically stated that India would not bend in the face of US pressure and would not accept any conditions that would go beyond the July 18th Joint Statement and the March 2, 2006 Separation Plan. Strongly refuting the claim that the proposed US Bill, as passed by the House of Representatives, could become an instrument to influence or even dictate Indian foreign policy, Singh asserted that “the thrust of our foreign policy remains the promotion of our national interest.”

In unequivocal terms, Singh further declared that India was “not willing to accept a moratorium on the production of fissile material” and that India was not “prepared to go beyond a unilateral voluntary moratorium on nuclear testing as indicated in the July statement.” Singh made it clear that the Indian Government would not accept any “dilution that would prevent us from securing the benefits of full civil nuclear cooperation.” He also rejected the Senate proposal that requires the US President to report on India’s compliance with non-proliferation and other commitments on an annual basis, saying that the “element of uncertainty regarding future cooperation” was not acceptable to India. Addressing the issue of India’s nuclear weapons program being subject to international safeguards, Singh further clarified that the Indian government has registered strong opposition to “any legislative provisions that mandate scrutiny of either our nuclear weapons programme or our unsafeguarded nuclear facilities.” As a sovereign nation, India was in no way bound by the legislation of any other country, Singh declared.

Singh’s firm stance and confidence that the US would do its utmost to recognize and accommodate Indian demands seemed to be based on “an assurance from the US President that the parameters of the scope of cooperation would be those contained in the July 2005 Joint Statement and the March 2006 Separation plan.” Thus, Singh concluded that two things were clear: one, there was “no ambiguity in our position in so far as it has been conveyed to the US” and two, the Bush administration had clearly recognized these concerns and voiced them with the US Congress.”

In case the US legislation does indeed take a form similar to the one that was passed by the House of Representatives, then the Indian Government might be forced to reconsider the deal. At the same time, the Singh Government has demonstrated that it remains fully committed to the deal and to improved relations with the United States. Singh emphasized that the deal would contribute greatly to India’s energy security in the future by helping increase nuclear power production as well as enhance the development of India’s high-tech sectors through the promised dismantling of the technology denial regimes. 

The ball has now been placed in the US Senate’s court. It is up to the US Senate to decide how seriously it wants to take the demands of the Indian government. The importance accorded by Singh to the concerns of other Parliamentarians and the scientific community and the categorical stances taken in his speeches will necessitate playing hard ball with the US. Singh has put himself in a good position for now- having addressed domestic concerns by sending a loud and clear message to the US that India will not go beyond what has already been agreed upon.

Singh has admitted that he cannot predict “with certainty the final form of the US legislation or the outcome of the process with the NSG, which consists of 45 countries with divergent views.” Significantly, Singh remained ambiguous about India’s plan of action in the event that the final version of the US legislation or the guidelines imposed by the NSG placed “extraneous conditions” on India, saying that the Indian Government would “draw the necessary conclusions, consistent with the commitments I have made to Parliament.” The use of the phrase “necessary conclusions” regarding future action does allow Singh some flexibility in how to respond to the final version of the US legislation, though CPI (M) leaders have begun pushing the government to spell out in advance their strategy clearly in case extraneous conditions were in fact imposed.

On the part of the US Senate, the worsening situation vis-à-vis Iran and its belligerence on nuclear issues might induce the Senate to not push a key potential ally away at such a time. Furthermore, the Bush administration will be pushing vigorously for the Bill to go through in a mutually acceptable form. Lobbyists in favor of the deal emphasize the importance of improving economic and political ties with a rapidly growing India. At the same time, others continue to believe that the US is offering India everything on a silver platter without getting any concrete assurances or any tangible benefits in return. It will be this constituency that will have to be convinced if the deal is to go through in a mutually acceptable form.

The Indians haven’t lost sight of the next obstacle, the NSG, either. In response to the reservations voiced by some Scandinavian countries, the Indians launched a diplomatic counteroffensive, citing their impeccable non-proliferation record and unilateral commitments to maintaining it.

The Senate returns to session in September.  

Anirudh Suri is a Junior Fellow with the South Asia Program at the Carnegie Endowment.



-------- iran

U.N. may hold off on confronting Iran

By NICK WADHAMS, Associated Press Writer Tue Aug 29, 2006

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060829/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_iran

UNITED NATIONS - The U.N. Security Council will need until mid-September before acting on its threat to punish Iran if Tehran's leaders flout a Thursday deadline to suspend uranium enrichment as is widely expected, Britain's U.N. ambassador said Tuesday.

Ambassador Emyr Jones-Parry's prediction seemed to rule out the immediate threat of sanctions against Iran if it disregards the council's demands — spelled out in a resolution adopted this month — to suspend enrichment by Thursday. Iran has already said it would reject the deadline.

Jones-Parry said that before it can act, the Security Council will need to receive a report from the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, on Iran's compliance with the resolution.

"Once we've had the report from the agency, had a further chance to discuss that, capitals will have a clearer view of exactly how this should be carried forward, but I would expect activity here to resume toward the middle of September," Jones-Parry said.

Another obstacle to quick action will be the language that will have to be worked out in the resolution. Russia, whose support for sanctions is essential, has publicly counseled patience with Iran — a possible signal of reluctance to go along with the U.S.

For now, most discussions are taking place in the capitals of the permanent five Security Council nations, as well as Germany. A council diplomat said diplomats in New York have discussed ideas which could be included in a new resolution but that the council was a long way from a formal meeting.

The diplomat spoke on condition of anonymity because the talks were private.

The negotiations over the earlier Iran resolution took weeks, as did talks over a weaker statement passed this year in which the council also demanded Iran suspend enrichment.

In July, the five permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany offered Iran a package of incentives to entice it into clearing up questions about its nuclear program and suspending uranium enrichment.

The council then gave Iran until Aug. 31 to suspend enrichment and warned it would consider economic and political sanctions if Iran disobeys.

Although details of Iran's response last week have not been released, officials and diplomats said it was not satisfactory. Diplomats at the U.N. said they believed Iran's response would not change between now and Thursday.

Enrichment is a process that can produce either fuel for a reactor or material for weapons. Iran says its nuclear program is intended solely to generate electricity, while the United States and Europe contend it secretly aims to develop weapons.

U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said the United States still has not decided how it will respond once the Aug. 31 deadline expires. But he reiterated that Washington will seek sanctions if Iran disregards the resolution.

"They have until the 31st of August, but we've made it very clear unless we get an unequivocal acceptance of that condition in the Security Council resolution, that sanctions would follow," Bolton said.



-------- japan

U.S. missile defense ship arrives in Japan

Tue Aug 29, 2006 (Reuters) 
By Isabel Reynolds

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldnews&storyID=2006-08-29T045406Z_01_T180926_RTRUKOC_0_US-ARMS-JAPAN-USA.xml

YOKOSUKA, Japan - The USS Shiloh, the first missile-defense capable ship to be deployed in Japan, arrived in the port of Yokosuka on Tuesday, eight weeks after North Korea unnerved the region with a barrage of missile tests.

The deployment of the Shiloh, boasting Standard Missile-3 interceptors for shooting down medium-range ballistic missiles, is a highly symbolic first step in a joint U.S.-Japanese program to try to shield Japan and the region from any a missile attack.

The two allies stressed the significance of the ship's arrival as an example of the importance the United States attaches to its security alliance with Japan, although the chances of preventing a missile attack on the country with a single vessel are slim.

U.S. and Japanese officials welcomed the 10,000-tonne cruiser and its 360 crew at a colorful ceremony that included a Japanese-style taiko drum performance by U.S. sailors.

"The United States remains committed to the defense of Japan and peace and stability in the western Pacific,", U.S. Navy Secretary Donald Winter said at the ceremony.

In July, Pyongyang test-fired a series of ballistic missiles, an incident that drew attention to Japan's lack of defense systems eight years after Tokyo was spooked by a previous North Korean ballistic missile test in 1998.

Many analysts, however, have cast doubt on whether missile defense systems can reliably shoot down incoming missiles, and they criticize the program for drawing funds away from other areas of defense spending.

Missile defense accounts for 140 billion yen ($1.2 billion) of Japan's 4.81 trillion yen ($41 billion) defense budget this year.

The defense agency plans to seek a record 219 billion yen for missile defense in the fiscal year from next April 1, Kyodo news agency reported, although such requests are usually whittled down in the budget process.

As a second line of defense, the U.S. military will begin to install Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) interceptors at its Kadena Air Base on the southern Japanese island of Okinawa in September and plans to make them partly operational by the end of the year.

The ship-to-air SM-3 interceptors are designed to shoot down ballistic missiles in mid-flight, when they fly outside the earth's atmosphere, while ground-based PAC-3 interceptors target missiles in their terminal phase, shortly before they reach their targets.

Japan also plans to install its own missile defense hardware, including fitting its four Aegis radar system-equipped warships with SM-3s, but the first of these ships will not be ready until sometime in the financial year that starts next April.

Kyodo news agency said the United States had offered to provide Japan with up to 80 more Patriot missiles, as Japan seeks to speed up its own deployment of ground-based interceptor missiles.

----

Japan and Kazakhstan sign atomic pact

By Isabel Gorst in Moscow
August 29 2006 Financial Times

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/4ca52f8a-36fa-11db-89d6-0000779e2340.html

Japan and Kazakhstan have signed an agreement to expand co-operation in the peaceful use of atomic energy that should pave the way for Japanese companies to win access to uranium resources deals in the Central Asian republic.

The nuclear pact was sealed yesterday during a visit by Junichiro Koizumi, the Japanese prime minister, to Kazakhstan. Mr Koizumi became the first Japanese prime minister to visit Kazakhstan at a time when Japan is looking to Central Asia to secure energy resources that can reduce dependence on Middle East oil.

Mr Koizumi said the outlook was "promising" for Japanese/Kazakh co-operation in uranium mining.

"Under the memorandum that we have signed, we will now begin to work on concluding contracts," he said.

Marubeni, Japan's fifth biggest trading house, is understood to be negotiating an uranium deal in Kazakhstan similar to one struck by its competitor Sumitomo in January. Sumitomo entered a tripartite venture with Kansai Electric Power, an Osaka-based utility, and KazAtomprom, Kazakhstan's state nuclear power company, to mine uranium at West Myndukuk in the south of the republic. Another Japanese company, Itochu, signed a 10-year contract to import Kazakh uranium last year.

Kazakhstan plans to quadruple uranium production and overtake Canada and Australia to become the world's biggest uranium producer by the end of the decade.

The timing of the republic's aggressive advance into uranium mining is propitious. Nuclear power is enjoying a comeback as high oil prices create an imperative to develop alternative fuels. Asian countries with scant oil resources including Japan, China, India and South Korea plan significant expansion of nuclear power capacity, according to the World Nuclear Association.

Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, has urged former Soviet states to re-integrate the nuclear power industry that has largely fragmented since the USSR collapsed in 1991.

Mr Putin and Nursultan Nazarbayev, the Kazakh leader, signed a joint declaration in January to co-operate in the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

RosAtom, Russia's state nuclear power company, entered three ventures with KazAtomprom in July involving uranium mining in Kazakhstan, fuel processing in Siberia and the joint construction of nuclear power reactors.

Sergei Kirienko, the head of RosAtom, said Russia expected to import 5,000 to 6,000 tons a year of uranium from Kazakhstan, almost twice as much as Russia's own production.

Kazakhstan is sharing out uranium resources between different players, repeating a geopolitical balancing act already accomplished in the oil sector. Canada's Cameco, the world's biggest uranium producer, and Areva, a French energy company, have uranium mining ventures in the republic.

The US has asked Kazakhstan not to supply uranium to Iran.



-------- treaties

US Unilateralism
Nonproliferation and Unilateral Proliferation

by Henry C.K. Liu
August 29, 2006
henryckliu.com/ - 2006-07-01

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=LIU20060701&articleId=3089

State policies or actions are deemed “unilateral” if they have significant impacts on people in other states but undertaken by a single state without the mandate of bilateral or multilateral treaties or in violation or defiance or rejection of such treaties.

US unilateralism did not start with the Bush administration. Its moralistic root traces to Christian Right influence on US foreign policy after WWII, especially over US policy on China. It was the ideological basis for the Cold War with a self-righteous Superpower leading subservient allies who did not have the wherewithal to resist it. It has continued after the end of the Cold War even as allies attempt to assert increasing independence with the disappearance of perceived Soviet threat. The huge power differential between the US as the sole remaining superpower and its former subservient allies gave the US a natural claim and de facto privilege to unilateralism.

President Clinton’s decision to use military force to enforce moral imperialism in the Balkans was based on the view that “US citizens and interests are threatened in many arenas and across a wide spectrum of issues.” These perceived perils as interpreted by US cultural preference range from regional conflicts and insurgency to terrorism and ethnic unrest are viewed as direct threats to US national interests raised to the level of clear and present danger. The interest of the US in maintaining geopolitical stability is predicated on its being a superpower with global economic interests. The US aims to act unilaterally by maintaining a force structure that can conduct simultaneous expeditionary military operations in widely separated theaters around the world against multiple adversaries who may not even be natural allies. This is done by revising its Cold War alliances such as NATO from defensive to offensive regional military assets that the US can deploy at will to achieve US global geopolitical objectives.

The Clinton Doctrine

The Clinton Doctrine subscribes to the proposition that the best way to maintain stability in core regions of US interests such as Western Europe and Japan is to combat instability in periphery regions before it can intensify and spread. It was expressed in Clinton’s February 26, 1999 speech in San Francisco: “… the true measure of our interests lies not in how small or distant these places are … The question we must ask is: what are the consequences to our security of letting conflicts fester and spread … where our values and our interests are at stake, and where we can make a difference, we must be prepared to do so.”

Neoconservative commentator Charles Krauthammer wrote on March 29, 1999 critically about the Clinton Doctrine: “The Clinton Doctrine aspires to morality and universality. But foreign policy must be calculating and particular … … The essence of foreign policy is deciding which son of a bitch to support and which to oppose. One has to choose. A blanket anti-son of a bitch policy, like a blanket anti-ethnic cleansing policy, is soothing, satisfying and empty. It is not a policy at all but righteous self-delusion.”

China is the key SOB nation that US neoconservatives choose to oppose preemptively before it gets too powerful.

Clash of Civilizations

There were other views. Barely two decades after the Cold War, Harvard historian Samuel P. Huntington writes in an article, The Lonely Superpower in the March 1999 issue of Foreign Affairs: “The unipolar moment has passed. Even old allies stubbornly resist American demands, while many other nations view US policy and ideals as openly hostile to their own. Washington is blind to the fact that it no longer enjoys the dominance it had at the end of the Cold War. It must relearn the game of international politics as a major power, not a superpower, and make compromises. US policymaking should reflect rational calculations of power rather than a wish list of arrogant, unilateralist demands.”

Yet Huntington writes in the Summer 1993 Foreign Affairs about the Clash of Civilizations that “the next pattern of conflict … … in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future.”

It is common after 9:11 to focus Huntington’s clash of civilizations theme on Islam-Christian conflict. Yet Huntington has a lot to say about Asia in general and China in particular. He quotes MIT political scientist Lucian Pye that China is “a civilization pretending to be a state.” He credit common culture as “clearly facilitating the rapid expansion of the economic relations between the People's Republic of China and Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore and the overseas Chinese communities in other Asian countries. With the Cold War over, cultural commonalities increasingly overcome ideological differences, and mainland China and Taiwan move closer together. If cultural commonality is a prerequisite for economic integration, the principal East Asian economic bloc of the future is likely to be centered on China. This bloc is, in fact, already coming into existence.”

Further on, Huntington writes: “With the Cold War over, the underlying differences between China and the United States have reasserted themselves in areas such as human rights, trade and weapons proliferation. These differences are unlikely to moderate. A “new cold war,” Deng Xaioping reportedly asserted in 1991, is under way between China and America.” Thus the recent speech by President Hu Jintao at Yale during his summit visit to the US on the peaceful attributes of Chinese civilization will fall on deaf ears in the US.

Huntington pits the West against a coalition of “Confucian-Islamic states”. He sees the conflict between the West and the Confucian-Islamic states focusing “largely, although not exclusively, on nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, ballistic missiles and other sophisticated means for delivering them, and the guidance, intelligence and other electronic capabilities for achieving that goal.” Contrary to evidence, Huntington claims “the West promotes nonproliferation as a universal norm and nonproliferation treaties and inspections as means of realizing that norm. It also threatens a variety of sanctions against those who promote the spread of sophisticated weapons and proposes some benefits for those who do not.” He adds however that “The attention of the West focuses, naturally, on nations that are actually or potentially hostile to the West.”

Huntington went on: “The non-Western nations, on the other hand, assert their right to acquire and to deploy whatever weapons they think necessary for their security. They also have absorbed, to the full, the truth of the response of the Indian defense minister when asked what lesson he learned from the Gulf War: “Don't fight the United States unless you have nuclear weapons.” Nuclear weapons, chemical weapons and missiles are viewed, probably erroneously, as the potential equalizer of superior Western conventional power. China, of course, already has nuclear weapons; Pakistan and India have the capability to deploy them. North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Libya and Algeria appear to be attempting to acquire them. A top Iranian official has declared that all Muslim states should acquire nuclear weapons, and in 1988 the president of Iran reportedly issued a directive calling for development of “offensive and defensive chemical, biological and radiological weapons.”

Huntington identifies the sustained expansion of China’s military power and its means to create military power as centrally important to the development of counter-West military capabilities.

According to Huntington, a Confucian-Islamic military connection has thus come into being, designed to promote acquisition by its members of the weapons and weapons technologies needed to counter the military power of the West. The Huntington clash-of-civilizations world view defines the West’s enemies not by what they do, but by who they are. Such a view does not lead to world peace unless all non-Western civilizations are wiped off the face of the earth.

Bush Unilateralism

Critics have cited US decision under the Bush administration to withdraw from the ABM (Anti-Ballistic Missile) Treaty, to violate commitments to the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), to reject the Kyoto Protocol, to invade Iraq without UN approval and to make other hegemonic military-geopolitical-economic moves as evidence of US unilateralism, i.e., a general lack of support for multilateral arms control and global warming agreements, and a blatant disregard for the UN and other multilateral institutions or international consensus.

The cool reception Bush received during his September 2004 address to the 59th session of the United Nations (UN) General Assembly was a reflection of how unpopular US unilateralism had become among the international community. US military invasion of Iraq without UN authorization was viewed by many in the international community as a defiance of international law and the unilateral action solicited strong opposition from many governments around the world, including traditional US allies. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan called on the world to respect UN authority during his address on the same day as Bush’s. Annan, in an interview with the BBC unambiguously pointed out that any decisions on military action in Iraq should have been made by the UN Security Council and not made unilaterally by a single country. He also criticized Bush’s unilateral policy on Iraq by saying that the war violated the UN Charter and was illegal.

The Kyoto Protocol, opened for signature on December 11, 1997, was signed by 141 nations, including all European and all other developed industrial nations except the US and Australia. The pact went into effect on February 16, 2005, and will expire in 2012. Vice President Al Gore was a main participant in putting the Kyoto Protocol together in 1997. President Bill Clinton signed the agreement in 1997, but the US Senate refused to ratify it, citing potential damage to the US economy as required by compliance, and because it excluded certain developing countries, including India and China, from having to comply with new emissions standards immediately. Bush made campaign promises in 2000 to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant. However, as one of the first acts of his presidency Bush pulled the US out of the Kyoto accords, dismissing it as too costly, and described it as “an unrealistic and ever-tightening straitjacket.” Lately, the White House has even questioned the validity of the science behind global warming, and claims that millions of jobs will be lost if the US joins in this world pact, ignoring the larger economic loss from pollution-related health costs and reduction in life expectancy.

China, despite being in the pollution-intensive phase of transitional industrialization, signed the Kyoto pact on May 29, 1998. Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji announced on September 3, 2002 at the World Summit on Sustainable Development that China has approved the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The Chinese Ambassador to the United Nations deposited the instrument of approval of the Kyoto Protocol with the UN secretary-general on August 30.

US policy officially acknowledges that multilateralism is “a core principle in negotiations in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation with a view to maintaining and strengthening universal norms and enlarging their scope” -- as stated in UN General Assembly resolution 56/24 T which also underlined the fact that “progress is urgently needed in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation in order to help maintain international peace and security and to contribute to global efforts against terrorism.” Yet the US asserts that although maintaining international peace and security is its primary goal and overall purpose, in the final analysis preserving national security is equally necessary and essential. “Mutual advantage” is a key factor, for any arms control treaty must enhance the security of all States Parties. Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations since July 2003, former US State Department Policy Planning Head under Colin Powell, described Bush administration support of certain multilateral regimes and organizations but not others as “multilateralism a la carte.”

The five-year review conference for the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) held from May 2-27, 2005 at the UN in New York produced a contentious and unproductive outcome. Most participant governments wanted the agenda to mention the decisions taken in the Year 2000 Review Conference, including “the unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear-weapon states to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals.” (Point 6 of the “Thirteen Steps”) However, the US after 9:11 2001 unilaterally considers the Year 2000 commitments as inoperative relics of a foregone past and refuses to agree to any new agenda mentioning total nuclear elimination.

Nuclear Terrorism

Nuclear terrorism has until recently been a theme only for sensational movies. The possible ways that terrorists could obtain nuclear weapons through manufacturing, purchasing, or theft were difficult and involved formidable challenges and risks, as well as financial and technical resources beyond the reach of typical terrorists who were more likely to employ simpler means. Nevertheless, preventing terrorists from acquiring nuclear material or other radioactive material from power plants, research facilities, hospitals, industry, or from insecure nuclear weapons facilities has become a top priority for all governments. Responding to this threat, the IAEA Board of Governors in March 2002 approved an Action Plan to Combat Nuclear Terrorism. A number of States pledged specific sums of money, including Australia ($100,000), Great Britain ($350,000), Japan ($500,000), the Netherlands (EUR 250,000), Slovenia (EUR 14,000), USA ($1 Million), to a special fund set up to support a plan designed to upgrade worldwide protection against acts of terrorism involving nuclear and other radioactive materials. This amount is a fraction of what is needed to make a top-budget movie.

In approving the plan, the IAEA Board recognized that the first line of defense against nuclear terrorism is the strong physical protection of nuclear facilities and materials. A number of other member states announced in-kind support to the plan, including Finland, France, Germany, India, Romania, and Turkey. Other countries expressed hope to finance or provide support to the plan in the near future. During the Preparatory Committee Sessions for the 2005 NPT Review Conference and at the Review Conference, many states parties and the representatives from the IAEA emphasized the importance of strengthening safeguards of nuclear materials given the increase in the perceived threat of nuclear terrorism. Such concerns are not reflected in the meager funding.

Technological imperative ordains that terrorists would eventually acquire highly enriched uranium and use this fissile material to make simple, portable nuclear explosive devices. In this context, IAEA highlighted the importance of ensuring comprehensive and effective physical protection of nuclear material. The Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material (CPPNM), opened for signature at Vienna and at New York on 3 March 1980, covers physical protection during international transport, and other IAEA-issued standards provide countries with guidelines on ways to voluntarily secure their nuclear and radioactive materials. However, mandatory and legally binding international standards for the physical protection of nuclear material within a state do not exist. In July 2005, parties to the Convention agreed on major changes to make it legally binding for states parties to protect nuclear facilities and material for states’ peaceful use, storage, and transport. In order to bring the changes into effect, ratification by two thirds of the states parties is required.

The US ratified the Convention on December 13, 1982. China acceded to the Convention on January 10, 1989. On July 12, 1994, China formulated the “Regulations Governing the Protection of Nuclear Materials in Kind During International Transportation,” pursuant to its obligations under the Convention. The regulations came into effect on 15 September 1994. The regulations include provisions on: requiring that the competent state authorities approve all international transportation of nuclear materials; instituting a licensing system, under which without state approval no one can possess, transfer, or transport nuclear materials; requiring that the competent state authorities approve any passage and transportation of nuclear materials in China; investigating any unauthorized acceptance, possession, transfer, replacement, and disposal of nuclear materials; making illegal the stealing or acquiring of nuclear materials through fraud and extortion. The regulations also cover the responsibilities, management, protection categories and measures, and legal responsibilities of the relevant Chinese bodies in charge of nuclear transportation. On April 9, 1996, China ratified the Convention on Nuclear Safety while the US did so three years later on April 11, 1999.

Increasing security concerns over nuclear terrorism demand more international cooperation. The “G-8 Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction” adopted at the Gleneagles Summit in June 2005 renewed the pledged $20 billion over a period of 10 years to 2012 to secure nuclear and radioactive materials around the world, initially in Russia. States parties to the NPT have generally supported this initiative. Moreover, UN Security Council Resolution 1540 adopted in April 2004 requires states parties to criminalize proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems by non-state actors as an essential undertaking to reduce the dangers of proliferation of WMD to terrorist groups.

Since the NPT was primarily designed to deal with states, it has very little capacity to deal with the new threat coming from non-state actors using nuclear weapons, or material and technology to develop improvised nuclear explosive devices. To prevent and respond to this new threat more promptly, states parties to the NPT are advised to pursue unilateral, bilateral, and multilateral counter-terrorism measures to augment the NPT regime.

Nonproliferation and Unilateral Proliferation

The US, as the mainstay of the nonproliferation regime, nevertheless has unilaterally broadened its own strategy for unilateral use of nuclear weapons and is moving toward unilateral development of new weapons. Together with unilateral missile defense development and unilateral moves toward weaponization of space, the US message to the non-nuclear-weapon countries is that it does not rely on the multilateral NPT for security, but instead on its own new star-war weapon systems and unilateral adoption of pre-emptive offensive strategy, which then raises questions on the need for and the effectiveness of the multilateral NPT. Multilateral nonproliferation has since been sustained only by inertia rather than forward movement. Global nonproliferation has come to mean nonproliferation only in the rest of the world outside the US and only in states that the US view with displeasure. At any rate, US security is no longer directly tied to nonproliferation which has been transformed into a US geopolitical pretext for aggression, much like the defense of democracy. Several states that the US considers as safe allies, such as Israel, South Africa until the end of Apartheid and possibly Japan, have been granted stealth status on the nonproliferation screen, with India now selected as a preferred candidate for US geopolitical exceptionalism. Selective proliferation is now a device to enhance US security.

All Nuclear Programs are Secret

Every country that had successfully developed nuclear weapons did so in secret, not only from other governments but from other legitimate branches of their own governments. The US Manhattan project was carried out in secret without Congressional debate, nor was its use on Japan decided by broad consensus. Nuclear arms and strategy are extraterritoriality to US democratic processes. Both France and the United Kingdom launched their nuclear programs with limited cabinet involvement and no parliamentary debate. The Soviet and Chinese programs were initiated under direct secret orders from the highest level in the Party and government. India announced their program with a nuclear test in 1974 that was a surprise even to many in its own government; Pakistan similarly in 1998; Israel still refuses to officially confirm its program exists; South Africa dismantled its secret weapons program only after the end of Apartheid. Programs in Australia, Switzerland, Germany, Sweden, South Korea and Taiwan are conducted in great secrecy while the existence of such programs is treated as open secrets to secure maximum geopolitical effect

Today Japan is known to have a large stock of weapon-usable plutonium (45,000 kg and growing) as well as the most advanced missile technology. This is the result of deliberate policy established in the late 1960’s. Poised to be able to cross the technical threshold of actual weapons production and missiles assembly on short notice, Japan has already become a de facto nuclear-weapon state, with the capability of producing deliverable nuclear weapons within a matter of months if not weeks. Chinese caution on pushing the US militarily from East Asia is predicated on the prospect of a nuclear-armed Japan coming out from under the US nuclear umbrella. Militarists in Japan would welcome such a development as they argue that the US nuclear umbrella in the final analysis is designed to protect only US national interests which would be inevitably and increasingly incongruent with Japanese national interests as time moves on. Arms control for a non-nuclear Japan is one of the key convergence points in US-China national interests.

North Korea and Iran

North Korea and Iran, the two remaining members of the Axis of Evil now that regime change has been accomplished in evil Iraq with US occupation, have emerged as key issues in the survival of the 38-year-old NPT regime. For achieving US objectives on both “rogue” nations, US-China cooperation is one of the basic prerequisites for success.

The North Korea situation is historically tied to Taiwan. A quarter of a century after the US normalized its relations with China on January 1, 1979, US-China relations are still plagued by residual Cold War issues of war and peace that were created five decades ago at the beginning of the Korean War. Among these are the linked problems of Taiwan and Korea - two unfinished civil wars in Asia into which the US injected itself at the beginning of the first large-scale armed conflict in the Cold War and linked as key elements in its policy of global containment of communist expansion. The Taiwan issue was created by the US in response to an escalation of the Korean civil war. It is not surprising, therefore, that the recurring crisis over renewed Chinese war warnings on escalating Taiwan maneuvers toward independence is also linked to a mounting crisis over the North Korean nuclear-weapons program. (See: US-CHINA: QUEST FOR PEACE - Part 2: Cold War links Korea, Taiwan
  http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/FA07Ad03.html ). Taipei Times Washington correspondent Charles Snyder reported that the Pentagon has developed a comprehensive operational plan to defend Taiwan in case of an attack from the Mainland. The plan, officially designated “Oplan 5077-04,” is run by the US Pacific Command headquartered in Honolulu. It includes provisions for the possible use of nuclear weapons, involving not only US Pacific forces, but also US troops and equipment worldwide, with potentials for a global conflict that may inevitably involve Russia which sees US control over China as a direct threat to its own security.

Nonproliferation Challenges Facing China and US

At its inception on July 1, 1968, the NPT reflected the international consensus that the spread of nuclear weapons to more states was contrary to the promotion of international peace and security. The Treaty, entering into force with the deposit of US ratification on March 5, 1970, obligates the five then acknowledged nuclear-weapon states (US, Russia, UK, France, and China) not to transfer nuclear weapons, other nuclear explosive devices, or their technology to any non-nuclear-weapon state. Non-nuclear-weapon states parties undertake not to acquire or produce nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices.

In 1992, China acceded to the NPT on March 9 and France acceded on August 3. In 1996, Belarus joined Ukraine and Kazakhstan in removing and transferring to Russia the last of the remaining former Soviet nuclear weapons located within their territories, and each of these nations has become a non-nuclear-weapon state party to the NPT. In June 1997 Brazil became a state party to the NPT. Today, the number of states known to possess usable nuclear arsenals is only three more than the original five of the NPT. Those three additional nuclear-weapon states – India, Pakistan and Israel – are now also the only states in the world not to have joined the NPT. Cuba’s recent accession brought in the last non-nuclear-weapon state; North Korea joined but withdrew from the NPT on January 10, 2003 and now claims to also possess nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, the arsenals of the US and Russia have shrunk from their combined Cold War peak of 65,000 warheads to under 20,000, with that number set to shrink further under the Moscow Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions entered into on May 24, 2002 by President Bush and President Putin, calling for reduction of the combined strategic nuclear warheads of the two nations to a level of 1700-2200 by December 31, 2012, a level nearly two-thirds below current levels.

In its December 2003 White Paper on Non-proliferation Policy and Measures, China states that “China stands for the attainment of the non-proliferation goal through peaceful means, i.e. on the one hand, the international non-proliferation mechanism must be continually improved and export controls of individual countries must be updated and strengthened, and, on the other hand, proliferation issues must be settled through dialogue and international cooperation. … … Unilateralism and double standards must be abandoned, and great importance should be attached and full play given to the role of the United Nations.”

The document pointed out that China “will constantly increase consultations and exchanges with multinational nonproliferation mechanisms, including the Nuclear Suppliers Group, the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), the Australia Group, and the Wassenaar Arrangement [on Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Goods and Technologies]” dropping previous criticism of these export control arrangements for their exclusive and discriminatory nature. The 2003 document increased the level of transparency of China’s export control system, detailing the process and criteria for China’s export control decisions, and specifies the role and responsibilities of key institutional participants within the process.

Chinese arms control advocates have since become frustrated at the Bush administration’s reluctance to publicly acknowledge improvements in China’s nonproliferation behavior; and the continuing use of sanctions by the US as a method of coercing Chinese entities to refrain from proliferation transfers, particularly with regard to North Korea and Iran. The 2003 white paper aimed to illustrate the progress made in China’s attitude and behavior, notwithstanding the record of relentless US anti-China policy on global dual-use technology sanctions not only from itself but also from its reluctant allies in the EU, and its blatant unilateral abuse of the nultilateral nonproliferation regime to further its own national geopolitical advantage.

Focus on Missile Defense

Two years later, China’s State Council on September 1, 2005 issued a new white paper titled: China's Endeavors for Arms Control, Disarmament and Non-Proliferation, in which opposition to US “unilateralism” was deleted. In it place is a more positive statement: “The international community is in favor of maintaining multilateralism.” The emphasis shifted to a new focus: “China does not wish to see a missile defense system produce negative impact on global strategic stability, bring new unstable factors to international and regional peace and security, erode trust among big powers, or undermine legitimate security interests of other countries. China is even more reluctant to see some countries cooperate in the missile defense field to further proliferate ballistic missile technology. China believes that relevant countries should increase transparency in their missile defense program for the purpose of deepening trust and dispelling misgivings. As the Taiwan question involves its core interests, China opposes the attempt by any country to provide help or protection to the Taiwan region of China in the field of missile defense by any means.” This is a direct reference to the US-proposed US-Japan-Taiwan theater missile defense (TMD) system.

Many reports on the waste and futility of efforts to develop a missile defense system by technical and strategic experts have appeared in print. Technologically, the system’s difficulty, to shoot a speeding bullet with another bullet, or to shoot a shower of smart bullets that can turn corners and release decoys with a counter shower of smarter bullets, appears to be technically insurmountable and economically inefficient even if the technological hurdles could be overcome theoretically in controlled test conditions. The complexity ratio faced by the defense in overcoming the continually up-gradable offense is exponential so that the offense will always have the advantage of out-maneuvering the defense. And success in defense depends of total effectiveness while success in offense requires only a statistical advantage. If only one missile out of a thousand slips through, the game is lost. On a common sense level, the concept borders on pure stupidity. Any child who watches Western movies knows that in a gun fight, the aim is to shoot the shooter, not the bullet from his gun. For the US, the missile shooter in the Taiwan Straits Theater is China. When Bush proclaims that the US would defend Taiwan “by any means necessary”, it can only mean an attack on the Chinese mainland over an issue that China considers its own internal affair, a view shared by Nixon and Kissinger in the Shanghai Communiqué of February 1972. For China, Bush’s hostile and belligerent posture over Taiwan is not a good basis for peaceful bilateral relations.

The whole missile defense issue, a component of the full nuclear nonproliferation issue, is shaping up to be a game of non-existent weapon systems in the hands of “rogue” states becoming real in the mind of the US political leadership, with the fantasized threat to be neutralized by a non-operational defense system in the hands of science-fiction superpower super-hawks. It is a fear-mongering game of political shadow boxing, pitting fantasized threats against a fantasy technology to conduct a ritual dance of psychological chicken for geopolitical gain. The US aims to make the world safe from nuclear weapons that would take alleged rogue nations another decade to produce with a defense system that would take the US another decade to perfect. In the meantime, the US will knock off a few unarmed “dictators” for good measure in the name of freedom, along with a few hundred thousand innocent civilians as unavoidable but acceptable collateral damage. The scale is fast tilting as to who would end up killing more Iraqi citizens, the Saddam regime during it allegedly evil rule or the open-ended US occupation in the name of freedom.

US as Proponent of both Nonproliferation and Proliferation

Yet the US has been and continues to be a leading proponent of the international nonproliferation regime that it unilaterally is making irrelevant fast. At the domestic level, the US is misapplying for geopolitical aim a system of export control and licensing laws and regulations covering transfers of nuclear technology or materials, including dual-use technology that can contribute to nuclear weapons development. There is also a vast maze of laws requiring sanctions for violations of nonproliferation commitments, and sanctions against non-nuclear-weapons states that obtain or test nuclear weapons. Yet, like free trade, export control is only selectively applied to keep proliferation from “unsafe” states.

The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) was negotiated, signed by President Clinton in September 1997 and submitted to the Senate where it was vigorously opposed and failed to be ratified. Despite the uncertainty introduced by US rejection of the CTBT, steps toward ending the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament continued, as called for in Article VI of the NPT. Then in January 2002, three months after the 9:11 terrorist attacks, the Bush Administration released the results of its “Nuclear Posture Review,” announcing that nuclear planning would no longer address the “Russian threat,” as left over from the Cold War, but would develop capabilities to meet a range of threats from unspecified countries. China was on the top of such list before 9:11 and continues to be on the list over the Taiwan situation. The redirection would be accompanied by a large, unilateral reduction in deployed nuclear weapons to a level not affecting US nuclear superiority. While the US has reduced its arsenal of warheads from 150,000 to 10,300, the TNT tonnage of destruction power with bigger warheads still commands the equivalent of 120,000-130,000 Hiroshima-sized bombs. The US nuclear arsenal is designed not merely for massive destruction to win a war, but total destruction of all opponents to rid the world of evil.

However, the new policy also included development of a controversial missile defense capability, and improving the nuclear weapons “infrastructure” to allow resumption of testing and possible development of new weapons at accelerated pace. The Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT) has been a subject of discussion at the Geneva Conference on Disarmament for some years, but little progress has been made. On July 29, 2004, the US declared the FMCT “ripe for negotiations” and “reaffirmed” US commitment to negotiate a legally binding treaty. However, a US policy review concluded that “realistic, effective verification” of such a treaty was not “achievable.”

Responding to Pakistani nuclear expert Abdul Qadeer Kahn’s revelation that he had headed a network that spread nuclear weapons technology and equipment to Iran, North Korea, and Libya, President Bush on February 11, 2004 urged more and stricter controls on nuclear exports, demanding that non-nuclear-weapons states renounce developing capacity to enrich uranium and reprocess plutonium as part of commercial nuclear power programs, while nuclear supplier nations ensure adequate fuel for nuclear plants at reasonable prices. Bush also argued that IAEA’s Additional Protocol for inspections regimes should be required of all NPT signatories, and urged the Senate to consent to it on the part of the US. On March 31 the Senate ratified the protocol (Treaty Doc.107-7, Senate Executive Report 108-12). As a nuclear-weapons state, the US in agreeing to IAEA inspections has the right to exclude any activities or sites that it declares are of “direct national security significance.” The same exclusion by other nations, such as Iraq, Iran and North Korea, has since been used by the US as pretext for preemptive attack, invasion or threats of such.

In order to engage in international trade in nuclear technology or materials (such as nuclear fuel), US companies must obtain export licenses from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Before an export license can be applied for, there must be in force a bilateral agreement for peaceful nuclear cooperation between the US government and the government of the importing nation. The conditions necessary for drawing up and approving an agreement for cooperation, laid out in Section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act, include a 90-day review by Congress. In many cases, congressional review of an agreement for cooperation has been controversial, being based on geopolitical rather than technical considerations. Congress narrowly allowed an agreement with China to take effect in 1997 only after extended debate and extensive lobbying from the nuclear energy export sector.

In addition to NRC’s licensing and regulation role, the Department of Energy (DOE) also participates in export controls. DOE authorizes the transfer of nuclear technology to countries having agreements for nuclear cooperation with the US via “subsequent arrangements,” the details of which are spelled out in Section 131 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. In general, NRC deals largely with licensing hardware, while DOE licenses information and knowledge, under regulations defined in 10 CFR Part 810. Finally, the Department of Commerce also is involved in regulating exports of dual-use, nuclear-related commodities under the provisions of the Export Administration Act of 1979. That law has expired since August 21, 2001 and successive Congresses despite several attempts have not passed new legislation. In the absence of an Export Administration Act, US dual-use export control system continues to be dependent on the President’s invocation of emergency powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act under which Commerce continues to play a role in export regulation. The US Department of Commerce has agreed with the Ministry of Commerce of the People’s Republic of China on procedures to strengthen end-use visit cooperation and help ensure that US exports of controlled dual-use items are being used by their intended recipients for their intended purposes. This understanding will enable increased US exports to China of high-technology items. The US Commerce Department said that this new end-use visit understanding provides an important example of the US and China working together to solve practical problems to the benefit of both their peoples.

US Nuclear Export Policy

US nuclear export policy has undergone major transformations since 1945. An initial emphasis on secrecy and criminality, highlighted by the 1946 Atomic Energy Act, which while putting atomic weapons technology under civilian control supervised by the Atomic Energy Commission imposed a criminal ban on the release of atomic technology to other countries, even to allies that had participated in US atomic research during the war. This served to push countries such as the UK, which had supplied scientific personnel and information to the Manhattan Project team, into constructing their own nuclear weapons and started the first wave of nuclear proliferation.

Julius and Ethel Rosenburgs were executed for espionage under this act despite the fact that bomb experts have since held that their peripheral knowledge of nuclear technology did not allow them to give Soviet intelligence any information it did not already have from other sources, such as Klaus Fuchs, a German born British citizen who had security clearance to work on the Manhattan Project under hydrogen-bomb hawk Edward Teller; and Donald Maclean, one of the Cambridge Five who spied for the USSR on ideological grounds, who served in the British Embassy in Washington during war time. Post Cold War declassified Soviet documents showed that Julius Rosenburg was a lower level asset of no scientific value to Soviet intelligence and Ethel Rosenburg was not involved in espionage in any way except that her brother, a sergeant in the US Army, was a machinist at Los Alamo whose knowledge of the bomb was not central. Yet the Rosenburgs were the only two American civilians to be executed for espionage-related activity during the Cold War. In imposing the death penalty at the urging of Roy Cohn, the young Jewish prosecutor and aide to Senator Joseph McCarthy of McCarthyism fame, Judge Irving Kaufman, the Jewish judge hand-picked by Senator McCarthy for the case, held the Rosenburgs responsible not only for espionage but also for all the war deaths of the Korean War. Many have since suggested that the Rosenburgs, communists and Jewish, were sacrificed by the Jewish right to prove Jewish American loyalty to a nation in the midst of anti-communist hysteria to protect Jewish Americans from wholesale persecution for the predominance of the pre-war Jewish left before the McCarthy era.

The US secretive approach on nuclear technology gave way in 1954 to the active promotion internationally of peaceful uses of atomic energy, which only came to an end in 1974 when the much criticized AEC was abolished following the Indian detonation of a “peaceful nuclear explosion.” The US then adopted a nuclear export policy emphasizing technology control. The event led to a major revision in US policy on nuclear exports, moving nonproliferation toward center stage on the US foreign policy agenda. The Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) was mobilized to set strict multinational guidelines for the major nuclear exporting states covering the transfer of nuclear fuel and sensitive technology. The NSG obligated its 45 members to pursue two sets of guidelines for nuclear and nuclear-related dual-use exports. Central to the guidelines, which like other aspects of NSG policy were adopted by consensus, was the principle that only NPT parties or other states with comprehensive (full-scope) safeguards in place should benefit from nuclear technology transfers. The US worked hard to persuade the NSG to adopt the principle of comprehensive safeguards as a condition for export. Under the authority of amendments to the Foreign Assistance Act, the US imposed half-hearted sanctions on Pakistan, cutting off economic and military aid as a result of its pursuit of nuclear weapons in response to the Indian bomb. The US suspended sanctions on Pakistan when Soviet activities in Afghanistan and Soviet-Indian alliance made Pakistan a strategically important “frontline state” and in the Afghan phase of the current war on terrorism. At the height of the nuclear deterrence phase of the Cold War when technological parity was necessary to maintain stability, US intelligence purposely provided nuclear and missile secrets to the Soviets to serve the dual purpose of maintaining nuclear parity and to plant credible moles in the Soviet intelligence system.

India-US Joint Statement

The July 18, 2005 India-US Joint Statement (IUSJS) sets a new direction for US nonproliferation policy. The IUSJS requires the US to abandon the crucial principle of comprehensive safeguards as a condition for export since India is not a signatory to the NPT. The IUSJS necessitates a fundamental change in US nuclear export policy with the promise by the US president that he will seek to adjust US laws and policies, as well as international regimes, to enable full US civil nuclear energy cooperation and trade with India, a non-NPT state. These adjustments are necessary since India does not have full-scope safeguards in place and is one of only four states (along with Israel, Pakistan, and North Korea) that remain outside of the NPT. By the Joint Statement Bush has in effect announced that technology control is no longer the cornerstone of US nuclear export and nonproliferation policy. Instead, it has given way to a strategy in which geopolitics has primacy and regional security strategy and international economic objectives override those of nonproliferation. Although this shift is not the first time nonproliferation objectives have been subordinated to other US foreign policy considerations, it represents the most radical change in US nuclear export policy. The unnamed target of the India-US Joint Statement is of course China.

The July 18, 2005 India-US Joint Statement “expresses satisfaction at the New Framework for the US-India Defense Relationship … … to remove certain Indian organizations from the Department of Commerce's Entity List … ... The [US] President told the [Indian] Prime Minister that he will work to achieve full civil nuclear energy cooperation with India as it realizes its goals of promoting nuclear power and achieving energy security. The President would also seek agreement from Congress to adjust U.S. laws and policies, and the United States will work with friends and allies to adjust international regimes to enable full civil nuclear energy cooperation and trade with India, including but not limited to expeditious consideration of fuel supplies for safeguarded nuclear reactors at Tarapur.” GE, the only US enterprise still in the nuclear business, built the nuclear plants at Tarapur, it had been forced to leave in 1974 when India conducted its first nuclear test.

William C. Potter, director of the Center for Nonproliferation Studies at Monterey Institute of International Studies, thinks that the IUSJS reverses more than a quarter century of US declaratory policy. The Joint Statement suggests that the Bush national security team regards nuclear proliferation to be both inevitable and possibly a useful balance-of-power device in geopolitics. In light of the magnitude of this policy shift and its potential to impact negatively on the NPT, associated nonproliferation institutions, and even elements of the president’s own nonproliferation initiatives, one would have expected the policy announcement to follow a careful and systematic review of the implications of the proposed change. A decision of such national and international security concern would be expected to require input from all major governmental players with nonproliferation responsibilities, including senior officials in charge of nonproliferation policy in the Departments of State and Energy. In fact, however, Potter observes that the new policy appears to have been formulated without a comprehensive high-level review of its potential impact on nonproliferation, the deep engagement of senior nonproliferation experts in and out of government, or a clear plan for achieving its implementation. Indeed, the policy shift bears all the signs of a top-down administrative executive directive specifically designed to circumvent the inter-agency review process and to minimize input from any remnants of the “nonproliferation lobby.”

US Selective Proliferation Since 1964

Yet Potter should know that selective proliferation has been a US policy option since at least 1964. National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 1: The United States, China, and the Bomb - Document 7, As Explosive as a Nuclear Weapon: The Gilpatric Report on Nuclear Proliferation, January 1965 - Source: Freedom of Information Act request to State Department, reads as follows: “Largely motivated by concern over the first Chinese atomic test in October 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson asked Wall Street lawyer and former Deputy Secretary of Defense Roswell Gilpatric to lead a special task force in investigating, and making policy recommendations on, the spread of nuclear weapons… … some senior officials thought that nuclear proliferation was inevitable and, among the right countries, potentially desirable. Thus, during a November 1964 meeting, Rusk stated that he was not convinced that ‘the US should oppose other countries obtaining nuclear weapons.’ Not only could he ‘conceive of situations where the Japanese or the Indians might desirably have their own nuclear weapons’, Rusk asked ‘should it always be the U.S. which would have to use nuclear weapons against Red China?’ Robert McNamara thought otherwise: it was ‘unlikely that the Indians or the Japanese would ever have a suitable nuclear deterrent.’ … … according to [AEC chairman] Glenn Seaborg’s account of a briefing for Johnson, Rusk opined that the report was ‘as explosive as a nuclear weapon.’ Foot note 2: Rusk thought it better that Asians use nuclear weapons against each other rather than Euro-Americans using them against Asians. Quotations from memorandum of conversation by Herbert Scoville, ACDA, ‘Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons- Course of Action for UNGA - Discussed by the Committee of Principals’, November 23, 1964, National Archives, Record Group 359, White House Office of Science and Technology, FOIA Release to National Security Archive.”

Thus the option of arming Japan and India with nuclear weapon against China took shape immediately after China’s first nuclear test.

Potter wrote in an August 25, 2005 article that the convergence of US and Indian national security interests as two nations most impacted by the rise of China is advocated by Robert Blackwill, US ambassador to India during the Bush first term. Ashley Tellis, former Senior Policy Advisor to Blackwill, in a report issued by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace four days before the Joint Statement by President Bush and Prime Minister Singh, points out that it would be a mistake to attempt to integrate India “into the nonproliferation order at the cost of capping the size of its eventual nuclear deterrent” for potential use against a rising China to protect US interests in Asia. Tellis openly acknowledges the fundamental danger to the global nonproliferation regime posed by the shift in US policy but believes the risk of proliferation manageable and is justified by US geopolitical interests that transcend the benefits of nonproliferation.

This approach is not surprising for if the defense of democracy could be compromised by Cold War geopolitics with US support of dictators, why is nonproliferation different? Potter observed that this new US policy toward India have antecedents in which nonproliferation considerations in South Asia also took a back seat to other foreign policy and national security objectives, as in the case of Pakistan following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. It also can be discerned after 9:11 in the less-than-forceful manner in which the US pressed Pakistan to reveal the full scope of the A.Q. Khan network. Prior to the July 18, 2005 India-US Joint Statement, however, the trade-offs between pursuing global nonproliferation objectives and those of regional security were never linked as directly or publicly. What made the difference was US attitude toward China as a long-range threat beyond the war on terrorism and the selection of India as a counter balance.<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><!--[endif]-->

The India-US Joint Statement indicates more clearly than ever before that Washington is not opposed to the possession of nuclear weapons by some states, including those outside of the NPT, only some other states. This new policy of nonproliferation exceptionalism is far more explicit and pronounced than prior routine efforts by the US and its allies to deflect criticism of Israel’s nuclear policies. Unlike the Clinton administration which “had an undifferentiated concern about proliferation,” the Bush administration is not afraid to distinguish between friends and foes. Nuclear weapons, once given, cannot be removed easily, thus such selective policy has a tendency to lock the definition of friends and foes into long time-frames if not perpetuality.

More May Be Better

Some 25 years earlier, Kenneth N. Waltz developed the idea that nuclear proliferation could be a positive geopolitical strategy in his The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Be Better (Adelphi Paper 171; London: International Institute for Strategic Studies, 1981). Waltz advanced the view that the spread of nuclear weapons may promote regional stability, reduce the likelihood of war, and make wars harder to start. It was an expansion of the superpower nuclear deterrence doctrine to regional geopolitics. The main flaw in Waltz’ argument is that it was easy to predict superpower rational behavior because each superpower had much to lose by making the wrong move, whereas some smaller powers may operate irrationally from a desperate position of having nothing or little to lose and start a nuclear chain-reaction conflict that no one wants but none can stop.

Non-nuclear-weapons states can be expected to reconsider their nonproliferation commitments in light of the new US proliferation posture toward India. A similar reassessment of the security value of the NPT may be undertaken by states that have not actively pursued a nuclear weapons option, but made explicit the conditionality of their NPT membership on assurances that the international community would not tolerate any additional nuclear-weapons states.

Japan is a critical state on the nonproliferation issue. While Japan has been vocally critical of all Asian nuclear weapons programs, militarism has been on the rise in Japan. Japanese militarism revival skirts post-war Japanese pacifism by arguing that war is more likely to be forced on Japan unless Japan rearms, including the nuclear option. The assurances Japan received in joining the NPT have been rendered empty by US proliferation policy toward India. Decision-making about nonproliferation has become a dynamic process that does not end with accession to the NPT, but will change over time and according to US policy whims.

Iran and India

On February 11, 2004, President Bush gave a major address at National Defense University in which he outlined a new nonproliferation strategy with reference to Iran. He called on the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) to tighten its export control guidelines by prohibiting the export of enrichment and reprocessing technology and equipment to countries that do not already operate enrichment and reprocessing plants, such as Iran. The new strategy also aimed to fend off attempts by Russia in recent years to create a special nuclear export exception for India. After the Bush speech, Russia reluctantly halted in late 2004 nuclear fuel shipment for two reactors at Tarapur because of new NSG constraints. The July 2005 India-US Joint Statement commits the US to do for India what it prevented Russia from doing just a year earlier. France and a number of other NSG states have long eyed nuclear market opportunities in India. They can be expected to support the creation of a special export regime for India under the NSG even if it means establishing the principle of exceptionalism. Iranian nuclear negotiators have pointed out the inconsistency of US efforts to deny enrichment technology to Iran, a non-nuclear-weapons state party to the NPT, while supporting nuclear trade with India, a non-NPT state that has a dedicated and demonstrated nuclear weapons program. The inconsistency the new US position is not lost on North Korea. The India-US Joint Statement, cast in terms of geopolitics with regard to China, is a double edge sword. A Congressional Research Service Report for Congress observes that US-India nuclear cooperation could prompt other suppliers, like China, to justify nuclear exports to Pakistan, not to mention Iran and North Korea.

North Korea and Taiwan Proliferation Links

On January 5, 1950, three month after the founding of the People’s Republic of China, President Harry Truman announced that “the United States will not involve in the dispute of Taiwan Strait”, which meant America would not intervene if the Chinese communists were to attack Taiwan where the defeated Koumintang forces had retreated. However, on June 25, 1950 the Korean War broke out, and two days later President Truman reacted by declaring the “neutralization of the Straits of Formosa” on June 27. The Seventh Fleet was sent into the Straits under orders to prevent any attack on the island from the Mainland, and also prevent the Kuomintang forces on Taiwan to attack China, as suggested by General Douglas MacArthur. From that point on, Taiwan has been placed under non-stop US military protection.

Shortly after his inauguration on February 2, 1953 President Eisenhower lifted the US Navy blockade of Taiwan which had prevented Koumintang force, newly regrouped and re-supplied by the US, from counter-attacking mainland China. During August 1954 Chiang Kai-shek moved 58,000 troops to Quemoy & 15,000 to Matsu. Premier Zhou En-lai declared on August 11, 1954 that Taiwan must be liberated. On August 17, 1954 the US warned China against attacking Taiwan, but on September 3, 1954 the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) began an artillery bombardment of Quemoy, and in November, PLA planes bombed the Tachen Islands. On September 12, 1954 the US Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) recommended the possibility of using nuclear weapons against China. And on November 23 1954 China sentenced 13 US airmen shot down over China in the Korean War to long jail terms, prompting further consideration of nuclear strikes against China. At the urging of Senator William Knowland, the US signed the Mutual Defense Treaty with the Nationalist government on Taiwan on December 2, 1954, joining one side of the Chinese civil war by treaty.

On January 18, 1955 PLA forces seized Yijiangshan [Ichiang] Island, 210 miles north of Taiwan, completely wiping out Nationalist forces stationed there. The two sides continued fighting on Kinmen, Matsu, and along the mainland Chinese coast. The fighting even extended to mainland Chinese coastal ports. The US-Nationalist Chinese Mutual Security Pact, which did not apply to islands along the Chinese mainland, was ratified by the Senate on February 9, 1955. The Taiwan Resolution passed both houses of Congress on January 29, 1955. The Resolution pledged the US to the defense of Taiwan, authorizing the president to employ US forces to defend Taiwan and the Pescadores against armed attack, including such other territories as appropriate to defend them.

On March 10, 1995 US Secretary of State John Forster Dulles at a National Security Council (NSC) meeting states that the American people have to be prepared for possible nuclear strikes against China. Five days later Dulles publicly stated that the US was seriously considering using atomic weapons in the Quemoy-Matsu area. And the following day President Eisenhower publicly stated that “A-bombs can be used...as you would use a bullet.” These public statements sparked an international uproar, as NATO foreign ministers expressed opposition to nuclear attacks on China. Nonetheless, on March 25, 1955 US Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Robert B. Carney stated that the president is planning “to destroy Red China's military potential,” predicting war by mid-April. On April 23, 1955 China stated at the Afro-Asian Conference that it was ready to negotiate on Taiwan, and on May 1, 1955 shelling of Quemoy-Matsu ceased, ending the crisis. On August 1, 1955 China released the 11 captured US airmen previously sentenced to jail terms. This was the First Taiwan Straits Crisis which lasted from August 11, 1954 to May 1 1955.

In the first Taiwan Strait crisis of 1954-55 the USSR, the other nuclear superpower, had been quite ambiguous in its support for China’s campaign to liberate Taiwan, whereas the US had indicated that it was willing to use tactical nuclear weapons in defense of the island. During the crisis, it became evident that the USSR nuclear umbrella was reserved exclusively for the defense of Soviet national interests. The PRC called off its military operations against Quemoy to avoid a US nuclear attack. The crisis solidified Chinese resolve to develop its own nuclear weapons.

An article carried by Huanqiu Shibao (Global Times) on 15 October 2004 recapped a detailed history of Taiwan’s nuclear weapons programs since 1950 when the US and Taiwan planned a nuclear attack on Xiamen. In the 1970’s the US pressured Taiwan to end a nuclear weapons program started by Chiang Kai-shek in the late 1960's under the auspices of the Chung Shan Institute of Science and Technology (CSIST). The US again pressured Taiwan to end a nuclear weapons program “secretly” restarted by Chiang Ching-kuo in the 1980s after a nuclear scientist, Chang Hsien-i, a US spy, defected to the United States with information on the project. Huanqiu Shibao claimed that even during the Lee Teng-hui adminstration, the words and actions of officials suggested that his administration had resumed the nuclear weapons program. The Huanqiu Shibao article concluded that although Chen Shui-bian has publicly committed to a “nuclear-free home” and never developing nuclear weapons, Taiwan media suspect Chen is playing word games and may want to develop nuclear weapons to prevent unification.

In 1969, Taiwan purchased from Canada a 40-megawatt research reactor and the Institute for Nuclear Energy Research (INER) began work on a fuel-reprocessing facility with equipment purchased from France, Germany and the US under NSG exceptionalism. With 100 tons of uranium quietly purchased from South Africa, INER by 1973 had a full Plutonium Fuel Chemistry Laboratory functioning. In 1974, the CIA concluded that “Taipei conducts its small nuclear program with a weapon option clearly in mind, and it will be in a position to fabricate a device after five years.” Taiwan president Chiang Ching-kuo responded cryptically to news reports of missing weapon-grade plutonium: “we have the ability and the facilities to manufacture nuclear weapons [but] we will never manufacture them.”

It has been standing Chinese policy that China will deploy a preemptive military option if Taiwan moves towards independence, faces foreign occupation or take steps to acquire nuclear weapons. When President Carter broke diplomatic relations with Taipei to recognize the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US feared the termination of the US-Taiwan defense treaty could lead Taiwan “to reconsider its nuclear option.” This concern was shared by China and was a key reason for Chinese de facto acceptance of the Taiwan Relations Act, a US domestic law that directly interferes with Chinese internal affairs. The trade off was a freeze on Taiwan’s march toward nuclear armament.

In 1987, CIA agent Chang Hsien-yi, deputy director of INER, alerted his handler to a top-level Taiwan secret order to start up plutonium reprocessing. President Reagan sent a high-level envoy to Taipei with an ultimatum to deactivate the weapons program. In July 1995, China launched missiles into the Taiwan Strait halting all merchant shipping in one of the world's busiest sea-lanes for a week. While US propaganda described the event as provocative, Washington knew that it was a direct response to pending Taiwan nuclear moves. Taiwan President Lee formally announced: “we should re-study the question [of nuclear weapons development] from a long-term point of view,” while repeating that Taiwan “has the ability” to build a bomb “but definitely will not.” When a second Chinese missile test closed the Straits again in March 1996, President Clinton reassured Taiwan of Washington’s commitment to defend Taiwan and dispatched two carrier battle groups with nuclear capability to the region to get Taiwan to halt its nuclear weapons program. The Korea nonproliferation issue is tied up directly with the Taiwan nonproliferation issue, and in a less direct way, with nonproliferation with regard to Japan.



-------- u.s. nuc facilities


-------- massachusetts

Pilgrim nuke plant allegedly axes security firm

By Dave Wedge/ Breaking News
Boston Herald Chief Enterprise Reporter
Tuesday, August 29, 2006

http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=155073

The company that runs Plymouth’s Pilgrim Nuclear Power plant is reportedly firing Wackenhut security, ending a nasty labor dispute marked by allegations that guards repeatedly failed in terror drills.

    Union officials last night reported that Entergy is dropping Wackenhut’s $5 million contract to run security at the Plymouth reactor and will hire its own in-house team of guards. Entergy officials could not be reached for comment while a Wackenhut spokesman said there was no“official word” that the contract had in fact been terminated.

    The move comes after a Time magazine report on shoddy security by Wackenhut employees at the plant and the firing of a whisteleblower who claimed that guards failed in 28 of 29 mock terror attacks.

    “The constant reports that Wackenhut cuts corners on these exercises, retaliates against whistleblowers and inadequately trains its security guards leaves many reactors insecure and unprepared,” U.S. Rep. Edward Markey (D-Malden) said. “While I am pleased that Entergy has decided that it will no longer use Wackenhut at the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant, I remain deeply concerned that Entergy and other nuclear reactor licensees continue to use it at other nuclear reactors across the country.”

    In 2003 Entergy dropped Wackenhut from the India Point nuclear power plant in New York. In addition to the reported security woes at Pilgrim, guards were threatening to strike amid complaints that employees were racking up staggering hours of forced overtime and being denied time off.

    The move was hailed by the nation’s largest security officers’ union, the Service Employees International Union.

    “By dropping Wackenhut, Entergy shows that raising standards for security officers is a matter of necessity in a post-9/11 world,” said SEIU spokesman Stephen Lerner.

dwedge@bostonherald.com



-------- nevada

DoE Plans Further Volcanic, Seismic Testing at Yucca Mountain Nuke Dump

August 29, 2006 The Peacock Report

http://tpr.typepad.com/thepeacockreport/2006/08/doe_plans_furth.html

Further assessments of volcanic and seismic activity near the proposed Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Depository in Nevada is planned for early 2007, according to a Dept. of Energy (DoE) procurement document that The Peacock Report has obtained. Whereas DoE has previously claimed that volcanic activity is unlikely for the next 10,000 years, the State of Nevada rejected that claim as unfounded. Bechtel SAIC Co., DoE's prime contractor for the nuclear waste site, will outsource this testing, which will involve the deep drilling of 44 boreholes in a location known as Area 25 of the Nevada Test Site.

DoE anticipates releasing a more detailed Request for Proposals on or around Oct. 16, 2006. "The estimated period of performance is to begin work in January 15, 2007 with an expected duration not to exceed six (6) months," the Aug. 28 presolicitation notice said.
http://www2.fbo.gov/spg/DOE/BSC/YMP/ENG-PPD-PQ-082806/SynopsisP.html



-------- new mexico

Ground broken for New Mexico uranium enrichment plant

The Associated Press
August 29, 2006

http://www.topix.net/r/05KQAC65=2B9p3CnEOW2BSxTQTC0QkvWdtShZyke3mpSBqbCdTSRMSlPx0zaQ10gjl1A=2BXsy4rq6T48krD1abbj03fyZ58ZlZQyb76Tq5Gp50tzAm8FUKa6shJsRrb4KhQ8

The first major nuclear facility to be licensed in the United States in three decades moved a step closer to construction Tuesday as officials broke ground for a $1.5 billion uranium enrichment plant in eastern New Mexico.

Nearly 800 people _ including members of the state's congressional delegation and Gov. Bill Richardson _ attended the ceremony under a towering white tent five miles east of Eunice.

Officials said the National Enrichment Facility, which will make fuel for commercial nuclear power plants, also was making history.

'I have been talking over the last several years about the coming of the 'nuclear renaissance' in commercial nuclear energy in America,' said Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., long a supporter of nuclear power. 'I am delighted and proud that the renaissance is in New Mexico.'

Rep. Steve Pearce, R-N.M., whose congressional district includes Eunice, noted the plant is expected to bring in up to 1,000 construction jobs and 300 permanent jobs and said it will generate millions of dollars for the economy of Lea County and southeastern New Mexico.

Local officials lauded the plant for diversifying the region's bedrock economy of oil and gas.

Richardson, a former U.S. energy secretary, said nuclear energy will play an important role in the nation's energy mix, and that the uranium enrichment plant is a step into the future.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission in June granted a license allowing Louisiana Energy Services to build and operate the plant, the first U.S. installation to use centrifuge technology rather than a process known as gaseous diffusion that has been around since World War II.

U.S. Energy Undersecretary David Garman said the NRC expects about 25 applications for nuclear power plants, partially due to the quick application process _ some 2 1/2 years _ for LES.

Officials have said the plant's first production facilities could be completed in late 2008. The first private enrichment plant in the nation could be ready to sell enriched uranium in the first quarter of 2009.

Domenici said the plant has global significance. 'The plant could provide, one day, the fuel to run schools in Asia, hospitals in Brazil. This plant will make the world a better place to live in a very real sense of the word,' he said.

----

LES breaks ground on nuclear enrichment site

Tue Aug 29, 2006 (Reuters) 

http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?type=bondsNews&storyID=2006-08-29T205022Z_01_N29351168_RTRIDST_0_UTILITIES-NUCLEAR-ENRICHMENT.XML

CALGARY, Alberta, Aug 29 - Louisiana Energy Services said on Monday it broke ground on a $1.5 billion uranium enrichment facility in New Mexico which will be the second enrichment site in the United States.

The New Mexico complex is called the National Enrichment Facility, which will be owned by LES.

LES is a collection of nuclear energy companies including Urenco Ltd., an Anglo-Dutch manufacturer of enriched uranium, and U.S. major power companies Exelon Corp. <EXC.N>, Entergy Corp. <ETR.N> and Duke Energy Corp. <DUK.N>.

The new plant will use Urenco's gas centrifuge technology. LES has previously said the plant will begin partial operation in 2008 and be fully running by 2013.

National Enrichment Facility would join USEC Inc. <USU.N> as uranium enrichers in the United States. USEC operates an enrichment site, a gaseous diffusion plant, in Paducah, Kentucky.

USEC, formerly part of the U.S. Department of Energy, has plans to construct a centrifuge enrichment plant to replace the gaseous diffusion plant in Paducah.

Martin Fertel, chief nuclear officer for the industry group Nuclear Energy Institute, said LES's new plant by 2013 will produce about 25 percent of the enriched uranium needs of the 103 U.S. nuclear power plants.

For the past three decades the United States has shied away from building nuclear power plants, but momentum toward new plants has been growing in recent years. Plans for about 20 new plants are in various stages of permitting and planning.

Fertel said that between 17 and 25 new nuclear units are in various stages of development. These plants in the pipeline are expected to open between 2015 and 2020, he said.

U.S. power companies have announced plans to site the new units next to units already in operation.

Fertel said 2013, when the LES plant is to be in full production, is a key date because that year the U.S.-Russia agreement to import uranium from Russia will expire.

The National Enrichment Facility site is located in Lea County about five miles east of Eunice, New Mexico, in the southeastern part of the state near Texas.

Urenco operates uranium enrichment plants in England, the Netherlands and Germany. It is a consortium of British Nuclear Fuels Ltd., which manages the British government's one-third stake in Urenco, Ultra-Centrifuge Nederland, owned by the Dutch government which also owns a third of Urenco, and two German utilities, E.ON AG <EONG.DE> and RWE AG <RWEG.DE>.

Louisiana Energy Services was formed when the group wanted to place the enrichment plant in Louisiana. 



-------- texas

TXU announces plans to expand nuclear-generation capability

August 29, 2006 Associated Press

http://www.kltv.com/global/story.asp?s=5349349

DALLAS More nuclear-generated electric power could be in the long-term future of T-X-U customers.

The Dallas-based utility holding company announced today that it plans to ask federal regulators to approve licenses for new nuclear-fueled power plants at one to three sites.

That's fresh evidence of increased interest in nuclear energy in the United States.

T-X-U says it expects to apply for construction and operating licenses from the U-S Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2008. It says it hopes to bring the new generators on line between 2015 and 2020. nuclear-fueled power plant at Comanche Peak near Granbury. It now has a generating capacity of more than two gigawatts. T-X-U is also reviewing a list compiled over 30 years of potential new sites for nuclear plants.

Texas depends more heavily than the nation on natural gas for electric generation. That backfired when natural gas prices spiked last year.

----

U.S. plans to build nuclear plants to meet growing electricity demand in Texas

The Associated Press August 31, 2006

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/08/31/business/NA_FIN_US_Electric_Utility_Nuclear.php
 
DALLAS Electric utility TXU Corp. said Thursday it plans to build nuclear reactors at up to three sites to meet growing electricity demand in Texas beginning late in the next decade, an indication that nuclear energy could undergo a revival in the United States.
 
The company said it expects to submit applications to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2008 to build and operate the plants, which would likely begin operating between 2015 and 2020.
 
TXU said nuclear power is currently more costly than other fuels, but it believes it can shave 30 percent to 40 percent off capital costs as nuclear technology improves.
 
By applying to the NRC before the end of 2008, TXU expects to get $6 billion (€4.7 billion) in tax credits, nuclear risk insurance and federal loan guarantees approved by Congress in last year's energy law. The company estimated it would cost $50 million (€40 million) to $150 million (€117 million) to prepare the applications.
 
Chairman and Chief Executive C. John Wilder said nuclear reactors could provide lower-priced, low-emissions sources of power that would reduce Texas' reliance on natural gas.
 
Just a decade ago, Texas was building gas-fired plants because they were seen as a cheaper and cleaner alternative to coal plants, which have produced mercury pollution that contaminates many of the state's lakes.
 
Earlier this year, TXU announced plans to build 11 coal-fired power plants that would begin operating by 2010. TXU said Thursday that the proposed coal plants would meet growing demand for electricity through 2013, but that more power is needed after that.
 
It's been many years since a nuclear reactor was built in the United States.
 
But James Smith, head of an energy institute at Southern Methodist University, said TXU's announcement was not surprising, given Congress' move last year to streamline the permitting process for nuclear reactors and offer financial incentives for the first few reactors.
 
"The revival of nuclear energy is real," Smith said.
 
On the Net:
 
TXU Corp.: http://www.txucorp.com
 
Sustainable Energy and Economic Development Coalition: http://www.seedcoalition.org



-------- MILITARY 


-------- arms 

Zimbabwe buys jets from China

Gavin du Venage
29aug06 The Australian

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,20286515,00.html

JOHANNESBURG: Zimbabwe has bought another six fighter jets from China to replace its grounded fleet of British-made aircraft.

Secretary for Defence Trust Maposa said yesterday: "We will be receiving six aircraft from China sometime this year."

Zimbabwe already has six Chinese-made jets which were delivered last year. The aircraft are intended to fill the gap left by the Zimbabwe Air Force's ageing British-made fighters, which have been grounded due to lack of spare parts.

Britain, along with most Western countries, has imposed a ban on selling weapons to Zimbabwe, accusing the southern African country of human rights violations.

Zimbabwe has sought to get around the embargo and rearm its military with Chinese and Korean-made weaponry.



-------- russia / chechnya

Military 'could have triggered Beslan'

From correspondents in Moscow
August 29, 2006 Australia Herald Sun

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20288881-5005961,00.html

A MEMBER of the Russian parliament who is one of the investigators looking into the 2004 Beslan hostage massacre said today he could not exclude the possibility that Russian soldiers, not militants, triggered the final deadly battle.

The report by Yury Savelyev, published in the Novaya Gazeta, said the disastrous battle on September 3 was not sparked by the explosion of two militant bombs inside the school, as most officials insist, but two powerful rocket-grenades.

The report by Mr Savelyev, who is an explosive expert and a member of the parliamentary commission investigating Beslan, came just ahead of the second anniversary of the tragedy in which 331 people, including 186 children, died in the September 1-3 siege at a school in Beslan, southern Russia.

"The first explosion in the gymnasium of the Beslan school on September 3, 2004, was the result of a shot from a rocket-propelled grenade," he told Echo Moscow radio.

This could have been fired by "the security forces," he said. "This could have been an accidental shot, or it could have been ordered."

It could also have been "turncoats" or "terrorist accomplices who were sick of waiting", he told Echo Moscow.

One of the two rockets, he said in Novaya Gazeta, was a highly destructive incendiary device that set fire to the gymnasium, leading to many of the casualties. Many more died when other parts of the school came under fire from tanks, rocket-propelled grenades and other heavy weapons, he said.

The rockets were fired from rooftops close to the besieged schoolhouse, Mr Savelyev said.

More than 1000 hostages were held from September 1-3 in the Beslan school by guerrillas demanding an end to the war in nearby Chechnya. Most of the deaths occurred during the chaotic rescue attempt on the last day.

A majority of the parliamentary commission has decided in contrast to Mr Savelyev that the bloody battle was triggered when two bombs set by the hostage-takers exploded, forcing special forces to launch an all-out military assault.

The commission has repeatedly delayed publishing its final report.

However, the head of the commission, Alexander Torshin, was quoted as saying last year in the Izvestia newspaper that militants set off the initial explosions and that the rocket-propelled grenades could not have started the deadly gymnasium blaze.

Mr Savelyev told Novaya Gazeta that "not one of the official versions is supported by science".



-------- us

Rumsfeld: US military can handle other threats despite Iraq

Tue Aug 29, 2006 (AFP) 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060829/pl_afp/usiraqiranafghanistan

FALLON, United States - The US military could handle another war despite deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said.

"I get asked from time to time, if your forces are in Iraq and Afghanistan, is the US military sufficiently stressed or strained that it really couldn't deal or cope with a problem in another part of the world," Rumsfeld told troops at an air force base in Nevada.

"The answer is no, that's not correct. We are capable of dealing with other problems where they occur," he said, answering a question about military options for the nuclear crisis with Iran.

"I feel comfortable ... our country is able to fulfill the responsibilities the American people expect of us and that the president is charged with," he said.

Rumsfeld warned potential enemies that the United States remained ready to take military action to defend its interests.

"It would be unfortunate if other countries thought because we have 136,000 troops in Iraq today that therefore we are not capable of defending our country or doing anything that we might need to do," Rumsfeld said.

The Pentagon has recently extended tours of US troops in Iraq and called up reserve Marines to quell violence in Iraq unleashed after the US-led invasion in 2003. Apart from Iraq, the US also has more than 20,000 troops in Afghanistan, and defense analysts say the deployments have put an enormous strain on the military.

"We have a large active force, we have a large reserve force, we have that ready reserve that drills the selective reserve and we have a large number of individual ready reservists who have an obligation that runs to depending on the circumstance for the remainder of their six-year period and we have allies."

Rumsfeld said that 42 countries were working with the US military in Afghanistan and 34 governments were "helping us in Iraq."

He added: "You can't do everything and you can't do everything at once.

"But some of the capabilities that we need the place where we are using most of the capabilities right now are the ground forces in Iraq.

"Our naval forces are certainly not stressed, our air forces are certainly not stressed and those capabilities are available and exist," he said.

Rumsfeld told troops that they were facing a "clever" enemy who was "actively manipulating the media in this country."

"The constant drumbeat of the things they say often, which are not true, is harmful over time. It is cumulative. It does weaken people's will and lessen their determination and raises questions in their minds," Rumsfeld said.

However, Rumsfeld said he was personally immune to criticism that he was doing a bad job in Iraq.

"I don't feel it myself because I read so much history and I am aware that in every conflict we have ever been in there has been heated criticism ... There always has been criticism in every conflict."

Rumsfeld has come under severe criticism from retired US generals and lawmakers who have demanded his resignation for his handling of the war in Iraq, accusing him of dedicating too few soldiers to Iraq.

Later Rumsfeld told Americans that if they have patience, the situation in Iraq will eventually change for the better.

"Today we will not tell 50 million Afghans and Iraqis that because the going is tough -- and it is tough, let there be no doubt -- that we will abandon them to the beheaders, the terrorists, the assassins, and 21st century fascists who seek to attack us abroad and here at home," Rumseld told the Veterans of Foreign Wars association.

"History has shown time and again that if Americans have the patience and the perseverance to see an effort through -- no matter how hard or how difficult -- that we prevail," he said, adding that the goal now was "a safer and more secure world."



-------- war crimes

Israeli Arabs: Israel committed war crimes in Lebanon
Survey conducted by Mada al-Carmel center finds that 32 percent of Arab public believes Israel responsible for starting war in Lebanon; 43 percent speculate that soldiers' kidnapping was excuse for starting war. Only 3 percent believe Israel won war

Roee Nahmias
Published: 	08.29.06, YNet News

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3297277,00.html
 
Seventy-five percent of the Arab public in Israel believes that the military operation in Lebanon was a war crime and the people responsible should be brought to justice, a survey conducted by the Mada al-Carmel Arab Center for Applied Social Research revealed.

The survey, which was conducted among a representative sample of the Arab population in Israel, found that 32 percent of the participants think that Israel is responsible for starting the war. Forty-three percent think that the cause of the war was not the soldiers' kidnapping and that Israel would have started the war in any case.

The survey was conducted a week after the cease-fire and was intended to examine the Arab stance on different issues of the war. About 500 people participated in the survey.

Third of participants: Hizbullah won

The survey found that 58 percent of the Arab public believes that neither Hizbullah nor Israel won the war. Thirty-four percent believe Hizbullah won and only three percent think that Israel won. Regarding the possibility of another such confrontation, 43 percent assume that Israel would hesitate before initiating further military actions against Nasrallah and his army.

Regarding the relations between Arabs and Jews in the country, the survey exposes more sinister facts: Thirty-two percent believe the war caused a disintegration of the relationship between Arabs and Jews, 23 percent say that government policies towards the Arab population will only worsen, and 35 percent said that the attitude of the Arab public towards the Jewish one became more negative following the war. The same amount of people said the same is true for the attitude of the Jewish public.

Rely on al-Jazeera for information

Regarding the Arab public's main source of information on the development of the war, 67 percent of the Arabs in Israel said they tuned into Arabic television networks, compared to 23 percent who watched Israeli ones.

Sixty-four percent said they watched al-Jazeera, and rated it as being highly credible. Forty-six percent said they relied on al-Manar's reports, the channel which identifies with Hizbullah. Only 5 percent said the news on the Israeli network Channel One was credible, and 10 percent said the two other commercial Israeli channels (Two and 10) were credible.

On the other hand, 55 percent of the respondents rated Hizbullah's reports of the war as more credible than the Israeli ones. Only nine percent believed the opposite.



-------- POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS / JUSTICE


-------- justice

Bush White House subpoenaed by wiretap lawyers

Michael Roston and Brian Beutler
Published: Tuesday August 29, 2006
Raw Story

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/BREAKING__Bush_White_House_subpoenaed_0829.html

Two attorneys representing claimants in a lawsuit over wiretapping by the National Security Agency claim that they have sent subpoenas to the White House today, RAW STORY has learned.

Bruce Afran and Carl Mayer, who say they represent hundreds of plaintiffs in lawsuits against Verizon, AT&T, and the US Government, will announnce today that they are serving both the Bush administration and Verizon with subpoenas.

The announcement is due to arrive at 4:30 PM, outside of Verizon headquarters in New York, RAW STORY has confirmed.

Mayer tells RAW STORY that the subpoenaes, directed to President George Bush, the Office of Legal Counsel, the Department of Justice, and the Chief Legal Counsel for Verizon, have already been sent, and should reach their targets tomorrow.

The subpoenas come on the heels of two federal court decisions that were seen as blows to the Bush Administration warrantless spying program.

Earlier this month, federal judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled the entire program unconstitutional and illegal; another federal judge in San Francisco rejected the Bush Administration's attempt to dismiss these lawsuits by claiming they breach national security.

Mayer explained that the subpoena seeks to learn "whether the Bush administration has unlawfully targeted journalists, peace activists, libertarians, members of congress or generated an 'enemies list.'"

Afran, a former Green Party candidate for New Jersey Senate, told RAW STORY he expected the White House to again claim that the state secrets doctrine forbade it from answering the subpoena, but called the claim "absolute nonsense."

"That's an invitation for presidents to write their own rules and we've had judges multiple times say that state secrets is not a defense," he explained, adding, "We hope the White House will realize the need to cooperate."

The full subpoena may be read below. The original document may also be viewed in PDF format here.
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/NSASubpoena.pdf

----

Cheney says court ruling on warrantless surveillance will be reversed

By SEAN WHALEY
Aug. 29, 2006 Las Vegas Review-Journal  CAPITAL BUREAU

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Aug-29-Tue-2006/news/9323896.html#

RENO -- Vice President Dick Cheney predicted Monday that a recent federal court ruling finding a warrantless surveillance program unconstitutional will be overturned on appeal.

He also said U.S. troops will stay in Iraq until the job is done.

In a speech to about 6,000 members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars at the group's annual convention, Cheney said the intelligence-gathering program run by the National Security Agency is one of the most important tools the country has to stop terrorism aimed at domestic U.S. targets.

The program was implemented by President Bush after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in a manner that was "fully consistent under the Constitution and consistent with the legal authority of the president and the civil liberties of the American people," Cheney said.

"It's hard to think of any category of information that would be more important to the safety and security of the United States," Cheney said. "The recent ruling by a federal judge ordering an end to this program is just dead wrong. We are confident it will be reversed on appeal."

A U.S. district judge in Detroit ruled Aug. 17 the program violated privacy and free speech rights, among other concerns. But that decision is on hold until a hearing in September.

Cheney's prediction of a reversal won a round of applause from the crowd, which greeted the vice president warmly for his 30-minute speech.

Outside, about three dozen protestors held placards criticizing Cheney and Bush.

One protester, Elza Minton of Palomino Valley, said he was there to support full funding for veterans programs. But he described the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the Bush administration with the same phrase: "A total disaster."

Inside the Reno-Sparks Convention and Visitors Center, Cheney focused his remarks on the fight against terror.

Noting that the five-year anniversary of the 2001 terrorist attacks was exactly two weeks away, the vice president said it's no accident that another major attack on U.S. soil has not happened since.

Attacks have happened around the world, from London to Bombay, Cheney said.

"Nobody can guarantee that we won't be struck again," he said.

But "sound policy decisions" by the president and good work by the military and others charged with protecting the country from attacks has been a big part of why the country has remained safe, Cheney said.

A key element to victory in the war on terror is to see that the new Iraqi government is successful, which means a continued U.S. presence there with no timetable for troop reduction or departure, he said.

"I know some have suggested that by liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein we simply stirred up a hornet's nest," Cheney said. "They overlook a fundamental fact. We were not in Iraq on Sept. 11, 2001, and the terrorists hit us anyway."

The idea suggested by some Americans that removing the U.S. presence in Iraq would mollify the terrorists is wrong, he said.

"But the exact opposite is true," Cheney said. "Time and again over the last generation, the terrorists have targeted nations whose behavior they believe they can change through violence.

"A precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would be a victory for the terrorists, an invitation to further violence against free nations and a ruinous blow to the future security of the United States," he said.

After his comments, Cheney attended a fundraiser for Nevada Republicans at a private home that was closed to the press before flying out later in the day.



-------- POLITICS


-------- propaganda wars

Ahmadinejad offers Bush TV debate
Ahmadinejad said the debate should be uncensored

Tuesday 29 August 2006, 18:56 Makka Time, 15:56 GMT  

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/C748DD25-FA65-4BDE-8145-FD7DD993D5F8.htm

The Iranian president has challenged his US counterpart to a live television debate.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made the offer to George Bush on Tuesday. Thursday is the deadline set by the UN Security Council for Iran to suspend all uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities, and Iran faces possible sanctions if it fails to comply.

Ahmadinejad said: "I suggest we talk with Mr Bush, the president of the United States, in a live television debate about world issues and ways out of these standoffs.

"We would voice our opinions and they would too. The debate should be uncensored, above all for the American public."

The White House called the suggestion a "diversion" from the Thursday deadline and refused the invitation.

Dana Perino, the White House spokeswoman, said: "Talk of a debate is just a diversion from the legitimate concerns that the international community, not just the US, has about Iran's behaviour, from support for terrorism to pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability."

Overtures

Earlier this year Ahmadinejad sent Bush a letter, the first contact in decades between leaders of the two countries.

But the Iranian president said that such a debate would not necessarily mean reopening dialogue with the United States, which froze diplomatic relations with Iran after the seizure of its embassy in Tehran in 1979.

Ahmadinejad said: "Debate is different from dialogue, dialogue has other conditions, we have said our position on that before."

But he said that dialogue was also possible with "the ones who show a frown to our nations if the conditions are fulfilled".

Sanctions

The Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency is to  report to the Security Council, also on Thursday, on Iran's compliance with its demands.

Iran has said repeatedly that it has no intention of abandoning its nuclear work, which it says is for civilian energy purposes only.

Ahmadinejad said he believed that it was "unlikely" the Security Council would act against Iran over its nuclear programme, which the United States sees as a cover for weapons development.

John Bolton, the American ambassador to the UN, has said the United States plans to put forward a draft resolution imposing penalties such as a travel ban and asset freeze for key Iranian leaders soon after the deadline.

Ahmadinejad said: "Sanctions are not an issue ... We will not be happy if they use anything but logic but we are not worried. After all, we are capable of defending our rights."

The Iranian president caused controversy last year when he described Israel as a tumour that should be "wiped off the map" and said he wanted the root of tensions in the Middle East to be "removed".

----

Journalists blame Israel for war coverage
International journalists discuss Lebanon war coverage; NYT bureau chief: Israel 'not interested in Lebanese deaths'

Yaakov Lappin
Published: 	08.29.06, 21:46

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3297119,00.html

A number of journalists claimed during a convention in Jerusalem Monday evening that Israel and the IDF were mostly to blame for the way the foreign media covered the Lebanon war.

The panel of journalists, largely from the international media, convened to discuss their coverage of the war, at a conference arranged by the Media Line agency's Mideast Press Club.

"Journalists' access to the battlefield is controlled exclusively by the IDF," said Simon McGregor-Wood, Chairman of the Foreign Press Association, and Bureau Chief of ABC News.
 
"We are very disappointed that the IDF didn't give us more opportunities," he added.
 
Wood's claims of restricted battlefield access seemed undermined, however, by the London Times' Stephen Farrell, who said: "I spent most of the war within five miles of the border… you have to get up and put your face right up against the glass, and if you can, to put your head through the glass."

Farrell told the panel that the best way to report the war was to witness it first hand, and recounted using binoculars to watch clashes between Hizbullah forces and the IDF.
 
Responding to the Reuters photo scandal, Farrell said: "I'm not sure I like the allegation that it's local staff who are unreliable. Over the last few years we've seen… apparently respectable, white western American, British, everybody… being sacked and disgraced… integrity is integrity is integrity, whether it's Arab, Israeli, or western."

The New York Times Jerusalem Bureau Chief, Steven Erlanger, expressed surprise that Israel's view of the war was different to that of its critics, and said that Israelis didn't "quite grasp how the war was perceived outside of Israel."

He lamented the lack of "proportionality" in the war, adding: "This is a charge that came against Israel from the United Nations… the French, the Italians."

The New York Times bureau chief also said that Israelis "were not interested in whether 1,000 Lebanese civilians needed to die," adding that the question of "whether Israel fought a proportional war is not much of interest here (in Israel)."

Erlanger added that during the war, he "took General Yadlin (who briefed the press on IDF operations) too seriously."

'You are free to say what you like about us'

Erlanger told the panel he turned down an offer by the IDF Spokesperson Unit to gain access to IDF efforts aimed at enabling humanitarian aid to reach Lebanon, saying he was not interested in the story.

The Associated Press' Chief Jerusalem Correspondent, Ravi Nessman said the casualty count in Lebanon was impossible to confirm: "All we can do is report what everyone's telling us."

"We don't know, even now, the death toll (in Lebanon), still weeks later, it's totally disparate. Did 800 people die, did 1,200 people die. We still don't exactly know," he said.

"We have to rely on the Red Crescent or other rescue officials," Nessman added. "Getting an accurate count is very difficult. We are forced unfortunately to rely on rescue services, because we don't have the capacity to know exactly how many people died," he conceded.

Nessman downplayed the Reuters doctored photo scandal, saying: "It was probably one guy… everyone's working very hard. Everybody is tired. Everybody is overworked. It's very unlikely that the photo editors sat there and said, these are doctored photos, get them on the wires… I'm sure it slipped through. They're trying to do as credible a job as possible."

Nessman also claimed that "there was one real photo scandal in this war, and there were dozens of non-scandals that cropped up."

"Pictures have been faked as long as there have been pictures," remarked the Times' Farrell, citing "commercial imperative" as a factor in the doctored images.

Al-Jazeera's Jerusalem Bureau Chief Walid Omary said his news network had been vilified in Israel, and wrongly accused of abating Hizbullah.

"Al-Jazeera tried to keep good balance in covering this war," Omary said.

"You are free to say what you like about us, in the same way we are free to say what we like about you," the ABC's Simon Wood told the audience, which largely consisted of US immigrants to Israel. 



-------- us politics

Ex-FEMA Head Brown Criticizes Bush Admin

Tuesday, August 29th, 2006
Headlines Democracy Now!

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/29/1415250

Meanwhile, the man who became the face of the Bush administration’s highly criticized response to the crisis took the occasion of Katrina’s one-year mark to lash out at his former superiors in the White House. Former FEMA Director Michael Brown spoke to reporters in Washington.

    * Former FEMA Director Michael Brown: "No, we're not prepared. Now I do believe that one of the most fascinating things I've heard the last couple of days is that Secretary Chertoff came out and made this statement - something to the effect that we must start doing catastrophic planning. It's going to take us years to do that. I find