NucNews September 17, 2006 -------- NUCLEAR -------- china China to award $8 billion nuclear deal by year-end By Ilya Garger Sep 17, 2006 (MarketWatch) http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid=%7B155BB8DA%2DABA6%2D489D%2D9E64%2DD301095E3601%7D&dist=rss&siteid=mktw&rss=1 HONG KONG -- The Chinese government will award a contract to build four nuclear reactors by the end of 2006, according to a media report. The Wall Street Journal's Asian edition cited U.S. Assistant Secretary of Energy Karen Harbert, who was in Beijing Friday to discuss energy issues, as saying that a decision was expected "by the end of this year at the very latest." See Wall Street Journal Asian edition story (subscription required). The leading contenders for the contract, which involves the construction of four state-of-the-art 1,000-megawatt reactors and will be worth as much $8 billion, are U.S.-based Westinghouse Electric Co. and France's government-owned Areva SA. China's decision has taken longer than expected due to concerns over the safety and effectiveness of new technology proposed by the bidders. Westinghouse is being bought by Japan's Toshiba Corp. (TOSBF : China is in the midst of a push to build more nuclear plants in an effort to reduce its reliance on coal-generated power as the country's energy demands soar. It plans to build up to 32 reactors by 2020, and has 10 already operating or under construction, The Journal reported Saturday. The government aims for nuclear power to account for 4% of China's generation capacity, compared to a current level of 1.5%. End of Story Ilya Garger is a reporter for MarketWatch based in Hong Kong. -------- depleted uranium Mysteries surround illnesses September 17, 2006 Leaf Chronicle Clarksville, TN http://www.theleafchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060917/OPINION01/609170342/1014 Soldiers deserve to know what factors made them sick. The latest report authorized by the federal government says that Gulf War syndrome doesn't exist. Even if it's true that there's not a single illness that has made soldiers who served in the 1991 war sick, the report does acknowledge that those veterans who are sick are sicker than other veterans who did not serve in the Persian Gulf but who have the same illness. The report, prepared by an Institute of Medicine committee, also found an elevated risk for the rare nerve disease amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, also known as Lou Gehrig's disease, and for anxiety disorders, depression and substance abuse. While the latest study doesn't point to one illness causing the many symptoms — including fatigue, memory loss, muscle and joint pain, rashes and sleep problems — at least it doesn't revert back to a position held for far too long by the government. That is, that the symptoms were due to psychological problems. It wasn't until 2001 that the government finally stopped telling the sick vets that their problem was all in their heads and started offering disability and survivor benefits to those with Lou Gehrig's disease. It's known, and the latest report recognizes, that while in the Gulf region, soldiers were exposed to a toxic brew of substances, including smoke from oil well fires, pesticides, depleted uranium ammunition and possibly the nerve agent sarin. The next step is for further studies as to what kind of illnesses these substances could spawn, both separately and in combinations. The government owes these soldiers explanations, and medical treatment and financial assistance where necessary. It also needs to learn from this experience so that any mistakes made the past are not repeated into the future in other military engagements. ---- It’s environmentally friendly fire (By JON UNGOD-THOMAS) October 17, 2006 UK SUNDAY TIMES http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2361516,00.html BAE SYSTEMS, one of the world’s biggest arms manufacturers, is designing a new generation of “green” munitions, including “lead-free” bullets and rockets with reduced toxins. It also wants to cut the dangerous compounds in its jets, fighting vehicles and artillery, which it warns “can harm the environment and pose a risk to people”. The initiative is being backed by the Ministry of Defence, which has proposed quieter warheads to reduce noise pollution and grenades that produce less smoke. There have even been experiments to see if explosives can be turned into manure. Dr Debbie Allen, director of corporate social responsibility at BAE systems, said that although it might seem strange to have a green policy for munitions, it was important to consider the environmental impact of all products. “Weapons are going to be used and when they are, we try to make them as safe for the user as possible, to limit the collateral damage and to impact as little as possible on the environment,” she said. BAE’s policy reflects the eagerness among big companies to trumpet their environmental concerns. The concept of “green munitions” has, however, infuriated campaigners opposed to the arms trade. “This is laughable,” said Symon Hill of Campaign Against Arms Trade. “BAE is determined to try to make itself look ethical, but they make weapons to kill people and it’s utterly ridiculous to suggest they are environmentally friendly.” During the Iraq war, Britain dropped more than 900 bombs while the United States has admitted dropping 1,500 cluster bombs, which detonate numerous explosions over a large area, and anti-landmine campaigners have sought to ban them. The exact death toll is unknown. Both countries say they want to ensure their weapons are in future more sustainable and environmentally friendly. BAE stopped using depleted uranium in its weapons in 2003, but an expert panel now reviews all its products to ensure materials and manufacturing processes are as green as possible. Its arsenal and environmental practices now include: # Bullets with lower lead content because, as the company states on its website, “lead used in ammunition can harm the environment and pose a risk to people”. BAE says its plantin Radway Green, near Crewe, has been working on eliminating lead from its bullets altogether. # Armoured vehicles with lower carbon emissions. The company is using “hybrid” engines, which can be powered by batteries as well as conventional diesel engines. # Weaponry with fewer toxins. BAE is working to reduce Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and other hazardous, and often carcinogenic, chemicals in its products. # Safer and sustainable artillery. The company has started manufacturing “insensitive” shell explosives at its plant in Glascoed in south Wales. They do not blow up accidentally and have an unlimited shelf life, reducing the need for disposal. # Energy saving measures and recycling, including experimenting with turning waste explosives into compost. BAE’s policy is endorsed by the MoD, which stresses the importance of environmentally friendly munitions in its Sustainable Development and Environment Manual. It says “ecodesign” should be incorporated into all modern weapons. It states: “A concept of green munitions is not a contradiction in terms. Any system, whatever its ultimate use, can be designed to minimise its impact [on the] environment.” Rockets fired in “sensitive marine environments” could have reduced emissions to protect the sea-life, the manual suggests. Also, weapons used for training purposes could be modified. Ideas include biodegradable plastics for missiles, “reduced smoke” grenades and quieter warheads. The American military has also developed a sustainability strategy. One document on the US Army Sustainability website discusses the possible use of soybean oil in jet fuel, the use of solar panels in the conflict zone and hydrogen-powered miniature aerial vehicles. -------- europe Germany Proposes Shared Nuclear Facilities (Reuters) September 17, 2006 http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/9/4f5ee58c-bda6-4d29-a23c-6e450e1537d4.html German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier has proposed the creation of shared, U.N.-monitored uranium enrichment facilities as an alternative to individual countries acquiring their own enrichment technology. Steinmeier told the "Handelsblatt" newspaper that such facilities could be supervised by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). This would allow all countries to develop a peaceful nuclear energy program, while removing the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation. -------- iran 'We Do Not Need Attacks' Exclusive: On the eve of a visit to the U.S., Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaks to TIME's Scott MacLeod about debating President Bush, pursuing nuclear energy and denying the Holocaust By SCOTT MACLEOD Sunday, Sep. 17, 2006 TIME http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1535777,00.html TIME: What were your impressions of New York during your visit to the U.S. last year? Ahmadinejad: Unfortunately we didn't have any contact with the people of the United States. We were not in touch with the people. But my general impression is that the people of the United States are good people. Everywhere in the world, people are good. TIME: Did you visit the site of the World Trade Center? Ahmadinejad: It was not necessary. It was widely covered in the media. TIME: You recently invited President Bush to a televised debate. If he were sitting where I am sitting, what would you say, man to man? Ahmadinejad: The issues which are of interest to us are the international issues and how to manage them. I gave some recommendations to President Bush in my personal letter, and I hope that he will take note of them. I would ask him, Are rationalism, spirituality and humanitarianism and logic?are they bad things for human beings? Why more conflict? Why should we go for hostilities? Why should we develop weapons of mass destruction? Everybody can love one another. TIME: Do you feel any connection with President Bush, since he is also a religious man, a strong Christian? Ahmadinejad: I've heard about that. But there are many things which take place and are inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus Christ in this world. TIME: Why do your supporters chant "Death to America"? Ahmadinejad: When they chanted that slogan, it means they hate aggression, and they hate bullying tactics, and they hate violations of the rights of nations and discrimination. I recommended to President Bush that he can change his behavior, then everything will change. TIME: How do you think the American people feel when they hear Iranians shouting "Death to America" and the President of Iran does not criticize this? Ahmadinejad: The nations do not have any problems. What is the role of the American people in what is happening in the world? The people of the United States are also seeking peace, love, friendship and justice. TIME: But if Americans shouted "Death to Iran," Iranians would feel insulted. Ahmadinejad: If the government of Iran acted in such a way, then [the American people] have this right. TIME: Are America and Iran fated to be in conflict? Ahmadinejad: No, this is not fate. And this can come to an end. I have said we can run the world through logic. We are living our own lives. The U.S. government should not interfere in our affairs. They should live their own lives. They should serve the interests of the U.S. people. They should not interfere in our affairs. Then there would be no problems with that. TIME: Are you ready to open direct negotiations with the U.S.? Ahmadinejad: We have given them a letter, a lengthy letter. We say the U.S. Administration should change its behavior, and then everything will be solved. It was the U.S. which broke up relations with us. We didn't take that position. And then they should make up for it. TIME: Does Iran have the right to nuclear weapons? Ahmadinejad: We are opposed to nuclear weapons. We think it has been developed just to kill human beings. It is not in the service of human beings. For that reason, last year in my address to the U.N. General Assembly, I suggested that a committee should be set up in order to disarm all the countries that possess nuclear weapons. TIME: But you were attacked with weapons of mass destruction by Iraq. You say the u.s. threatens you, and you are surrounded by countries that have nuclear weapons. Ahmadinejad: Today nuclear weapons are a blunt instrument. We don't have any problems with Pakistan or India. Actually they are friends of Iran, and throughout history they have been friends. The Zionist regime is not capable of using nuclear weapons. Problems cannot be solved through bombs. Bombs are of little use today. We need logic. TIME: Why won't you agree to suspend enrichment of uranium as a confidence-building measure? Ahmadinejad: Whose confidence should be built? TIME: The world's? Ahmadinejad: The world? The world? Who is the world? The United States? The U.S. Administration is not the entire world. Europe does not account for one-twentieth of the entire world. When I studied the provisions of the npt [Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty], nowhere did I see it written that in order to produce nuclear fuel, we need to win the support or the confidence of the United States and some European countries. TIME: How far will Iran go in defying Western demands? Will you wait until you are attacked and your nuclear installations are destroyed? Ahmadinejad: Do you think the u.s. administration would be so irrational? TIME: You tell me. Ahmadinejad: I hope that is not the case. I said that we need logic. We do not need attacks. TIME: Are you worried about an attack? Ahmadinejad: No. TIME: You have been quoted as saying Israel should be wiped off the map. Was that merely rhetoric, or do you mean it? Ahmadinejad: People in the world are free to think the way they wish. We do not insist they should change their views. Our position toward the Palestinian question is clear: we say that a nation has been displaced from its own land. Palestinian people are killed in their own lands, by those who are not original inhabitants, and they have come from far areas of the world and have occupied those homes. Our suggestion is that the 5 million Palestinian refugees come back to their homes, and then the entire people on those lands hold a referendum and choose their own system of government. This is a democratic and popular way. Do you have any other suggestions? TIME: Do you believe the Jewish people have a right to their own state? Ahmadinejad: We do not oppose it. In any country in which the people are ready to vote for the Jews to come to power, it is up to them. In our country, the Jews are living and they are represented in our Parliament. But Zionists are different from Jews. TIME: Have you considered that Iranian Jews are hurt by your comments denying that 6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust? Ahmadinejad: As to the Holocaust, I just raised a few questions. And I didn't receive any answers to my questions. I said that during World War II, around 60 million were killed. All were human beings and had their own dignities. Why only 6 million? And if it had happened, then it is a historical event. Then why do they not allow independent research? TIME: But massive research has been done. Ahmadinejad: They put in prison those who try to do research. About historical events everybody should be free to conduct research. Let's assume that it has taken place. Where did it take place? So what is the fault of the Palestinian people? These questions are quite clear. We are waiting for answers. ---- Only a "few months" before a nuclear Iran: Israeli FM WASHINGTON (AFP) Sep 17, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/2006/060917181926.9n5nc0db.html Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni warned Sunday that Iran is just "a few months" from being able to enrich uranium, a key step to building a nuclear bomb. "The crucial moment is not the day of the bomb," Livni said on CNN's "Late Edition." "The crucial moment is the day in which Iran will master the enrichment, the knowledge of enrichment." Livni said she did not want to name a "point of no return," in Iran's development of nuclear weapons, because the Iranians "are trying to send a message that it's too late" for the international community to stop its nuclear program. "It's not too late," she said. "They have a few more months." Livni said the world "cannot afford" for Iran to have nuclear weapons. "It's not only a threat to Israel," she said. "The recent understanding, also, of moderate Arab states is that Iran is a threat to the region." Livni added that it was "time for sanctions" against Iran. The United States has been pushing for sanctions to force Tehran to stop producing enriched uranium, which can be used both for both nuclear power and atomic weapons. ---- Allies Muted As US Wages Financial Offensive On Iran by Staff Writers Singapore (AFP) Sep 17, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Allies_Muted_As_US_Wages_Financial_Offensive_On_Iran_999.html The United States is taking the financial fight to Iran as it turns up pressure on its allies to get tough over the Islamic republic's nuclear ambitions. But are its partners listening? Washington, perhaps coincidentally, has intensified sanctions over Iran's backing for "terrorist" groups in the fortnight since the country ignored a UN deadline to suspend its uranium enrichment by August 31. On September 8, the Treasury Department froze Bank Saderat, one of Iran's largest lenders with some 3,400 branches, from doing any business with US-owned banks on the grounds that it supports terrorism. Treasury officials accused Saderat and Iran's central bank of channelling hundreds of millions of dollars -- often through unwitting, "blue-chip" Western banks -- to extremist groups and to the country's missile programme. They said the outfits include the Lebanese Shiite militia Hezbollah and the Palestinian groups Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command. Iran's central bank chief Ibrahim Sheibany has reportedly vowed to take legal action to challenge the US sanctions on Bank Saderat, and threatened to shift some of Iran's currency reserves out of the dollar. But Treasury officials have been fanning out around the world to ram home the message, especially in Europe and Gulf nations such as the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson was briefed on the issue after he took office in July. The former boss of Goldman Sachs was said by aides to be shocked at "extensive intelligence" allegedly revealing that Iran was using dozens of front companies to abuse the banking system. "Protecting the financial system from abuse by terrorists and illicit financiers is integral to international financial stability and global security," he told an International Monetary Fund meeting here Sunday. After the latest Group of Seven gathering Saturday, Paulson announced an "educational" campaign so that multinational banks can be "vigilant and identify risks". "We discussed the need to take action to disrupt terrorist and illicit finance related to specific threats from North Korea and Iran," he said. The US government accuses Stalinist North Korea of bankrolling its crippled economy through money-laundering and sophisticated forgeries of US dollars. However, the G7 nations mentioned neither North Korea nor Iran in their post-meeting communique Saturday, speaking more generally of the need for cooperation against illicit financing. Meanwhile, the United States has acknowledged that it faces tough resistance as it presses for UN sanctions against Iran over the nuclear issue. Britain, France and Germany are optimistic that their talks with Iran are making progress towards defusing the standoff. But on Friday, President George W. Bush sternly warned US partners not to take pressure off Iran. Ahead of his address to the UN General Assembly in New York on Tuesday, Bush said US allies should not permit Iran to "stall" for time. In line with the US sanctions on Iran, three major Japanese banks will refrain from doing business with Bank Saderat, reports in Tokyo said. But Japanese Finance Minister Sadakazu Tanigaki said the G7 statement did not necessarily target Iran, which supplies much of Japan's oil. And top European Union officials have made no mention of the Iran issue in public here. One Gulf delegate at the Singapore meetings said Dubai and other regional financial hubs had shown no reaction to the US clampdown. "They see it as more of a US-generated fuss, as the Europeans aren't getting excited," he said on condition of anonymity. ---- China asserts Iran's right to civilian nuclear use Sun Sep 17, 2006 (Reuters) http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060917/wl_nm/china_iran_dc BEIJING - Iran has the right to harness nuclear energy for civilian use but should abide by its international commitments on the issue, Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi said in comments published on Sunday. Yang's remarks come a day after state media carried comments by Premier Wen Jiabao urging Iran to show more flexibility on its nuclear program. "Iran has the right to use nuclear energy peacefully," the official Xinhua news agency cited Yang as saying on Saturday at a summit of Non-Aligned Movement nations in Havana, which China attended as an observer. Echoing Wen's comments, Yang said that the Iranian nuclear issue was at a critical stage, but that there was still hope for a negotiated settlement to the standoff. "All parties concerned should take constructive steps and show flexibility to resume dialogue and negotiation at an early date," Xinhua quoted Yang as saying. Tehran ignored an August 31 U.N. Security Council deadline to halt uranium enrichment, which Iran says is for civilian energy use but which Western powers fear will be used for making weapons. European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana has been negotiating with Iran on behalf of the world's major powers, but Washington is pushing for a move toward sanctions if there is no breakthrough soon. U.S. and EU diplomats told Reuters on Saturday that major powers were considering a joint meeting with Iran next week that would exclude the United States, as a way of bridging the divide over its nuclear program. China, which wields veto power on the Security Council, is wary of sanctions and has long urged a diplomatic solution. Yang also called for an early resumption of six-party talks on the North Korean nuclear issue, urging the nations involved to show greater flexibility and avoid taking any action that would "increase tension and exacerbate the situation," Xinhua said. The talks aimed at ending North Korea's nuclear weapons program broke down in late 2005 with Pyongyang demanding an end to U.S. financial restrictions driven by accusations that the isolated state counterfeited dollars and traded in illegal drugs. China hosts the talks, which are also attended by North and South Korea, the United States, Japan and Russia. -------- japan Japan flexes its military muscles Strongman Abe rekindles pride Michael Sheridan, Tokyo September 17, 2006 UK Times http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2361311,00.html JAPAN is about to get its most nationalistic prime minister since the 1950s and ardent patriots are celebrating in advance, sensing that their sun is rising after decades of shame. The resurgence of pride alarms Japan’s principal wartime victims, China and the two Koreas, but it is winning quiet applause from the United States, which foresees an enduring change in Japanese military policy. The man in waiting is Shinzo Abe, 51, the chief cabinet secretary. He has struck a chord among voters by taking a hard line on North Korea, saying he would strike at missile sites before Kim Jong-il could fire off any weapons against Japan. Abe has angered China, but pleased many Japanese, by defending his nation’s stance on its wartime record and the way it commemorates its war dead. He has come forward as a new kind of Japanese leader as he prepares to claim victory in a leadership contest of the Liberal Democratic party (LDP), which controls the premier’s post, this Wednesday. He will take over from Junichiro Koizumi, a charismatic maverick with a lion’s mane of grey hair, who broke with the LDP’s traditional factions, revived the world’s second biggest economy and sent Japanese forces to Iraq in support of the United States and Britain. Abe wants to go further. His priority is to change Japan’s constitution, written by the Americans after 1945, to allow its armed forces to act in collective self-defence alongside the US. The rise of China and the threat from North Korea, Abe believes, have changed Japanese psychology from its pacifism after the shattering defeat of the second world war. “He is the champion of the neoconservative cause,” said an Abe adviser over seafood in a French bistro in Tokyo full of creamy blossoms in delicate green porcelain. The sophisticated Japanese right, which has long hungered to assert again the nation’s leading place in the world through its diplomacy and armed forces, senses that the hour and the man have come. In a land where lineage counts for a lot — witness the patriotic joy at the birth of a male heir, Prince Hisahito, to the Chrysanthemum throne — Abe’s credentials are impeccable. In fact, they are distinctly old Japan. Abe is descended from a powerful family on the southern island of Honshu, whose rival Choshu and Satsuma clans provided most of the military leaders to the Japanese empire. His father Shintaro Abe served as foreign minister in the highly nationalist government of Yasuhiro Nakasone in the 1980s. His grandfather Nobusuke Kishi had a career that raises eyebrows in the West and still stirs passions in China. Kishi ran the wartime economy in the cabinet of the military dictator Hideki Tojo, who was later hanged by the allies. Before that he helped the Japanese army to plunder Manchuria. But after the war Kishi reinvented himself as a founder of the LDP and became the prime minister who cemented Japan’s alliance with the United States. His grandson has already received a warm welcome at the White House. The Bush administration is delighted at Abe’s initiative in far-reaching, and as yet unpublicised, plans to reshape the Japanese military. According to Richard Halloran, an authority on the US-Japanese alliance, Japan is on the brink of sweeping changes in its security policy to rebalance its forces away from the vanished Soviet threat and towards the perceived Chinese one. The top American officer in Japan, Lieutenant-General Bruce Wright, told Halloran that “a monumental change” has taken place in Japanese attitudes. Tokyo has established a joint command centre with the Americans, which captured data when North Korea fired missiles into the Sea of Japan last July. The Japanese have upgraded their air defence technology and updated their navy. All this seems remote from the funky streets of Tokyo, where fashion, football, anime videos and mobile phone fads grip the nation’s youth. Yet old Japan and new Japan are frequently mixed up in the bafflingly flexible way that the country has adapted to its contradictions since it opened up to the world in the 19th century. Take two events on the same day last week. New Japan made a dazzling debut with the explosion onto the Tokyo stock exchange’s start-up market of Mixi, a hot online “cyber-community” that links 5m chatty young Japanese to their peers. Mixi’s shares soared to an astonishing £14,400 each and made its floppy-haired 30-year-old founder, Kenji Kasahara, an instant millionaire. At the same time, Abe joined two rival politicians on a white campaign van to woo listless old folk and commuters trudging out of a suburban railway station on a wet and windy afternoon. Superficially, it was an old Japan occasion. Abe spoke about renewal and pride but, in his grey suit, looked like a weary Japanese everyman. His rivals — the hawk-faced foreign minister, Taro Aso, and the long-winded finance minister, Sadakazu Tanigaki — recited their own claims to office in dreary language. Yet the Abe message resonates among Japanese of all ages. “Japan is a peaceful democracy,” said a young male onlooker in the excellent English that is the internet generation’s calling card. “So why should we be pushed around by bad countries?” Abe alone drew applause from the audience, pausing to beam and shake hands as his vigilant bodyguards scanned the crowd. To China, and even to Japan’s uneasy neighbour South Korea, the ascent of Abe symbolises a menacing revival of Japanese ultra-nationalism. In their minds loom the brooding pines of Yasukuni shrine, where Japanese leaders go to honour the spirits of 2.5m dead in Japan’s wars since the Meiji restoration of 1868. Koizumi enraged the Chinese by keeping up this longstanding tradition, pointing out that Japan has formally apologised on at least 35 occasions for its wartime conduct. Will Abe, a past worshipper, go to Yasukuni once he is premier? His grandfather’s old mentor, Tojo, is among 14 class A war criminals commemorated there. His advisers, though, hint he will go first to Beijing to mend fences with the Chinese leader, Hu Jintao, both sides bowing to the reality that they enjoy enormous reciprocal benefits from Japanese technology and Chinese labour. But there is no doubt that Abe’s course is set. Last week Japan said it would impose financial sanctions on North Korea and the government prepared the public for its next military expedition — a proposed dispatch of ground forces to Lebanon. -------- pakistan IAEA clears Pakistan of N-material trafficking Sunday September 17, 2006 Pakistan Tribune http://www.paktribune.com/news/index.shtml?154431 VIENNA : The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has cleared Pakistan of nuclear material trafficking. In its recent report on illicit trafficking and other unauthorized activities involving nuclear and radioactively contaminated material, the IAEA has cleared Islamabad of nuclear material trafficking within the last decade as it is reported to have taken stringent measures to secure its nuclear material and is continuously pushing to meet the international standards, kUNA reported said Saturday. The report said that from 1993 to 2005 a total of 827 confirmed incidents were reported by the participating member states of the IAEA Illicit Trafficking Database (ITDB). None of these incidents, happened mostly in Western and Eastern European countries or USA and Russia, were attributed to Pakistan. IAEA has been maintaining ITDB since 1995 to facilitate the exchange of information among member states, who voluntarily report such incident. Pakistan also subscribes to it through Nuclear Regulatory Authority (NRA). -------- security UN: Serb reactor prime terror target September 17, 2006 United Press International http://www.topix.net/content/newscom/1906146789014144429737637200852530625478 A lightly guarded nuclear reactor in Serbia is the world's most dangerous unused nuclear site and a prime terrorist target, a United Nations agency says. The rundown Communist-era reactor, housing 2 1/2 tons of radioactive material in Vinca, 10 miles from Belgrade, could be the source of a terrorist dirty bomb, which combines radioactive material with conventional explosives, said Special Program Manager Michael Durst of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Durst added that 30 percent of the radioactive material at Vinca was leaking. It would be easily accessible to an organized group, he said. He said the Institute of Nuclear Sciences' facility, which closed 22 years ago, topped the global priority list of unsecured uranium locations because it combined the threats of nuclear proliferation and environmental disaster, The Daily Telegraph of London reported. Thousands of spent fuel rods, made of the highly radioactive mixture of uranium and plutonium, are stored at the site. -------- u.n. Germany calls for an international uranium enrichment centre BERLIN (AFP) Sep 17, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/2006/060917140933.4x74ry67.html German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier has proposed setting up uranium enrichment centres under UN control to end nuclear disputes like the one over Iran, a newspaper reported. Steinmeier said such centres could be used by several nations and placed under control of the UN's nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the daily Handelsblatt said in an advance extract of its Monday edition. "Interested countries like Iran could in this way obtain nuclear fuel for civilian use under strict control," Steinmeier told the newspaper. "It could be financed by countries that claim the right to buy nuclear fuel," he added. "We need to have an international supply of nuclear fuel to stop countries feeling the need to build their own installations." Steinmeier said the Vienna-based IAEA had the right to build and run nuclear installations. According to the Handelsblatt, IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei has been informed of the proposal and Germany is planning to promote it when the country takes over the rotating presidency of the European Union in January 2007. In a bid to resolve the standoff over Iran's suspect nuclear actitivities, Russia has offered to provide the Islamic Republic with enriched uranium. Tehran, which denies Western allegations that it is seeking to produce nuclear weapons, has turned down the offer and violated a UN deadline to stop enriching uranium by the end of August. The IAEA starts a general conference on Monday that will be dominated by the Iranian crisis and will consider a proposal, backed by Russia and the United States, for an international fuel bank. "I want to make sure that every country that is a bona fide user of nuclear energy and that is fulfilling its non-proliferation obligations is getting fuel," ElBaradei said at the weekend. -------- MILITARY -------- britain MoD defends use of experimental drug on troops By James Hamilton 17 September 2006 Scotland Sunday Herald http://www.sundayherald.com/58025 The Ministry of Defence was yesterday forced to defend the use on British soldiers in Iraq of a blood clotting drug that has yet to be fully licensed. NovoSeven has been used to treat just a handful of injured troops and in one case saved a soldier’s life, the MoD said. It is used only as a last resort when all conventional treatments have failed. The drug was licensed in 1999 for use to stem bleeding in haemophiliacs, but is still undergoing trials for use on trauma patients with severe wounds and bleeding within the brains of patients with severe head injuries. Liberal Democrat MP Phil Willis, chairman of the House of Commons science and technology select committee, said in a radio interview yesterday it was “totally and utterly unacceptable”. He said: “The last thing we should be doing is treating [soldiers] with any drug which may not fully licensed for use.” The MoD said its use had been authorised only after an extensive review of the evidence. A spokesman said: “We have extremely robust protocols for the use of this drug and we are 100% confident that it should be used in extremis when all other treatments have failed. “We also know of at least one case where it has, without a shadow of a doubt, saved a man’s life.” The number of soldiers treated with the drug is thought to be in single figures. It is also used by US forces. -------- prisoners of war U.S. wartime prison network grows into legal vacuum for 14,000 Updated 9/17/2006 (AP) http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-09-17-american-hands_x.htm http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/world/15543206.htm BAGHDAD — In the few short years since the first shackled Afghan shuffled off to Guantanamo, the U.S. military has created a global network of overseas prisons, its islands of high security keeping 14,000 detainees beyond the reach of established law. Disclosures of torture and long-term arbitrary detentions have won rebuke from leading voices including the U.N. secretary-general and the U.S. Supreme Court. But the bitterest words come from inside the system, the size of several major U.S. penitentiaries. AP STAFF DETAINED: U.S. holds photographer in Iraq "It was hard to believe I'd get out," Baghdad shopkeeper Amjad Qassim al-Aliyawi told the Associated Press after his release — without charge — last month. "I lived with the Americans for one year and eight months as if I was living in hell." Captured on battlefields, pulled from beds at midnight, grabbed off streets as suspected insurgents, tens of thousands now have passed through U.S. detention, the vast majority in Iraq. Many say they were caught up in U.S. military sweeps, often interrogated around the clock, then released months or years later without apology, compensation or any word on why they were taken. Seventy to 90% of the Iraq detentions in 2003 were "mistakes," U.S. officers once told the international Red Cross. Defenders of the system, which has only grown since soldiers' photos of abuse at Abu Ghraib shocked the world, say it's an unfortunate necessity in the battles to pacify Iraq and Afghanistan, and to keep suspected terrorists out of action. Every U.S. detainee in Iraq "is detained because he poses a security threat to the government of Iraq, the people of Iraq or coalition forces," said U.S. Army Lt. Col. Keir-Kevin Curry, a spokesman for U.S.-led military detainee operations in Iraq. But dozens of ex-detainees, government ministers, lawmakers, human rights activists, lawyers and scholars in Iraq, Afghanistan and the United States said the detention system often is unjust and hurts the war on terror by inflaming anti-Americanism in Iraq and elsewhere. Building for the Long Term Reports of extreme physical and mental abuse, symbolized by the notorious Abu Ghraib prison photos of 2004, have abated as the Pentagon has rejected torture-like treatment of the inmates. Most recently, on Sept. 6, the Pentagon issued a new interrogation manual banning forced nakedness, hooding, stress positions and other abusive techniques. The same day, President Bush said the CIA's secret outposts in the prison network had been emptied, and 14 terror suspects from them sent to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to face trial in military tribunals. The U.S. Supreme Court has struck down the tribunal system, however, and the White House and Congress are now wrestling over the legal structure of such trials. Living conditions for detainees may be improving as well. The U.S. military cites the toilets of Bagram, Afghanistan: In a cavernous old building at that air base, hundreds of detainees in their communal cages now have indoor plumbing and privacy screens, instead of exposed chamber pots. Whatever the progress, small or significant, grim realities persist. Human rights groups count dozens of detainee deaths for which no one has been punished or that were never explained. The secret prisons — unknown in number and location — remain available for future detainees. The new manual banning torture doesn't cover CIA interrogators. And thousands of people still languish in a limbo, deprived of one of common law's oldest rights, habeas corpus, the right to know why you are imprisoned. "If you, God forbid, are an innocent Afghan who gets sold down the river by some warlord rival, you can end up at Bagram and you have absolutely no way of clearing your name," said John Sifton of Human Rights Watch in New York. "You can't have a lawyer present evidence, or do anything organized to get yourself out of there." The U.S. government has contended it can hold detainees until the "war on terror" ends — as it determines. "I don't think we've gotten to the question of how long," said retired admiral John Hutson, former top lawyer for the U.S. Navy. "When we get up to 'forever,' I think it will be tested" in court, he said. The Navy is planning long-term at Guantanamo. This fall it expects to open a new, $30-million maximum-security wing at its prison complex there, a concrete-and-steel structure replacing more temporary camps. In Iraq, Army jailers are a step ahead. Last month they opened a $60-million, state-of-the-art detention center at Camp Cropper, near Baghdad's airport. The Army oversees about 13,000 prisoners in Iraq at Cropper, Camp Bucca in the southern desert, and Fort Suse in the Kurdish north. Neither prisoners of war nor criminal defendants, they are just "security detainees" held "for imperative reasons of security," spokesman Curry said, using language from an annex to a U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing the U.S. presence here. Questions of Law, Sovereignty President Bush laid out the U.S. position in a speech Sept. 6. "These are enemy combatants who are waging war on our nation," he said. "We have a right under the laws of war, and we have an obligation to the American people, to detain these enemies and stop them from rejoining the battle." But others say there's no need to hold these thousands outside of the rules for prisoners of war established by the Geneva Conventions. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan declared last March that the extent of arbitrary detention here is "not consistent with provisions of international law governing internment on imperative reasons of security." Meanwhile, officials of Nouri al-Maliki's 4-month-old Iraqi government say the U.S. detention system violates Iraq's national rights. "As long as sovereignty has transferred to Iraqi hands, the Americans have no right to detain any Iraqi person," said Fadhil al-Sharaa, an aide to the prime minister. "The detention should be conducted only with the permission of the Iraqi judiciary." At the Justice Ministry, Deputy Minister Busho Ibrahim told AP it has been "a daily request" that the detainees be brought under Iraqi authority. There's no guarantee the Americans' 13,000 detainees would fare better under control of the Iraqi government, which U.N. officials say holds 15,000 prisoners. But little has changed because of these requests. When the Americans formally turned over Abu Ghraib prison to Iraqi control on Sept. 2, it was empty but its 3,000 prisoners remained in U.S. custody, shifted to Camp Cropper. Life in Custody The cases of U.S.-detained Iraqis are reviewed by a committee of U.S. military and Iraqi government officials. The panel recommends criminal charges against some, release for others. As of Sept. 9, the Central Criminal Court of Iraq had put 1,445 on trial, convicting 1,252. In the last week of August, for example, 38 were sentenced on charges ranging from illegal weapons possession to murder, for the shooting of a U.S. Marine. Almost 18,700 have been released since June 2004, the U.S. command says, not including many more who were held and then freed by local military units and never shipped to major prisons. Some who were released, no longer considered a threat, later joined or rejoined the insurgency. The review process is too slow, say U.N. officials. Until they are released, often families don't know where their men are — the prisoners are usually men — or even whether they're in American hands. Ex-detainee Mouayad Yasin Hassan, 31, seized in April 2004 as a suspected Sunni Muslim insurgent, said he wasn't allowed to obtain a lawyer or contact his family during 13 months at Abu Ghraib and Bucca, where he was interrogated incessantly. When he asked why he was in prison, he said, the answer was, "We keep you for security reasons." Another released prisoner, Waleed Abdul Karim, 26, recounted how his guards would wield their absolute authority. "Tell us about the ones who attack Americans in your neighborhood," he quoted an interrogator as saying, "or I will keep you in prison for another 50 years." As with others, Karim's confinement may simply have strengthened support for the anti-U.S. resistance. "I will hate Americans for the rest of my life," he said. As bleak and hidden as the Iraq lockups are, the Afghan situation is even less known. Accounts of abuse and deaths emerged in 2002-2004, but if Abu Ghraib-like photos from Bagram exist, none have leaked out. The U.S. military is believed holding about 500 detainees — most Afghans, but also apparently Arabs, Pakistanis and Central Asians. The United States plans to cede control of its Afghan detainees by early next year, five years after invading Afghanistan to eliminate al-Qaeda's base and bring down the Taliban government. Meanwhile, the prisoners of Bagram exist in a legal vacuum like that elsewhere in the U.S. detention network. "There's been a silence about Bagram, and much less political discussion about it," said Richard Bennett, chief U.N. human rights officer in Afghanistan. Freed detainees tell how in cages of 16 inmates they are forbidden to speak to each other. They wear the same orange jumpsuits and shaven heads as the terrorist suspects at Guantanamo, but lack even the scant legal rights granted inmates at that Cuba base. In some cases, they have been held without charge for three to four years, rights workers say. Guantanamo received its first prisoners from Afghanistan — chained, wearing blacked-out goggles — in January 2002. A total of 770 detainees were sent there. Its population today of Afghans, Arabs and others, stands at 455. Described as the most dangerous of America's "war on terror" prisoners, only 10 of the Guantanamo inmates have been charged with crimes. Charges are expected against 14 other al-Qaeda suspects flown in to Guantanamo from secret prisons on Sept. 4. Plans for their trials are on hold, however, because of a Supreme Court ruling in June against the Bush administration's plan for military tribunals. The court held the tribunals were not authorized by the U.S. Congress and violated the Geneva Conventions by abrogating prisoners' rights. In a sometimes contentious debate, the White House and Congress are trying to agree on a new, acceptable trial plan. Since the court decision, and after four years of confusing claims that terrorist suspects were so-called "unlawful combatants" unprotected by international law, the Bush administration has taken steps recognizing that the Geneva Conventions' legal and human rights do extend to imprisoned al-Qaeda militants. At the same time, however, the new White House proposal on tribunals retains such controversial features as denying defendants access to some evidence against them. In his Sept. 6 speech, Bush acknowledged for the first time the existence of the CIA's secret prisons, believed established at military bases or safehouses in such places as Egypt, Indonesia and eastern Europe. That network, uncovered by journalists, had been condemned by U.N. authorities and investigated by the Council of Europe. The clandestine jails are now empty, Bush announced, but will remain a future option for CIA detentions and interrogation. Louise Arbour, U.N. human rights chief, is urging Bush to abolish the CIA prisons altogether, as ripe for "abusive conduct." The CIA's techniques for extracting information from prisoners still remain secret, she noted. Meanwhile, the U.S. government's willingness to resort to "extraordinary rendition," transferring suspects to other nations where they might be tortured, appears unchanged. Prosecutions and Memories The exposure of sadistic abuse, torture and death at Abu Ghraib two years ago touched off a flood of courts-martial of mostly lower-ranking U.S. soldiers. Overall, about 800 investigations of alleged detainee mistreatment in Iraq and Afghanistan have led to action against more than 250 service personnel, including 89 convicted at courts-martial, U.S. diplomats told the United Nations in May. Critics protest that penalties have been too soft and too little has been done, particularly in tracing inhumane interrogation methods from the far-flung islands of the overseas prison system back to policies set by high-ranking officials. In only 14 of 34 cases has anyone been punished for the confirmed or suspected killings of detainees, the New York-based Human Rights First reports. The stiffest sentence in a torture-related death has been five months in jail. The group reported last February that in almost half of 98 detainee deaths, the cause was either never announced or reported as undetermined. Looking back, the United States overreacted in its treatment of detainees after Sept. 11, said Anne-Marie Slaughter, a noted American scholar of international law. It was understandable, the Princeton University dean said, but now "we have to restore a balance between security and rights that is consistent with who we are and consistent with our security needs." Otherwise, she said, "history will look back and say that we took a dangerous and deeply wrong turn." Back here in Baghdad, at the Alawi bus station, a gritty, noisy hub far from the meeting rooms of Washington and Geneva, women gather with fading hopes whenever a new prisoner release is announced. As she watched one recent day for a bus from distant Camp Bucca, one mother wept and told her story. "The Americans arrested my son, my brother and his friend," said Zahraa Alyat, 42. "The Americans arrested them October 16, 2005. They left together and I don't know anything about them." The bus pulled up. A few dozen men stepped off, some blindfolded, some bound, none with any luggage, none with familiar faces. As the distraught women straggled away once more, one ex-prisoner, 18-year-old Bilal Kadhim Muhssin, spotted U.S. troops nearby. "Americans," he muttered in fear. "Oh, my God, don't say that name," and he bolted for a city bus, and freedom. BY THE NUMBERS A look at the U.S. overseas detention system that has developed since 2001: NUMBERS OF DETAINEES • Iraq: 13,390 • Afghanistan: Estimated 500 • Guantanamo Bay: 455 NATIONALITIES • Iraq: U.S. command last year counted 325 "foreign fighters," but majority Iraqi. • Afghanistan: Afghans, Arabs, central Asians, possibly others. • Guantanamo Bay: 48 nationalities (past and present), vast majority from Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Pakistan, Algeria, China, Morocco, Kuwait, Tajikistan and Tunisia. CONSTRUCTION • Iraq: U.S. Army opened $60 million detention center in August at Camp Cropper, near Baghdad's airport. • Guantanamo Bay: This fall U.S. Navy plans to open new $30 million maximum-security wing. DETAINEE ABUSE • Allegations: About 800 investigations of alleged mistreatment in Iraq and Afghanistan. • Punished: More than 250 service personnel punished, many via loss of rank or pay, or discharge from service. • Courts-Martial: At least 103. • Convictions: 89 service members convicted; 19 sentences of one year or more. DETAINEE DEATHS • Total Deaths: At least 98 in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo, as of February. • Homicides: At least 34. • Unknown/Undetermined: At least 48. • Prosecution: Punishment in 14 death cases. Source: The Associated Press A detainee in an outdoor solitary confinement cell talks with a military policeman at the Abu Ghraib prison on the outskirts of Baghdad. When the Americans formally turned Abu Ghraib prison over to Iraqi control on Sept. 2 it was empty, but its 3,000 prisoners remained in U.S. custody. Enlarge AP, June 2004 A detainee in an outdoor solitary confinement cell talks with a military policeman at the Abu Ghraib prison on the outskirts of Baghdad. When the Americans formally turned Abu Ghraib prison over to Iraqi control on Sept. 2 it was empty, but its 3,000 prisoners remained in U.S. custody. YEAR BY YEAR The evolution of the U.S. wartime detention system: 2001 Oct. 7: Afghanistan war begins. 2002 Jan. 16: al-Qaeda and Taliban suspects arrive at U.S. prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Feb. 7: President Bush signs order declaring Geneva Convention rights don't apply to Afghanistan detainees. Nov. 27: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld issues order allowing harsh techniques at Guantanamo including forced nakedness, stress positions, use of dogs. Dec. 26: The Washington Post first reports abusive interrogations in secret CIA prisons. 2003 March 20: Iraq war begins. September: Iraq commander Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez authorizes interrogation plan including use of dogs and stress positions. Nov. 1: Associated Press reports humiliating, abusive treatment and deaths of U.S. detainees in Iraq, based on interviews with freed prisoners. Nov. 8: Now-infamous abuses are photographed at Abu Ghraib including forcing prisoners to perform or simulate sex acts. 2004 Jan. 13: Abu Ghraib military policeman Joseph Darby tips Army investigators to abuse. March 3: Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba, special investigator, forwards classified report to U.S. Baghdad command citing "sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses" at Abu Ghraib. March 20: First charges are announced against six Abu Ghraib soldiers. April 28-30: CBS News and New Yorker magazine report on Abu Ghraib. Photos prompt global outrage. June 22: Justice Department announces it is withdrawing 2002 memos narrowly defining torture. Oct. 14: Army investigation implicates 28 soldiers in 2002 deaths of two Afghan detainees. 2005 Jan. 14: Spc. Charles Graner Jr. is sentenced to 10 years in prison, stiffest sentence in Abu Ghraib scandal. 2006 June 29: U.S. Supreme Court strikes down military tribunals planned for terror suspects. It also holds that Geneva's ban on degrading treatment applies to U.S. detainees. July 11: White House says it will rescind section of Bush 2002 executive order saying terror suspects have no Geneva Convention protections. Sept. 6: Pentagon issues new interrogation manual banning abusive techniques. Bush announces secret CIA prisons were emptied of 14 terror suspects, who are moved to Guantanamo. -------- ACTIVISTS Rally against nuclear bomb replacement By James Hamilton 17 September 2006 UK Sunday Herald http://www.sundayherald.com/58023 Anti-Trident campaigners, taking part in an awareness-raising peace trek, rallied in Glasgow yesterday and called on the government to “bin the bomb”. The Long Walk for Peace began on Thursday with anti-nuclear protesters setting off from the Faslane naval base on the Clyde. The group, including church and union leaders, is walking 85 miles to the Scottish parliament, where ministers will be asked to oppose any plans to replace the UK’s Trident missiles. Activists reached Glasgow on Friday evening and held a rally involving several hundred people in the city’s George Square yesterday. Speakers at the gathering included anti-war campaigner Rose Gentle, whose soldier son Gordon was killed by a roadside bomb in Iraq, Scottish Socialist Party leader Colin Fox and SNP deputy leader Nicola Sturgeon. She called for the nuclear deterrent to be scrapped, saying there was no rational argument for spending taxpayers’ money on new nuclear weapons. She said: “Nuclear weapons are a scar on Scotland and a threat to world peace. “We should be ashamed to have them sited on our shores. Yet Scotland’s First Minister has repeatedly failed to say whether he backs the replacement of the Trident nuclear missile system.” Money devoted to Trident would be better spent on changing Scotland for good, she argued. At First Minister’s Questions on Thursday, Jack McConnell said he had told MSPs earlier this year that the question of Trident replacement required serious debate and not a “knee-jerk reaction” from the Nationalists.