NucNews November 29, 2006 -------- NUCLEAR -------- australia Australia well placed to supply uranium to China (Xinhua) 2006-11-29 http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2006-11/29/content_746189.htm Australian mining giant BHP Billiton Chairman Don Argus said Wednesday that his company is well placed to supply uranium to China and India once India satisfies the Australian federal government's export conditions. Argus Argus made the remarks while addressing the company's annual general meeting in Brisbane, Australia's third largest city and capital of the state of Queensland. He reminded shareholders of the government's policy to allow uranium exports to China provided it is used for peaceful purposes, while India is yet to satisfy that condition, Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio reported. He said energy consumption of the two countries is expected to increase dramatically and nuclear energy will play a vital role. Argus said no responsible company or government can ignore nuclear power as part of the range of energy options. Australia's current policy prohibits the sale of uranium to India because the South Asian nation has not signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. But the Australian government has been under pressure from India and the United States to change its currency policy. ---- NT nuclear dump plan moving closer November 29, 2006 The Age http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/NT-nuclear-dump-plan-moving-closer/2006/11/29/1164777646996.html Commonwealth plans to impose a nuclear waste dump on Top End desert communities have been slammed by Aboriginal elders, pastoralists, environmentalists as well as the NT government. Hotly debated legislation was passed in the House of Representatives on Wednesday, paving the way for a potential dump at one of four sites in the Northern Territory. The legislation is aimed at preventing legal challenges against any move by the Northern Land Council (NLC) to offer up its land for radioactive waste. Federal Science Minister Julie Bishop told parliament that claims indigenous landowners were being bullied were "ridiculous" and dismissed the suggestion the NLC was nominating sites against the wishes of traditional owners. But Dianne Stokes, a traditional owner from the proposed site of Muckaty Station in Central Australia, said only five of the 16 land groups had been consulted by the NLC. "I don't know who the NLC was talking to, I have never seen the NLC talk to any of these other groups or families," she told reporters in Darwin. "We are not happy to have this, it is not our spirit, our spirit is our country, the country where our ancestors were born." Dave Sweeney, from the Australian Conservation Foundation, said the legislation contradicted the statutory obligations of Land Councils, who are required to consult the community before making a decision. "It is not ethically acceptable to impose a radioactive waste facility on an unwilling community," he said. "The current amendments that have passed the House of Representatives today seek to remove the need for community consultation and procedural fairness." A private contractor is currently examining three mooted commonwealth-owned sites in the territory - Harts Range and Mt Everard, near Alice Springs, and Fishers Ridge near Katherine. Muckaty Station has also been flagged with a full report on the possible sites due by March 2007. Valerie Utley, a pastoralist living at Fishers Ridge, said the area was a high flood zone and unsuitable for development. "It's just disastrous when you think of the site environmentally because there is such a large area that depends on this drainage system and it floods every year. "It would be the most unstable place in the world." Mr Sweeney said plans for a dump would affect all Australians because it required large volumes of radioactive material to be trucked, shipped or transported by rail across Australia. NT Minister for Central Australia Elliot McAdam called on the federal government to start working with the territory. "It (the amendments) take away the rights of not only traditional owners but also territorians... "This the commonwealth government stomping on the rights of territorians - both indigenous and non-indigenous." The bill passed by 79 votes to 57 and will go to the Senate on Thursday. -------- britain Spy death inquiry finds radiation at 12 British sites and on two planes Updated 11/29/2006 USA Today http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-11-29-poisonedspy_x.htm LONDON — British authorities have found traces of low-level radioactivity at a dozen sites and on two commercial jets in an expanding investigation into the bizarre death of a former Soviet spy who was poisoned with polonium-210. Home Secretary John Reid, who reported on the latest findings Thursday, said experts are examining 24 sites and five planes in all. Reid did not say whether the radioactivity found at the 12 sites was polonium-210, which was used to poison former KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko, who died a week ago. In Moscow, meanwhile, doctors said they believed Yegor Gaidar, a former premier and head of a liberal opposition party, may have been poisoned during a conference last week in Ireland, his spokesman Valery Natarov told The Associated Press. Gaidar, 50, became violently ill and was rushed to a hospital in Ireland, but was improving in a Moscow hospital Thursday. Reid, the country's top law enforcement official, said two of three British Airways planes that have flown to Moscow and other European cities showed low levels of a radioactive substance. BA also confirmed that "very low traces" were found aboard two of its planes. The third BA plane is in Moscow and has not been tested. It was not immediately clear whether the traces could have come from passengers who may have come into contact with Litvinenko, or whether a radioactive substance could have been smuggled on board. A fourth plane — a Boeing 737 aircraft, leased by private Russian airline Transaero — was also "of interest," Reid told Parliament. He said the fifth plane is also Russian, but did not elaborate. Irena Borodulina, a spokeswoman for Transaero, said authorities had examined and cleared one of its planes of radiation contamination. It was not immediately possible to confirm this with the Home Office. Litvinenko, 43, was living in London and had become a bitter critic of Russian President Vladimir Putin. From his deathbed, he accused the Russian leader, who is also a former KGB agent, of masterminding his poisoning. Litvinenko also said he met in London with Russians who had traveled from Moscow. Traces of polonium-210 have been found at six sites he visited, including a sushi restaurant and the London offices of Russian tycoon Boris Berezovsky, a Putin critic. Dozens of people who worked at or visited the six sites and the London hospital that treated Litvinenko have been tested for radiation exposure. Reid reiterated that there would be no political or diplomatic barriers to the investigation, a pledge that was also made by Prime Minister Tony Blair earlier in the week. On Thursday, Blair's official spokesman said the prime minister had not discussed the matter with Putin. Russia has denied any role in Litvinenko's death, which has been classified by British police as "suspicious" but not a murder. Litvinenko's body is to undergo an autopsy Friday. The case has chilled relations between London and Moscow. Members of Blair's Cabinet have criticized Putin as anti-democratic and authoritarian. So far 18 people who may have been exposed to polonium-210 have been referred to specialist clinics, but the 29 urine tests conduct so far have all been negative, Reid said. He said that 1,700 calls had been made to the National Health Service, and 69 people were referred to the Health Protection Agency. British Airways late Wednesday sought thousands of passengers who might have been exposed to the radioactive substance found aboard two jets. Britain's Health Protection Agency stressed that the risk to the public was slight. Polonium-210 is used in nuclear weapons. The Health Protection Agency, in a statement, said "it can only represent a radiation hazard if it is taken into the body — by breathing it in, by taking it into the mouth, or if it gets into a wound. It is not a radiological hazard as long as it remains outside the body." The three grounded British Airways planes have recently flown the London-Moscow route, and made other stops in Barcelona, Frankfurt and Athens, the carrier said. It said 33,000 passengers flew aboard 221 flights on the three jets in recent weeks; about 3,000 crewmembers and airport workers had contact with the aircraft. The airline posted a list of the flights on its website. It asked passengers who flew them to call a help line. It urged non-British nationals to call their doctors. Airport security screeners have equipment to check passengers and cargo for radiation, but generally use it only after terror warnings, said Stephen Luckey, an aviation security consultant. Contributing: Jeffrey Stinson and Alan Levin, USA TODAY; wire reports --- British find 12 sites with traces of radiation, 'most delicate autopsy' set to begin Thursday, November 29, 2006 http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2006/11/british_find_12.html Odrussia British officials have identified 12 sites that bear traces of radiation during the investigation into the death of former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko. "Home Secretary John Reid told Parliament that 'around 24 venues' have been or are being monitored as part of the investigation, and that experts had confirmed traces of radioactive contamination at 'around 12 of these venues.,'" according to the Associated Press. "Three British Airways planes -- two at Heathrow Airport and one in Moscow -- are being investigated, and Reid said that a Boeing 737, leased by the Russian airline Transaero, was also 'of interest,'" the wire service reported. Meanwhile, NewScientist says what could be "the most delicate autopsy ever performed in London is due to take place on Friday, when radiation-suited pathologists gingerly prise apart the highly toxic body of Litvinenko. What they find might suggests where the radioactive element polonium-210 suspected of poisoning him came from." Reid didn't say whether polonium-210 was found at the sites. The urine tests of 18 people who have been tested for exposure to the deadly isotopes were negative. Health experts said the health risk was low, but British Airways has begun to contact some 33,000 passengers and 3,000 employees who flew on the planes over the last several weeks. We have a list of the flights here. Passengers who were on one of these flights can contact British Airways at +44-191-211 3690. Would you be nervous if you'd been aboard one of those flights? --- Flight list glance Posted 11/29/2006 The Associated Press http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-11-29-british-flights-glance_x.htm British Airways is contacting passengers who traveled on the following flights. The aircraft used for these flights have been or will be tested for traces of radiation as part of the investigation into the fatal poisoning of former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko. Passengers from the following flights are being asked to contact British Airways on 44-191-211 3690: London Heathrow to Moscow/Moscow to London Heathrow Oct. 25, BA875 Oct. 26, BA872 and BA873 Oct. 28, BA872 and BA873 Oct. 31, BA873, BA874 and BA875 Nov. 1, BA874 and BA875 Nov. 3, BA874 and BA875 Nov. 5, BA872 and BA873 Nov. 6, BA874 and BA875 Nov. 7, BA872, BA873, BA874 and BA875 Nov. 8, BA874 and BA875 Nov. 9, BA872,FA BA873, BA874 and BA875 Nov. 13, BA874 and BA875 Nov. 14, BA872 and BA873 Nov. 15, BA874 and BA875 Nov. 16, BA872 and BA873 Nov. 17, BA874 and BA875 Nov. 18, BA874 and BA875 Nov. 20, BA872 and BA873 Nov. 22, BA872 and BA873 Nov. 25, BA872 and BA873 Nov. 28, BA872 and BA873 Nov. 29, BA872 London Heathrow to Barcelona/Barcelona to London Heathrow Nov. 4, BA478 and BA479 Nov. 16, BA478 and BA479 Nov. 17, BA478 and BA479 Nov. 19, BA478 and BA479 Nov. 20, BA478 and BA479 Nov. 21, BA478 and BA479 Nov. 22, BA478 and BA479 Nov. 23, BA478 and BA479 Nov. 24, BA478 and BA479 London Heathrow to Dusseldorf/Dusseldorf to London Heathrow Oct. 30, BA936 and BA937 Nov. 6, BA936 and BA937 Nov. 8, BA936 and BA937 Nov. 9, BA936 and BA937 Nov. 11, BA936 and BA937 Nov. 13, BA936 and BA937 Nov. 18, BA936 and BA937 Nov. 19, BA936 and BA937 Nov. 24, BA936 and BA937 Nov. 25, BA936 and BA937 Nov. 27, BA936 and BA937 London Heathrow to Athens Oct. 30, BA632 Oct. 31, BA634 Nov. 4, BA632 Nov. 5, BA634 Nov. 6, BA632 Nov. 7, BA634 Nov. 8, BA632 Nov. 9, BA634 Nov. 10, BA632 Nov. 11, BA632 Nov. 14, BA634 Nov. 19, BA632 Nov. 20, BA634 Nov. 21, BA632 Nov. 22, BA634 Nov. 24, BA632 Nov. 25, BA632 Nov. 27, BA632 Nov. 28, BA632 Nov. 28, BA634 Athens to London Heathrow Oct. 30, BA633 Nov. 1, BA631 Nov. 4, BA633 Nov. 6, BA631 Nov. 6, BA633 Nov. 8, BA631 Nov. 8, BA633 Nov. 10, BA631 Nov. 10, BA633 Nov. 11, BA633 Nov. 15, BA631 Nov. 19, BA633 Nov. 21, BA631 Nov. 21, BA633 Nov. 23, BA631 Nov. 24, BA633 Nov. 25, BA633 Nov. 27, BA633 Nov. 28, BA633 Nov. 29, BA631 London Heathrow to Larnaca/Larnaca to London Heathrow Oct. 29, BA662 and BA663 Nov. 11, BA662 and BA663 Nov. 12, BA662 and BA663 Nov. 13, BA662 and BA663 Nov. 18, BA662 and BA663 Nov. 26, BA662 and BA663 London Heathrow to Stockholm Nov. 3, BA786 Nov. 19, BA780 Nov. 22, BA780 Nov. 23, BA780 Nov. 24, BA780 Stockholm to London Heathrow Nov. 4, BA773 Nov. 19, BA781 Nov. 22, BA781 Nov. 23, BA781 Nov. 24, BA781 London Heathrow to Warsaw (actually operated to Vienna) Nov. 28, BA846 Warsaw to London Heathrow (actually operated from Vienna) Nov. 28, BA847 London Heathrow to Frankfurt Oct. 26, BA916 Nov. 2, BA916 Frankfurt to London Heathrow Oct. 27, BA901 Nov. 3, BA901 London Heathrow to Istanbul/Istanbul to London Heathrow Oct. 27, BA676 and BA677 Nov. 2, BA676 and BA677 Nov. 3, BA676 and BA677 London Heathrow to Madrid/Madrid to London Heathrow Nov. 26, BA460 and BA461 -------- canada Uranium claims in western Quebec raise hopes, fears Wednesday, November 29, 2006 CBC News http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2006/11/29/uranium.html Representatives of a uranium exploration company based in Vancouver are planning a public meeting to discuss uranium discoveries in western Quebec that have garnered mixed reaction from residents. Last fall, Aldershot Resources conducted airborne surveys of the Pontiac region of the province, about 100 kilometres northwest of Ottawa, and found evidence of uranium deposits that might be suitable for mining. They are not far from other deposits long known to exist across western Quebec. Jeremy Caddy, president of Aldershot, said the area has the same geological formation that has yielded uranium mines in parts of Ontario. Aldershot recently stepped up its exploration of Pontiac for the radioactive metal, which has shot up in price with the demand for nuclear power from countries such as China. 'The odds of us finding some mines from an exploration process are less than one in 100 chances.'—Jeremy Caddy, president, Aldershot Resources The company has sent letters to local residents asking for access to their properties so they can narrow their search for any uranium deposits that could be mined, said Caddy. "We want to make sure that what the machines are telling us really do exist on the ground," he said. For now, the company simply wants to take pictures, make maps and take small samples of rock. "The odds of us finding some mines from an exploration process are less than one in 100 chances." Even so, the uranium claims have generated concern and excitement among area residents, who will be able to attend a company-planned meeting in Fort-Coulonge in mid-December, Caddy confirmed. Mining could replace lost forestry jobs Ross Vowles, mayor of the municipality of Thorne, Que., north of Shawville, expressed optimism that mining could benefit his community. 'If it could be done safely, and viably, we could certainly use the jobs.'-Thorne Mayor Ross Vowles "If it could be done safely, and viably, we could certainly use the jobs," said Vowles. He added the community has been harmed by the collapse of the local forestry industry. "I sit on the economic development committee in the region and we're open to just about any opportunity, as long as it's safe." Vowles's own property is among those identified by Aldershot as containing uranium. Residents fear environmental, health impacts Richard Vezeau, who lives near Thorne Lake, north of Shawville, said he wants to know more about Aldershot and whether the company might expropriate his land — a possibility that has him worried. "It's been my home for 35 years," he said. "I'm not keen to move off and start again." Meanwhile, others are concerned that disturbing the uranium will pollute the water and make people sick. 'Uranium is a bad word, versus the environment. Personally, I'm afraid of that.'—Hector Soucie, former mayor of Fort-Coulonge Among them is Ian Huggett, a local activist who drew attention to the increase in uranium prospecting by writing letters to local newspapers. Huggett's concern is shared by Hector Soucie, former mayor of Fort-Coulonge who now runs a business in the community. "Uranium is a bad word, versus the environment. Personally, I'm afraid of that," said Soucie. "I was on the committees in the '70s when this project came about. I was leery then and I'm still leery." Exposure to radioactive materials has been linked to increased risk of cancer and other negative health impacts. Canada has guidelines to minimize exposure to uranium during and after mining. However, the metal has a bad name from the use of its depleted form in weapons and its damage to the health of aboriginal miners in Canada's North during the 1930s. The miners were never told about the risks and the precautions that should be taken. Aldershot already has uranium projects in Quebec, Australia and Zambia and trades on the Toronto Venture Exchange. -------- depleted uranium Democracy, a death sentence for Afghanistan Deanna Spingola November 29, 2006 RenewAmerica http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/spingola/061129 I recently purchased a book that deeply saddens and troubles me. The old cliché — "a picture is worth a thousand words" is applicable to this book. Many of the photos in this book are of children, orphans — made older than their tender years by the daily deprivation of essential needs. They are beautiful children with dark, poignant eyes. Most of us will never experience, during our entire lives, the death and destruction that encompasses their vulnerable existence each and every day. This is a book every American must read — Afghanistan After Democracy. It depicts, through pictures, the horrific results of the United States' invasion of Afghanistan. The author of the book, Dr. Mohammed Daud Miraki left Afghanistan, his homeland, in 1982 with what was left of his family. More than a dozen of his family members perished during the Russian onslaught which ultimately left more than 1.5 million Afghan civilians dead. The Russians retreated in 1989 and twelve years later the United States invaded. The benefactors of the illegal and immoral invasion of Afghanistan, which began October 7, 2001, were administration-friendly, multi-national corporations and oil. The initial recipients of the blood money were the weapons manufacturers. After destroying the infrastructure, "more than 70 American companies and individuals have won up to $8 billion in contracts for work in postwar Iraq and Afghanistan over the last two years, according to a new study by the Center for Public Integrity. Those companies donated more money to the presidential campaigns of George W. Bush — a little over $500,000 — than to any other politician over the last dozen years, the Center found." (October 30, 2003) [1] "Kellogg, Brown & Root, the subsidiary of Halliburton — which Vice President Dick Cheney led prior to being chosen as Bush's running mate in August 2000 — was the top recipient of federal contracts for the two countries, with more than $2.3 billion awarded to the company. Bechtel Group, a major government contractor with similarly high-ranking ties, was second at around $1.03 billion." [2] "DU weapons were extensively used in both countries (Afghanistan and Iraq) as weapons of extermination of present and future generations, genocidal in properties. It is only the oil pipelines, oil wells and platforms and the contracts of Corporations which had to be secured; even as the livelihood and economies of both nations were destroyed. The war waged on Afghanistan was manifestly a war of aggression." [3] During the International Criminal Tribunal (essential reading) Bush's criminal use of genocidal and omnicidal radioactive Depleted Uranium weapons in Afghanistan was addressed. "Professor Albrecht Schott, Scientist, World Depleted Uranium Centre, Berlin in an address titled 'Consequences of the Military and Civil Use of Depleted Uranium (DU),' at the public symposium on 'American Policy and its Consequences,' has described Depleted Uranium as 'A Weapon Against This Planet.' Prosecution Document E-130; this leads logically to the word 'Omnicide' used by witness Leuren Moret, among other scientists while describing the effect of this weapon system; as going beyond the 'silent genocide' it has inflicted on the Afghan and Iraqi people." [4] Also presented at the tribunal: "The documented reports of Marc Herold and Dai Williams, Prosecution documents at Ex. E-118 and E-119; the Survey of the Uranium Medical Research Centre, Washington DC; Prosecution Document — E 120; the reports of Dr. Mohammed Daud Miraki, Afghan Recovery Fund ... Prosecution Documents Ex. E-137 and E -138, among other documents; refer in detail to the widespread use and effects of DU weapons on the people in Afghanistan inflicting slow and painful death, termed the 'silent genocide' affecting the unborn, altering irreversibly the genetic code of all those exposed." [5] George Bush alerted India, Pakistan and Iran of his intentions to attack the Taliban and Bridas before 9-11 but did not notify the American citizens. This information was reported on June 26, 2001 in India newspapers. [6] Oil monopoly on the part of Unocal and the administration led to atrocious "war crimes committed on civilians, by indiscriminate bombings on the population, and on existing civilian infrastructure; on combatants and non-combatants alike." The Taliban had never made a negative overture towards the United States. They are fundamentalists against such un-Islamic things as poppy growth and production of opium. Yet Bush and his criminal accomplices considered the resulting carnage as "collateral damage" in their mythical "just war" against terrorism. [7] Poppy growth and the resulting opium production are up since our invasion. The U.S., with extensive military support, and Unocal, the California based oil and gas company, backed the installation of the Taliban in Afghanistan in 1996. Unocal, seeking monopoly control, began to negotiate their pipeline project which would run through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Indian Ocean from the oil-gas rich Central Asiatic Republics of the former USSR. [8] The U.S. government wants to dominate Central Asia in order to reduce dependency on resources from the Persian/Arabian Gulf, which it cannot control. [9] However, the Taliban did not control all of Afghanistan. The northern regions were still under the jurisdiction of the Northern Alliance, who was negotiating with Bridas, an Argentinean company. Unocal and Bridas have had a competitive history in Afghanistan during both Republican and Democratic administrations. The war of aggression against Afghanistan was to affect a regime change to benefit Unocal's pipeline project. [10] "On December 1, 2001, President Hamid Karzai, a resident of the United States over several years, a green card holder; the former official representative of Unocal to the erstwhile Taliban militia's de facto government in Kabul, was sworn in as head of the interim government ( officially called the Transitional Government of Afghanistan ). Unocal now directly controls the government of Afghanistan." [11] The pipeline project will proceed. Along with Karzai, Bush also nominated another Unocal consultant and former Taliban defender, Zalmay Khalilzad, Bush's Special National Security Assistant, as his special envoy to Afghanistan. [12] When nominated, no mention of his former Unocal association was mentioned. Also noteworthy: "Condoleezza Rice served as an oil company consultant on Central Asia. After serving in the first Bush administration from 1989 to 1992, Rice was placed on the board of directors of Chevron Corporation and served as its principal expert on Kazakhstan, where Chevron holds the largest concession of any of the international oil companies." [13] Chevron and Unocal merged in 2005. The country is still occupied by the U.S. military, not for peacekeeping, but to guard pipeline construction personnel. The war was not about women's voting rights, taking off their burqas, or spreading democracy. The burqa is an acceptable part of their rich culture. "The issue is survival not cosmetic shallowness as portrayed by the U.S. media cheering the Bush Administration propaganda campaign." [14] In 2001, CNN aired its acclaimed TV documentary "Under The Veil," which displayed the "oppressive conditions" that women allegedly endure in Afghanistan under the rule of the Taliban. It was obviously a propaganda film for the oil pipeline. [15] Afghan citizens exist in wretched, deplorable conditions, despite claims of reconstruction and humanitarian aid. War has destroyed the infrastructure of the country. The streets of downtown Kabul, notwithstanding cleaning efforts, are littered with garbage. "Due to lack of a sewage system, rainwater flows on the streets. When garbage men dig the filth out from the sewage-filled water channels in the city, they end up leaving the filth and rubbish on the side of the water channels to dry up." [16] Pulmonary problems have increased as a result of this situation. Americans need not wonder why the citizens of Afghanistan are angry at our damned "democracy!" From the book, Afghanistan After Democracy: * Five years on, the Afghan population is still devastated by relentless poverty * One in four children born in Afghanistan cannot expect to live to age 5 * Children roam the streets for hours begging for money to buy a few pieces of bread * Close to 50% of the population cannot expect to live to age 40 * Afghanistan has the lowest life expectancies in the world * Life expectancy for females is 44 * More than 70% of the population is chronically malnourished * Less than a quarter of the population has access to safe drinking water * The electricity supply is accessible by only 10% of the people * Maternal mortality is among the leading causes of death * Fifty to seventy mothers die every day from birth complications * According to the 2006 World Health Report there is about one physician per 7,066 Afghans * There is about one soldier per 742 Afghans * Eighty-six cents of every dollar of American aid is phantom aid * There is corruption is high places — officials may be purchased * Crime has accelerated in three areas: (1) drugs, poppy growth is up (2) kidnapping for ransom, bodily organs and trafficking (3) prostitution * Under the Taliban, poppy growth was eradicated in 96% of the country * Murder and rape of Afghans by the military — also occurs in Iraq On November 6, 2001, George W. Bush said the following about Osama bin Laden: "But this is an evil man that we're dealing with. And I wouldn't put it past him to develop evil weapons to try to harm civilization as we know it. And that's why our coalition is — that's why I work hard to keep our coalition bound together. And that's why we're going to keep relentless military pressure on him in Afghanistan. And that's why we must prevail. That's why we must win." [17] It is the height of hypocrisy to attribute one's own characteristics to others. The U.S. is the largest single user of depleted uranium (DU) in weaponry — a huge threat to the entire planet. The U.S. is also the largest seller and exporter of depleted uranium weapon technology. The U.S. military, cannon fodder, are not informed about the DU hazard — it is not a part of their nationalistic brainwashing. America's public show of piety and religiosity contradicts the cloaked participation in sin. A majority of Americans claim to be Christian yet abortion, pornography, adultery, child abuse, pedophilia, rape, theft, shoplifting, embezzling and political treason is increasing. Yet, buoyed by nationalism and a militaristic bravado facilitated by media misinformation about the "axis of evil," we have the unmitigated gall to purportedly cleanse the rest of the world of alleged sin. War and killing are not new; look at the last century: "This century (1900-2000) was the bloodiest in all history. More than 170 million people were killed by governments with ten million being killed in World War I and fifty million killed in World War II. In regard to the fifty million killed in World War II, it is significant that nearly 70 percent were innocent civilians, mainly as a result of the bombing of cities by Great Britain and America." [18] The object of war is death. According to Marion Falk of the Manhattan Project, "The purpose of weapons used by the military is not only to injure and kill the enemy soldiers, but the purpose is to kill, maim, and disease the civilian population because it reduces the productivity of a country and pretty soon a lot of their resources are going to be used for taking care of sick people." [19] Depleted uranium is a very, very, very effective biological weapon. This is the primary purpose for using it. It isn't because it is cheap! Without contrived hatred, Wall Street money, and the Reichstag fire, Nazism would have died in the beer halls of Berlin. Without contrived hatred, obligatory nationalism, and a might-makes-right mentality, ordinary people would not arbitrarily bomb homes, engage in torture*, or any of the other unspeakable behavior executed upon vulnerable foreign strangers. Propaganda dehumanizes the alleged enemy, desensitizes Americans and gives license for our brutal savagery in our wars of aggression in the name of "fighting for our freedoms," the epitome of doublespeak. *The object of torture is torture. George Orwell, 1984. If Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman and Boeing, top weapons producers, openly promoted profit-producing war with expensive advertising campaigns instead of leaving it to their government accomplices, no one would enlist. And what would Raytheon's ads extol — their Bunker Buster, model GBU-28, capable of solving America's nuclear storage problem and sucking all of the oxygen out of inhabited underground facilities? Mobilization for war would be implausible without propaganda. Given the results, 9/11 was a great recruiting success. It took a while longer and millions of PR dollars (taxpayer's funds) to associate 9/11 to Iraq. Beginning on October 10, 2001, America indiscriminately dropped "deadly 1,000 lb. CBU-87 ($14,000 a bomb) and the wind-corrected CBU-103 cluster (fragmentation) bombs upon 'soft targets' (vehicles and people) in Afghanistan." Within 11 weeks we had dropped 1,210 cluster bombs "each containing 202 BLU-97 bomblets." These bombs cost $60 each and are designed for maximum damage. America dropped these bombs in 103 cities of Afghanistan and possibly as many as 128. Unexploded bombs become landmines which can detonate years later. Given the rate of detonation failure, it is estimated that "48,884 yellow soda-can sized, yellow-colored deadly sub-munitions now litter the villages, paths and fields of Afghanistan." [20] When the deadly cluster bomb, originally made by Aerojet General in 1983, explodes, "the steel splits so you get hundreds of high-velocity steel fragments traveling at the speed of a rifle bullet. They can kill or injure people from over 100 meters (330 feet) from the point of detonation." [21] The U.S. military also bombed alleged Taliban front lines with 15,000-pound bombs called BLU-82 "daisy cutters," believed to be the world's largest bombs. It "creates a mist of ammonium nitrate and aluminum, which ignites in an explosion that incinerates everything within up to 600 yards, the news service reported." [22] Between October 7 and December 10, 2001 at least 3,767 Afghan civilians were killed by American bombs — an average of 62 innocent deaths each day. But Osama bin Laden escaped. "It does not include military deaths (estimated by some analysts, partly on the basis of previous experience of the effects of carpet-bombing, to be upwards of 10,000), or those prisoners who were slaughtered in Mazar-i-Sharif, Qala-i-Janghi, Kandahar airport and elsewhere." [23] After proper programming, otherwise ordinary individuals are mentally equipped and ready to avenge and destroy. Osama bin Laden, intelligence asset of the United States for many years, was the alleged culprit — the poor Afghans are what — collateral damage? "Bin Laden actually officially broke with the US in 1991 when US troops began arriving in Saudi Arabia during Operation Desert Storm. Bin Laden felt this was a violation of the Saudi regime's responsibility to protect the Islamic Holy Shrines of Mecca and Medina from the infidels." [24] Stephen Hawking, renowned theoretical physicist and professor, said: The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge. [25] All photos courtesy of Dr. Mohammed Daud Miraki from his book: Afghanistan After Democracy. NOTES: [1] U.S. Contractors Reap the Windfalls of Post-War Reconstruction [2] Ibid [3] International Criminal Tribunal For Afghanistan at Tokyo [4] Ibid [5] Ibid [6] India in anti-Taliban military plan [7] International Criminal Tribunal For Afghanistan at Tokyo [8] Unocal Statements on Trans-Afghan Pipeline [9] The Enron-Cheney-Taliban Connection, By Ron Callari, Albion Monitor. Posted on: February 28, 2002. [10] International Criminal Tribunal For Afghanistan at Tokyo [11] Ibid [12] A Creeping Collapse in Credibility at the White House: [13] Unocal Oil Company adviser named US envoy to Afghanistan [14] Afghanistan After Democracy by Mohammed Daud Miraki, MA, MA, PhD., p. 78 [15] Is an Oil Pipeline Behind the War in Afghanistan? [16] Afghanistan After Democracy by Mohammed Daud Miraki, MA, MA, PhD., p. 74 [17] President Welcomes President Chirac to White House [18] A Century of War [19] The Crucified Boy [20] Above the Law and Below Morality: Data on 11 Weeks of U.S. Cluster-Bombing of Afghanistan [21] Ibid [22] 'You are either with us or against us' [23] The innocent dead in a coward's war [24] Afghanistan, the Taliban and the Bush Oil Team by Wayne Madsen [25] Truth, Honesty and Lies Quotes Deanna Spingola has been a quilt designer and is the author of two books. She has traveled extensively teaching and lecturing on her unique methods. She has always been an avid reader of non-fiction works designed to educate rather than entertain. She is active in family history research and lectures on that topic. Currently she is the director of the local Family History Center. She has a great interest in politics and the direction of current government policies, particularly as they relate to the Constitution. -------- japan Japan Rejects Becoming Nuclear State November 29, 2006 Angus Reid Global Monitor http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/13951 Many Japanese adults think their country should not develop or obtain nuclear arms, according to a poll by Yomiuri. 78 per cent of respondents oppose Japan’s acquisition of such weapons. Kim Jong-il has been the de-facto leader of North Korea since the death of his father, Kim Il Song, in 1994. North Korea was branded as part of an "axis of evil" by U.S. president George W. Bush in January 2002. In February 2005, the government of North Korea admitted publicly for the first time that it possesses nuclear weapons. In July, North Korea launched seven missiles—including the Taepodong-2—which landed in the Sea of Japan close to Russian coastal areas. On Oct. 9, the country announced it had successfully carried out a test detonation of a nuclear weapon. On Oct. 18, Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe declared that his government would not pursue nuclear weapons, saying, "The debate is finished." On Nov. 20, Abe discussed the issue once again, saying, "In my meeting with (Chinese president Hu Jintao), I reiterated that Japan will not obtain nuclear weapons. I also spoke of the necessity for nuclear countries to reduce their arsenals." The Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed when two separate nuclear bombs were dropped on Aug. 6 and Aug. 9, 1945. At least 100,000 people died in the blasts, and many more over time due to the effects of radiation. U.S. president Harry Truman authorized the nuclear attack in order to bring a quick resolution to World War II. Japan surrendered six days after the Nagasaki bombing, bringing an end to both World War II and the Second Sino-Japanese War. Before the start of 2005, seven countries in the world—Britain, China, France, India, Pakistan, Russia and the United States—had acknowledged possessing nuclear arsenals. Under the "strategic ambiguity" policy, Israel has refused to publicly discuss its purported nuclear capabilities. Polling Data Do you support or oppose Japan’s acquisition of nuclear weapons? Support 14% Oppose 78% Not sure 8% Source: Mainichi Methodology: Interviews to 1,065 Japanese adults, conducted on Nov. 25 and Nov. 26, 2006. No margin of error was provided. ---- Japan, China resume defense talks eyeing North Korea Tokyo (AFP) Nov 29 http://www.spacewar.com/reports/US_Korea_Meetings_Fail_To_Yield_Results_As_China_Japan_Discuss_Defense_999.html Japan's defense chief on Wednesday met a top Chinese military official, resuming defense dialogue after a three-year break amid regional concern over North Korea. The talks are the latest bid by China and Japan to repair relations badly strained under Japan's former prime minister Junichiro Koizumi, who stepped down in September. Major General Zhang Qinsheng, assistant chief of general staff of the People's Liberation Army, paid a courtesy call on Defense Agency Director-General Fumio Kyuma. It was the first meeting between a top Chinese defense official and a Japanese defense chief since September 2003. Zhang also held working-level talks with his counterpart Takemasa Moriya, a Japanese defense official said. The two shared their concerns over North Korea's missile and nuclear tests as a threat to the region, said the official, who attended the working-level meeting. They also agreed to increase bilateral defense exchanges, to work toward building a Sino-Japan defense hotline and to achieve exchange visits by warships of the two nations, the official said. "The meeting was honest, friendly and proactive in nature," Zhang said at the end of the talks, according to the Japanese official. "It also looked to long-term issues and the meeting was strategic," Zhang said. "After Prime Minister (Shinzo) Abe took office in Japan, our relationship has improved," Zhang was quoted as saying. Zhang, who arrived in Japan on Tuesday, will on Thursday visit a military school for cadets in Shizuoka prefecture west of Tokyo. Military issues have been at the center of friction between the Asian powers. Japan, along with the United States, has called for more transparency in China's rapidly growing military spending and opposed proposals for European Union countries to sell weapons to Beijing. China is considered the country with the most influence over North Korea, whose own military build-up has caused deep concern in Japan. North Korea on October 9 tested its first nuclear bomb. In 1998, it fired a missile over Japan's main island. The Japan-China relations have begun to improve, following Abe's visit to Beijing in October shortly after taking office in a bid to ease tension built up during Koizumi's five-year tenure. After the latest round of working-level talks, Japanese officials said they still hoped their Chinese counterparts would improve the transparency of Chinese defense spending. "But we have seen progress forward," a Japanese official said. Koizumi angered China and the two Koreas by going each year to Tokyo's Yasukuni shrine, which honors war dead and war criminals from Japan's militarist era. "After the Japan-China summit in Beijing, many things have begun to move. It is most welcoming," said Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuhisa Shiozaki. "It is extremely important that Japan and China make exchanges at all levels to communicate with each other," he said. ---- Japan, China resume defense talks eyeing North Korea Tokyo (AFP) Nov 29, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/reports/US_Korea_Meetings_Fail_To_Yield_Results_As_China_Japan_Discuss_Defense_999.html Japan's defense chief on Wednesday met a top Chinese military official, resuming defense dialogue after a three-year break amid regional concern over North Korea. The talks are the latest bid by China and Japan to repair relations badly strained under Japan's former prime minister Junichiro Koizumi, who stepped down in September. Major General Zhang Qinsheng, assistant chief of general staff of the People's Liberation Army, paid a courtesy call on Defense Agency Director-General Fumio Kyuma. It was the first meeting between a top Chinese defense official and a Japanese defense chief since September 2003. Zhang also held working-level talks with his counterpart Takemasa Moriya, a Japanese defense official said. The two shared their concerns over North Korea's missile and nuclear tests as a threat to the region, said the official, who attended the working-level meeting. They also agreed to increase bilateral defense exchanges, to work toward building a Sino-Japan defense hotline and to achieve exchange visits by warships of the two nations, the official said. "The meeting was honest, friendly and proactive in nature," Zhang said at the end of the talks, according to the Japanese official. "It also looked to long-term issues and the meeting was strategic," Zhang said. "After Prime Minister (Shinzo) Abe took office in Japan, our relationship has improved," Zhang was quoted as saying. Zhang, who arrived in Japan on Tuesday, will on Thursday visit a military school for cadets in Shizuoka prefecture west of Tokyo. Military issues have been at the center of friction between the Asian powers. Japan, along with the United States, has called for more transparency in China's rapidly growing military spending and opposed proposals for European Union countries to sell weapons to Beijing. China is considered the country with the most influence over North Korea, whose own military build-up has caused deep concern in Japan. North Korea on October 9 tested its first nuclear bomb. In 1998, it fired a missile over Japan's main island. The Japan-China relations have begun to improve, following Abe's visit to Beijing in October shortly after taking office in a bid to ease tension built up during Koizumi's five-year tenure. After the latest round of working-level talks, Japanese officials said they still hoped their Chinese counterparts would improve the transparency of Chinese defense spending. "But we have seen progress forward," a Japanese official said. Koizumi angered China and the two Koreas by going each year to Tokyo's Yasukuni shrine, which honors war dead and war criminals from Japan's militarist era. "After the Japan-China summit in Beijing, many things have begun to move. It is most welcoming," said Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuhisa Shiozaki. "It is extremely important that Japan and China make exchanges at all levels to communicate with each other," he said. -------- korea US, Korea Meetings Fail To Yield Results As China, Japan Discuss Defense by Dan Martin Beijing (AFP) Nov 29, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/reports/US_Korea_Meetings_Fail_To_Yield_Results_As_China_Japan_Discuss_Defense_999.html US and North Korean envoys wrapped up two days of tough negotiations Wednesday over when to resume six-nation talks on Pyongyang's nuclear program, but failed to reach agreement on a restart date.The US embassy said in a statement late Wednesday that North Korea had agreed to study its proposal regarding the resumption of the stalled talks, but stopped short of giving specifics. "The United States shared ideas that could help ensure progress when the six-party talks resume. The DPRK promised to study these ideas," the embassy statement said, referring to the official name of North Korea. US Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, Washington's pointman on North Korea, met with his North Korean and Chinese counterparts during the two-day talks and no further meetings were expected before he leaves Thursday, according to the US embassy. Hill also had separate meetings with the heads of the Japanese and South Korean delegations during his trip, it said. The discussions were held to ensure the six-party talks produce "concrete results", the US statement said. Hill would go to Washington or Tokyo Thursday, but had not yet finalized his plans, a US embassy spokeswoman said. A Chinese foreign ministry statement said the two sides and their Chinese hosts agreed in Beijing to resume the six-nation talks "as soon as possible", but made no mention of a specific date. "The three sides agreed to strive to convene the next round of six-party talks at an early date and to achieve positive progress," said the statement. The six-party talks -- which involve China, the two Koreas, the United States, Japan, and Russia -- began in 2003 but have been stalled for the past year over North Korean objections to US financial sanctions. Asked at the beginning of the day Wednesday if he was optimistic progress would be made in Beijing, Hill told reporters: "Oh, I don't know. I have no idea. "But what I do know is the first round of talks will need to make progress and that's what I'm working on," he added, in comments broadcast on Japanese television. The new focus on restarting the process also drew Japanese and South Korean envoys to a flurry of diplomatic meetings this week in China, which has played host to the six-party forum. Hill said earlier he hoped this week's discussions would lead to a resumption of full-fledged nuclear negotiations in mid-December. This week's meetings between Hill and the North's Kim Kye-Gwan were their first since secret talks in Beijing on October 31 that also included China's top negotiator, Wu Dawei. Following those meetings, North Korea agreed to rejoin the negotiations in principle, but no date was set. The resumption of full talks took on a new urgency after Pyongyang's first ever nuclear weapons test on October 9, which triggered United Nations sanctions. Washington has insisted it would not resume the multilateral negotiations without assurances they would not be used as a stalling tactic while North Korea pursued its nuclear arms ambitions. A US State Department spokesman said Tuesday this week's meetings were focusing on what would be expected from North Korea in terms of beginning its denuclearization, and what the other five parties could offer in return. Kim indicated to reporters on his arrival Tuesday in Beijing that Pyongyang expected to re-enter the multi-party talks with the added leverage of being a nuclear power, a position the US has rejected. "We have taken defensive measures against sanctions imposed on us, through the nuclear experiment," Kim told reporters, referring to the test. "As we have attained that position, we can now have discussions on an equal level. US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack Tuesday again brushed aside the North Korean position. "The whole aim of these talks is to have a denuclearized Korean peninsula," he said. File photo: US Envoy Christopher Hill with China's Vice Foreign Minister Wu Dawei. Photo courtesy of AFP. ---- US Pointman On North Korea To Head To Japan Washington (AFP) Nov 29, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/reports/US_Korea_Meetings_Fail_To_Yield_Results_As_China_Japan_Discuss_Defense_999.html The US pointman on North Korea will head to Japan after holding talks in Beijing aimed at reviving six-nation talks on Pyongyang's nuclear weapons program, a US spokesman said Wednesday. Christopher Hill, the assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs, wrapped up two days of negotiations with a North Korean envoy in Beijing on Wednesday over when to resume the talks but failed to reach agreement on a restart date. "He (Hill) will be stopping in Tokyo en route to Washington and will meet with Japanese officials there," said State Department spokesman Tom Casey, adding that Hill was expected back in the US on Thursday. Although the Beijing meeting failed to yield a date, the United States still hopes the six-party talks with China, Japan, Russia, South Korea and North Korea will resume in mid-December, Casey said. "As you know, there's no date as of yet for them, but certainly we hope that that next round can take place as soon as possible," the US spokesman said. Casey also did not rule out suspending UN sanctions on North Korea when talks aimed at ending its nuclear weapons program resume. The UN Security Council imposed the sanctions after North Korea tested a nuclear bomb for the first time on October 9. Asked if Washington would stop enforcing the resolution if Pyongyang returned to the negotiating table, Casey said UN members were currently obliged to comply with the sanctions. "At the moment, that's where we are. If circumstances change, then we'll see what happens," he said. -------- pakistan Pakistan test fires nuclear-capable missile ISLAMABAD (AFP) Nov 29, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/2006/061129070550.gq4c2x4i.html Pakistan test launched a nuclear-capable medium range missile on Wednesday, two days after South Asian rival India conducted its first trial of a new ballistic intercept system. The Pakistani Hatf 4 or Shaheen-1 missile -- Shaheen means "eagle" in Urdu -- has a range of 700 kilometers (437 miles) meaning it can hit targets deep inside neighbouring India. "Pakistani troops today conducted a successful launch of the medium range Hatf 4 or Shaheen-1 missile," the military said in a statement. The test came as part of a continuing exercise by Pakistan's Army Strategic Force Command. On November 16 Pakistan test fired a Ghauri missile with a longer range of 1,300 kilometers (812 miles) away. "The event marked the culmination phase of the training exercise and validated the operational readiness of the strategic missile group equipped with Shaheen-1 Missiles," the statement said. Pakistan's Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Ehsan Ul Haq witnessed the launch exercise at an undisclosed location. He hailed "the high standards achieved during training which was reflected in the successful launch and the accuracy of the missile in reaching the target," the statement said. "Pakistan can be justifiably proud of its defence capability and the reliability of its nuclear deterrence," he added. Neighbouring India announced on Monday that its first test of a missile designed to intercept other missiles had been a success. The test saw a surface-to-surface Prithvi-II (earth) missile, which has a range up to 250 kilometers (156 miles), shot down over the Bay of Bengal by a similar missile fired seconds later. Regional rivals Pakistan and India have routinely conducted missile tests since carrying out tit-for-tat nuclear detonations in May 1998, alarming the world. Top Indian and Pakistani diplomats at a meeting in New Delhi this month agreed to create a panel to share intelligence on terrorism and move to cut the risk of nuclear weapon "accidents". The talks rekindled a peace process put on hold since July's Mumbai train bombings, in which 189 people died. Indian officials said Pakistan's spy agency was linked to the blasts, a claim Pakistan denied. They also agreed on the "early signing" of an agreement to reduce the risk of "accidents relating to nuclear weapons", without giving a specific time frame. The two sides are to meet next in Islamabad in February. The rival neighbours have fought three wars since independence from Britain in 1947, two of them over the disputed Himalayan territory of Kashmir, which is divided between the two and claimed by both in its entirety. -------- russia 'Poisoned' spy case: eight tested, claims of nuclear smuggling LONDON (AFP) Nov 29, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/2006/061129083410.h0kpfrg0.html Eight people have been tested for possible radiation exposure after the poisoning death of Alexander Litvinenko, amid claims Wednesday that the former Russian spy once smuggled nuclear material. Litvinenko told the Italian academic Mario Scaramella, whom he met on the day he fell ill, that he had masterminded the transfer of radioactive material to Zurich in 2000 for his former Kremlin paymasters, The Independent said. The operation would have been one of the last Litvinenko carried out while still an officer for Russia's Federal Security Services (FSB), the successor to the KGB, before his flight to Britain later that year, the newspaper added. Scaramella's claims come as the co-author of Litvinenko's critical book "Blowing Up Russia: Terror From Within" alleged his friend had suspicions that the Italian had a hand in poisoning him. "When I talked to Alexander around 12 November about who poisoned him, we were talking only about the Italian guy Mario," Yuri Felshtinsky was quoted as saying by The Sun tabloid. "He was sure at this time it was Mario. He was telling me that he was in a scheme." Scaramella, who has said his meeting with Litvinenko concerned an alleged FSB "hit list" on which both their names figured, has denied any involvement in the apparent poisoning. Meanwhile, Scaramella was one of eight people sent for precautionary tests after large quantities of radioactive polonium 210 were found in Litvinenko's urine. He was under police guard at a safe house somewhere in London after flying in from Rome but has vowed to do all he can to help detectives get to the bottom of the mystery. Public health officials said Tuesday that 1,121 calls were received to a special hotline in the 48 horus to midnight Monday. Of those, 68 were deemed worthy of further investigation and eight referred for testing. But the Health Protection Agency (HPA) maintains that the risk to the wider public "remains low". The Metropolitan Police confirmed late Tuesday that a five-star London hotel and an office building in the upmarket Mayfair district of the British capital were the latest addresses to be examined as part of the investigation. Polonium 210 had not been found at the Sheraton Park Lane Hotel in Piccadilly and the office building in Grosvenor Street, Mayfair. But traces of the highly toxic substance had been found at two separate addresses nearby, one belonging to the exiled Russian billionaire Boris Berezovsky and the other to a security firm visited by Litvinenko. The substance has also been detected at the central London sushi bar where Litvinenko met Scaramella on November 1, a hotel where the Russian dissident met two contacts for tea on the same day and his north London home. Berezovsky -- whom Litvinenko alleged was a Russian intelligence target because of his criticism of the Kremlin -- said he was "deeply saddened" at his death.. "I credit him with saving my life and he remained a close friend and ally ever since," he said. "I will remember him for his bravery, his determination and his honour." Russia has repeatedly denied any involvement in Litvinenko's death. Its prosecutor general's office has vowed to assist the inquiry but as of Tuesday said had not received a formal request. ---- 'Russia Must Remain A Major Nuclear Power' In effect, this treaty merely reduces the combat readiness of strategic offensive arms and does not provide for disarmament or arms control measures. by Sergei Kortunov Moscow, Russia (RIA Novosti) Nov 29, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russia_Must_Remain_A_Major_Nuclear_Power_999.html An all-out war or armed conflict between the great powers no longer seems possible. However, the five official nuclear powers are in no hurry to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in their policy, a fact attested to by the US's new nuclear doctrine, loose rules of engagement for using nuclear weapons in the event of a crisis and greater regional tensions. Russia therefore has no choice but to remain a major nuclear power in the foreseeable future. It is our opinion that, depending on the global military-political situation, by 2012 Russia's strategic nuclear forces should have - about 600 ground-based intercontinental ballistic missiles; - ten to 12 SSBNs (ballistic missile submarines); - 50 strategic bombers for carrying nuclear and conventional weapons; - 1,000 to 1,200 nuclear warheads on ICBMs and SLBMs (submarine launched ballistic missiles). Moscow would therefore be able to maintain its special strategic relationship with the United States and preserve its global political role. Russia and the United States have managed to conclude the legally binding Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions stipulating a ceiling of 1,700-2,200 warheads in the next decade. But the Russian side had initially insisted on a more comprehensive treaty that would call for irreversible and controlled strategic arms reductions. Moreover, Washington has refused to formalize its assurances that the National Missile Defense (NMD) system will only be able to intercept several dozen warheads. Consequently, the Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions does not stipulate irreversible and controlled reductions; nor does it place any limitations on the potential of ABM (Anti-Ballistic Missile) systems. In effect, this treaty merely reduces the combat readiness of strategic offensive arms and does not provide for disarmament or arms control measures. The United States will not scrap any strategic delivery vehicles or their warheads, meaning that Washington can beef up its strategic forces anytime. But Russia has to spend a lot on scrapping its aging strategic offensive arms because of their specific features, as well as the lack of co-production arrangements between post-Soviet republics and some other factors. Moscow, which has no alternative but to fulfill the Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions, must also modify its nuclear policy. We must face the facts: the United States will create the NMD system in the near future and completely dominate the world unless Russia's nuclear policy adapts to the above-mentioned priorities. If possible, Moscow should continue to negotiate with Washington and suggest a joint search for ways of minimizing risks that stem from the current mutual nuclear deterrence situation. However, given the current attitude of the Bush Administration towards bilateral and multilateral strategic offensive arms control, such agreements seem unlikely. Under these circumstances, we should study the possibility of resuming work on weapons and systems that can effectively breach or neutralize the US ABM system. In his state of the nation address, Russian President Vladimir Putin said "work is already under way on creating ... maneuverable combat units that will have an unpredictable flight trajectory for the potential opponent." But this is not enough, because such weapons were contemplated during the Soviet period. Experts believe the cheapest option is to implement a set of active and passive measures for protecting Russia's strategic nuclear forces. The most likely scenario involves parallel unilateral reductions in both the US's and Russia's nuclear arsenals without any mutual agreement or prior consultations. These cuts will depend on technical and economic expediency factors. Such a situation would mean the end of arms control as we know it, and politicians, diplomats, military leaders and the general public might find it disorienting. Sergei Kortunov is Chairman of the Foreign Policy Planning Committee The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and may not necessarily represent the opinions of the editorial board. Source: RIA Novosti http://en.rian.ru/ ---- Russia -- the usual suspected assassin Kremlin denies links to unsolved murders Anna Badkhen, San Francisco Chronicle Staff Writer Wednesday, November 29, 2006 http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/11/29/MNG86MLSL71.DTL It could be a Cold War thriller. A former KGB agent is killed by poisoning. The men behind the Kremlin walls are assumed to be at fault. Official denials are met with knowing shrugs. Whether the Russian government is really behind the death of former KGB officer Alexander Litvinenko, 21st century Russia still looks like the kind of country that would assassinate its adversaries James Bond-style by slipping radioactive polonium-210 into their sushi. After all, a former KGB spy holds the nation's highest office. Former intelligence operatives are senior Cabinet members. The state controls virtually every media outlet. Many who, like Litvinenko, dare to criticize the government are intimidated, imprisoned or exiled. Some are murdered, their cases unsolved. The Kremlin obstructs the work of international civil liberties watchdogs and silences domestic adversaries who criticize human rights abuses, particularly in the war-torn republic of Chechnya. Given this record, it is not surprising that many people have been quick to pin the blame on the Kremlin, even though the Kremlin's many accusers have offered no evidence of its guilt, said Sarah Mendelson, an expert on Russia at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "One could imagine that somebody in the Russian state went after him," said Mendelson of Litvinenko, who had made some particularly damaging assertions about Russia's war in the breakaway Chechen republic. "We know that people have been silenced or disappeared in relation to Chechnya." In his book, "Blowing Up Russia: Terror From Within," Litvinenko wrote that Russian President Vladimir Putin and the KGB's successor, the FSB, had orchestrated the 1999 apartment bombings that killed nearly 300 people across Russia, paving the way for the redeployment of Russian troops to Chechnya and for Putin's ascent to the presidency. The government insisted the bombing was the work of Chechen separatists. Several other Russians who investigated the 1999 bombings also have been killed, their murders so far unsolved. Legislator Sergei Yushenkov, who had set up an independent panel to investigate the bombings, was shot and killed in 2003. Later that year, another legislator and member of the panel, Yuri Shchekochikhin died in a Moscow hospital after contracting an illness that has yet to be explained. Shchekochikhin also was a high-ranking editor of the newspaper Novaya Gazeta, one of the few remaining forums for dissenters in Russia. Last month, Anna Politkovskaya, a famed Novaya Gazeta journalist who had criticized Putin and the war in Chechnya and was investigating government corruption, was shot to death in Moscow. At the time of his poisoning, Litvinenko was investigating Politkovskaya's slaying. On his deathbed, in a London hospital, he blamed Putin for killing him. The Kremlin dismissed the allegations as "sheer nonsense." "This chain of events plays right into the hands of those who would wish to compromise Russia in the world arena," wrote the pro-Kremlin daily Komsomolskaya Pravda. Aware of its increasingly poor image abroad, Russia has embarked on an ambitious public relations campaign to counter what it says is anti-Russian bias in the West. Last December, it launched "Russia Today," a 24-hour, English-language satellite television news channel beaming news bulletins with a pro-Kremlin slant and feel-good features about Russian culture to Asia, Europe and North America on a $40 million annual budget. "There's a real 'besieged fortress' mentality, and it seems to prevail among those who are sitting in the Kremlin, about real and perceived enemies beyond the Kremlin walls," said Andrew Kuchins, an expert on Russia at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington. In a report released last week, the United Nations' Committee Against Torture accused Russia of torturing detainees, charged that people continued to disappear in Chechnya and urged Russia to address numerous reports of hazing in the military and the harassment and killing of rights activists. The Litvinenko affair is not the first time Russia has been accused of assassination attempts beyond its borders. Decades ago, the Kremlin was blamed for the London assassination of Georgi Markov, a Bulgarian dissident who was killed in 1978 by a dart fired from an umbrella tip and bearing the toxin ricin. His killing remains unsolved. Earlier this year, an Italian parliamentary commission accused Soviet leaders of being involved in the failed plot to kill Pope John Paul II in 1981. In 2004, a car bomb killed Zelimkhan Yandarbiyev, former Chechen separatist president, in Qatar. Two Russian FSB agents were arrested and convicted in Qatar but later were released after intense diplomatic pressure from Russia. Later that year, pro-Western Ukrainian presidential candidate Viktor Yushchenko was hospitalized with dioxin poisoning, which disfigured his face and nearly killed him. Many fingers pointed at the Kremlin, which had strongly supported Yushchenko's opponent, Viktor Yanukovych (who is now Ukraine's prime minister). Fifteen years after the Soviet Union collapsed, Russia behaves as though it still calls the shots in the former Soviet republics. This fall, Russia severed diplomatic ties and transport links with Georgia and deported hundreds of Georgians when the former Soviet republic, which is looking to join NATO, expelled four Russians it accused of spying in September. Earlier this year, the Kremlin looked set to cut off natural gas supplies to Ukraine over a pricing dispute before howls of protest from other European countries forced it to back down. And, as if nothing had changed in the past 15 years, Sergei Ivanov, Russia's defense minister and a former KGB agent, said in an interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel that "we border ... Afghanistan and Iran." Neither of these countries borders Russia, but they do border independent countries that once were part of the Soviet Union. "It may seem like a trivial thing, but it isn't," said David Satter, a Russia expert affiliated with the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and a vocal critic of Putin. "It's part of a psychology that has to be dealt with. This kind of imperial thinking for a country like Russia is just absolutely self-destructive because it eliminates the possibility of a more healthy development." Satter suggested that the United States could pressure other members of the Group of Eight industrialized nations to expel Russia, which holds the G-8 presidency this year. The G-8 membership is important for Putin, who wants Russia to recover the Soviet Union's status of a global superpower. "They can make clear their disapproval. They can hold Russia accountable," Satter said. On Tuesday, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said he would speak to Putin about the Litvinenko case "at any time that is appropriate." "The police investigation will proceed, and I think people should know that there is no diplomatic or political barrier in the way of that investigation," Blair said. Anatol Lieven, an expert on Russia at the New America Foundation in Washington, said Britain could put additional pressure on Russia by downgrading its trade and economic links with Russia or even boycotting international events in which Russia is a participant. "Putin did not go through all the effort to be the president of the G-8, he did not turn it into a propaganda campaign to have his appearances in the international stage be downgraded by having Britain refusing to turn up," Lieven said. "It could have an effect in stopping them from assassinating critics in the West." But he said, "I don't think it will have any wider effect." Lieven, like many other experts, conceded that Europe is increasingly dependent on Russia's gas and oil, and the United States needs Russia as an ally on critical issues, including Iran, North Korea, and global terror. Such considerations outweigh efforts to persuade Russia to become less like its Soviet predecessor, said Clifford Gaddy, an expert on Russia at the Brookings Institution. "We have very little leverage," Gaddy said. "If anyone has any leverage, it's the Russians." E-mail Anna Badkhen at abadkhen@sfchronicle.com. ---- Russia Scraps 145 Out Of 197 Decommissioned Nuclear Submarines RIA Novosti Nov 29, 2006 http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/navy/Russia_Decommissioned_Nuclear_Submarines12009218.php Moscow, Russia: Russia has dismantled 145 out of 197 decommissioned Soviet-era nuclear submarines, the head of the Federal Agency for Nuclear Power said Tuesday. Russia has signed cooperation agreements on the disposal of decommissioned nuclear submarines with the United States, Britain, Canada, Japan, Italy and Norway. The disposal program will cost an overall $2 billion, toward which Russia had allocated $850 million as of 2005. "We have a joint nuclear submarine dismantlement program that involves a number of countries, including EU members," Sergei Kiriyenko said. "Out of 195 nuclear submarines decommissioned from the Russian Navy, we have dismantled 145." "The disposal of another 17 is under way, and we are preparing to scrap 32 more in the future," he said. During the dismantling process, spent nuclear fuel is removed from the submarine's reactors and sent to storage, the hull is cut into three sections, and the bow and stern are removed and destroyed. The reactor section is sealed and transferred to storage. "We will scrap all decommissioned nuclear submarines by 2010," the nuclear chief said. -------- u.s. nuc facilities -------- idaho DOE shuts down Idaho nuclear waste shipments to WIPP Nov 29, 2006 (AP) http://www.magicvalley.com/news_other/news_idaho/?storyid=/dynamic/stories/N/NM_WIPP_SHIPMENTS_IDOL- CARLSBAD, N.M. -- The U.S. Department of Energy has halted some radioactive shipments to its underground nuclear waste dump near Carlsbad after liquid was found in a drum of what was supposed to be dry waste. The DOE on Sunday shut down shipments from the Idaho National Laboratory, which is trying to send 23,000 drums of waste to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. The DOE's Carlsbad office gave officials in Idaho until Dec. 27 to report how the mistake occurred and how it will be fixed. The problem was discovered while waste drums were being prepared for shipment from Idaho to Carlsbad. WIPP is not allowed to accept any liquid waste because of the risks of leaks or potentially explosive materials. The drum in question had been cleared to be shipped after an X-ray showed it was liquid-free. The liquid was spotted after workers double-checked the X-ray under a new confirmation procedure the state of New Mexico required beginning Nov. 16, said Kerry Watson, manager of the DOE's WIPP office. State Environment Secretary Ron Curry said he was pleased the procedure worked as it was supposed to. But Jeremy Maxand, executive director of the Boise-based INL watchdog group Snake River Alliance, said it was concerned that the problem drum went all the way through the inspection process before it was caught by double-checking the X-rays. "That the drum wasn't stopped until it was halfway out the door is a red flag for us," he said. Before the double-check confirmation process went into effect, 2,904 similar drums of waste were sent to WIPP, which opened in March 1999. The repository buries plutonium-contaminated waste from the nation's defense industry more than 2,100 feet underground in ancient salt beds. Watson said he's confident no other liquids inadvertently made it through before workers began double-checking X-rays of shipments. "This just appears to be an isolated occurrence," Watson said Tuesday. However, Don Hancock of the Southwest Research and Information Center in Albuquerque said, "They're going to have to provide more information than just saying, 'We don't think there's a problem.'" The drums originally came from the Rocky Flats plant near Denver and were sent to the Idaho National Laboratory for storage. INL is now shipping the waste out of Idaho to WIPP under a 1995 agreement with the state of Idaho that the DOE unsuccessfully challenged in federal court earlier this year. The Bush administration has appealed. -------- kentucky Paducah Plant Clears 1st Hurdle to Major Jobs/Building Project Wednesday, November 29, 2006 http://www.wpsdtv.com/articles/stories/public/200611/29/MMhh_local_news.html WASHINGTON, DC – The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today announced that the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, and Paducah Uranium Plant Asset Utilization Inc. are among 11 commercial and public consortia been selected to receive grants to conduct detailed siting studies for a proposed nuclear spent fuel recycling facility. Members of the Paducah Uranium Plant Asset Utilization Task Force submitted an application asking for $1.5 million to $2 million. The exact amount awarded today will be negotiated with the individual sites and the amoount of money coming to Paducah was not announced today. The next step for Paducah will be a 90-day siting studies. The initial schedule called for a host site to be picked next June. The task force wants DOE to build the $12-16 Million dollar recycling plant — on 500 acres near the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant. The center will cut up nuclear fuel rods and chemically treat 2,000 to 3,000 metric tons of spent fuel annually, starting in 2020. The plant will create 5,000 construction jobs and employ 1,000. A second project, which could be added to Paducah is a 500- to 2,000-megawatt advanced burner reactor to further break down the more highly radioactive components of the spent fuel. The burner reactor may or may not be built at the same site as the fuel-treatment center. “As our economy grows so will the need for reliable, emissions-free energy generation. Nuclear energy can help meet that need and GNEP can do it in a way that maximizes the benefit of nuclear fuel while minimizing the risk of nuclear proliferation,” DOE Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Dennis Spurgeon said. Of the 11 sites located throughout the country, six are currently owned and operated by DOE. The study sites and sponsors are: 1. Atomic City, ID EnergySolutions, LLC 2. Barnwell, SC EnergySolutions, LLC 3. Hanford Site, WA Columbia Basin Tri-City Industrial Development Council 4. Hobbs, NM Eddy Lea Energy Alliance 5. Idaho National Laboratory, ID Regional Development Alliance, Inc. 6. Morris, IL General Electric Company 7. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, TN Community Reuse Organization of East Tennessee 8. Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, KY Paducah Uranium Plant Asset Utilization, Inc. 9. Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, OH Piketon Initiative for Nuclear Independence, LLC 10. Roswell, NM EnergySolutions, LLC 11. Savannah River National Laboratory, SC Economic Development Partnership of Aiken and Edgefield Counties The development and deployment of advanced nuclear fuel recycling facilities is a major element of GNEP, part of President Bush’s Advanced Energy Initiative. In general, these technologies focus on separating commercial light water reactor Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) into its usable and waste components, fabricating and recycling fast reactor fuel containing transuranic elements from the usable components of SNF, and converting those transuranics into shorter-lived radioisotopes while producing electricity in an advanced recycling reactor. -------- new york Nuke plant to shut down for repairs - again By GREG CLARY THE JOURNAL NEWS READ MORE ABOUT THIS TOPIC (Original publication: November 29, 2006) http://www.nyjournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061129/UPDATE/611290434 BUCHANAN - Indian Point 2 is scheduled to shut down after midnight tonight to allow workers to repair a 1-inch steel alloy pipe that is leaking non-radiated water in the containment building that houses the nuclear reactor. It's the second shutdown of Indian Point 2 this month. "It's a straight-forward shutdown that should enable us to handle the repair without much difficulty and return the plant to service by the end of the week," said Jim Steets, a spokesman for Nuclear Entergy Northeast, which operates the plant. "These are parts that have to be replaced periodically. It's a relatively insignificant piece other than the fact that it requires a shutdown to repair." On Nov. 16, the plant had to shut its 1,000-megawatt production down when a low-voltage electrical conductor malfunctioned, automatically stopping the nuclear plant's huge generator. Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials said their resident engineers are aware of the problem and monitoring the repair. "At 0.4 gallons/minute, it's not that much of a leak," said NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan. The safety significance of the leak is very small. The repairs are complicated by it being inside the containment building." NRC and company officials said local officials have been notified and there is no threat to public or workers health. -------- washington DOE selects Hanford among 11 possible fuel recycling sites Nov 29, 2006 By SHANNON DININNY Associated Press Writer http://www.columbian.com/news/APStories/AP11292006news80594.cfm YAKIMA, Wash. (AP) -- Eleven sites, including south-central Washington's Hanford nuclear reservation, have been selected as possible sites to reprocess spent nuclear fuel, the Department of Energy announced Wednesday. The announcement is part of the Energy Department's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, which the Bush administration has been touting as a means to control nuclear waste amid increasing reliance on nuclear power internationally. The 11 sites can receive up to $16 million in grants next year to begin site studies for facilities that would reprocess spent nuclear fuel. "As our economy grows, so will the need for reliable, emissions-free energy generation. Nuclear energy can help meet that need and GNEP can do it in a way that maximizes the benefit of nuclear fuel while minimizing the risk of nuclear proliferation," Dennis Spurgeon, Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy, said in a statement. Spurgeon also said the department was pleased so many communities across the country were interested in hosting facilities. Two proposals were submitted from Richland, Wash., where the Energy Department has been working to rid the highly contaminated Hanford nuclear reservation of toxic and radioactive waste left from Cold War-era plutonium production for the nation's nuclear weapons arsenal. The two proposals were consolidated. Also selected for consideration: Idaho National Laboratory; Atomic City, Idaho; Savannah River National Laboratory, S.C.; Barnwell, S.C.; Hobbs, N.M.; Roswell, N.M.; Morris, Ill.; Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Tenn.; Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Ky.; Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Ohio. -------- us nuc waste DOE seeks land for Yucca Mountain railroad studies November 29, 2006 Associated Press Source: United Transportation Union http://www.utu.org/worksite/detail_news.cfm?ArticleID=31955 The Department of Energy wants access to 208,000 acres of public land for studies of two possible rail routes to the proposed nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain, according to the Associated Press. DOE officials have filed an application with the Bureau of Land Management to withdraw 139,391 acres of land in a mile-wide corridor running 130 miles from Hawthorne to Goldfield, the so-called Mina route. It also has asked permission to withdraw an additional 68,646 acres of public land along portions of the Caliente route, BLM spokesman Doran Sanchez said Monday. The land withdrawals would allow the department to move forward with environmental studies of the rail routes to the proposed nuclear repository 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The Mina corridor has gained favor among some government officials as possibly a less expensive and less complicated than a $2 billion rail line that would run from Caliente in eastern Nevada. But critics say the Mina corridor could expose more communities, including downtown Reno, to nuclear waste shipments. Sanchez said Interior Department officials in Washington were reviewing the DOE application for the two land transactions, which was filed on Oct. 17 and seeks reserved use status of the land until Dec. 27, 2015. The withdrawals would prevent any new mining claims to be filed, and forbid the government from selling or trading any of the land, Sanchez said. Grazing and other public access would not be restricted, he said. But one Yucca Mountain critic said the latest application coupled with earlier land withdrawals means DOE is reserving use of more than 500,000 acres of government-managed property in the state for railroad studies. "You have guys tying up as much as half a million acres of public land in Nevada for them to make their minds up what they want to do," said Bob Loux, executive director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects. A public hearing on the application will be held but has not yet been scheduled, Sanchez said. -------- MILITARY -------- arms Arms accord a strong start for Nepal's peace process by Sam Taylor Wed Nov 29, 2006 (AFP) http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061129/wl_sthasia_afp/nepalpeacepoliticsun_061129081059 KATHMANDU - Nepal's "new era" of peace is off to a strong start with the central government and Maoists signing an additional accord mandating UN monitoring of the rebel army, officials and analysts said. The issue of "arms management" was one of the toughest in the peace process, which crossed a landmark last week with the two sides signing a deal designed to bring the rebels out of the hills and jungles and into the mainstream. On Tuesday they signed another pact calling on the United Nations to monitor a rebel pledge to confine their fighters to camps in seven areas of the country and lock up their weapons -- albeit whilst retaining the keys. "It sends a very positive signal about the momentum of the peace process in Nepal," said Ian Martin, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's personal representative to Nepal's peace process. Local analysts agreed the signs were that the Maoists, whose decade-old "people's war" has led to at least 12,500 deaths in the impoverished Himalayan nation, were serious about peace. "The Maoists' promise to lock up weapons under UN monitoring will be a relief for thousands of Nepalis who have been living under a constant fear of guns and violence," Indrajit Rai, a conflict expert who teaches military science at Nepal's army college, told AFP. The former insurgents control large swathes of the countryside and claim to have 35,000 fighters, but other estimates put their numbers at closer to 12,000. In recent weeks they have faced fresh accusations of forcibly recruiting new cadres to swell their numbers. "The deal is another significant step in ending the armed conflict. Now there is a strong indication that the former rebels will not use weapons again for political purposes," Rai said. A government negotiator echoed that view, saying the Maoists were firmly on track for a place in a new interim government and seats in parliament. "By agreeing on the monitoring of arms and armies, we (the government and the Maoists) have moved a step forward in making the ongoing peace process successful," Minister for Culture and Tourism Pradeep Gyawali told AFP. "Now a door has been opened for the Maoists to join the interim government." So far, so good -- although observers still caution there are plenty of hurdles ahead. "It's crucial in that technically you had to have this (arms) accord to make the peace deal work, but it does not address certain political questions," said Rhoderick Chalmers, deputy South Asia project director with the International Crisis Group. The rebels have long said they eventually wanted to merge their People's Liberation Army with the 90,000-strong Nepal army, but the arms accord addresses this issue vaguely, Chalmers said. "The merging (of the rebel army and the Nepal Army) is a very big political question. Once you have these guys in their cantonments it would be more comforting if their longer-term future could be worked out," he said. Under the peace deal signed last week, the Maoists would take 73 seats in a 330-seat interim parliament that would pave the way for fresh elections next year to a constituent assembly that would rewrite the constitution and decide the fate of the 238-year-old monarchy. The Maoists and an alliance of seven political parties led mass protests in April that forced King Gyanendra to abandon 14 months of absolute rule he said was needed to crush the Maoist rebellion. After the king stepped down, the two sides quickly agreed to a ceasefire and the parties formed a government that stripped the king of most powers, including control of the army, paving the way for the peace deal to be signed last week. ---- Arms Trade Treaty: Let the U.S. Opt Out for Now Scott Stedjan | November 29, 2006 Foreign Policy In Focus http://fpif.org/fpiftxt/3735 The global market and technological advancements have the ability to transform the world with remarkable speed. Not many would be surprised to hear that the computer I am using to write this article may be comprised of components from at least 10 different countries. The monitor may come from Singapore, the processor from Israel, the software designed in India, and all assembled in Tennessee. We are becoming so accustomed to this phenomenon, that we don't even blink an eye. While the globalized production of widely available computers may change people's lives for the better, it is not so with all commodities. In no other industry are the effects of globalization as potentially dangerous as in the global arms trade. Weapons, and the capability to produce weapons, are proliferating at an alarming rate. According to the Congressional Research Service, the value of all arms transfer agreements worldwide in 2005 was approaching $45 billion, with the sales to the developing world accounting for two thirds of that total. At the same time, many new countries are joining the arms exporting club. The number of arms companies in the top 100 based in countries not previously considered as major exporters has more than doubled since 1990. These emerging exporters include Israel (with four companies in the top 100), India (three companies), South Korea (three companies), and one each in Brazil, Singapore and South Africa.1 The proliferation of exporting nations both increases the likelihood of weapons flowing to places banned from receiving weapons from traditional exporters and provides arms smugglers with more locations to obtain illicit weapons. The resulting widespread availability of weapons often serves as a catalyst for violent conflict and contributes to countless violations of human rights and international humanitarian law. Something must be done to control this scourge of globalization. While technology spreads very quickly, the development of international law and norms moves at a glacial pace. After years of discussion, governments are finally beginning to take action on controlling the global arms trade. Thanks to the work of thousands of activists around the world, the idea of an Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) is gaining momentum in capitals and within the United Nations. The Need for Global Controls Though almost all arms-exporting states have at least some guidelines intended to control international arms transfers, many countries continue to give priority to profits in the lucrative weapons market over respect for human rights and human security. A buyer who is barred from purchasing weapons under the law of one country can just go to one of the many other countries who produce weapons and exploit lower export control standards. The clearest example of this is the government of Sudan, which is ineligible to buy weapons from the EU or the United States due to its support of terrorism and dismal human rights record, but can go to Belarus or China and buy as many weapons as it desires. The devastating effects of this and similar practices are felt by millions not only in Darfur, but in countries throughout the world. In order to close this loop-hole and ensure that controls imposed by one state or region are not undermined by the lax controls of another, national and regional initiatives must be complemented by the development of global standards. Discussion on a possible treaty on arms transfers commenced over 10 years ago when a group of Nobel Laureates, led by Costa Rican President Oscar Arias, called for the development of an international code of conduct on arms transfers. After 10 years, the world is beginning to listen. On October 30, 2006, the First Committee of the United Nations General Assembly overwhelmingly voted to start a process toward an ATT. This landmark vote paves the way for a feasibility report by the Secretary General and the establishment of a Group of Governmental Experts to consider the scope and content of the Treaty. The vote passed by a margin of 139 to 1, with 24 abstentions. Given the Bush administration's aversion to global treaties of any sort, it is not surprising that the only vote in opposition to the resolution was the United States. The U.S. and the ATT In the long-run, an effective global treaty must have the support of all major arms exporters. However, unlike other analysts, I do not bemoan the decision of the Bush administration to oppose the development of an ATT. In the next year or two, important decisions on the substance of a treaty will be made. U.S. participation at this stage could prove disastrous, as the United States is currently proving that it is more concerned with counter-terrorism cooperation than with human rights. Since September 11, 2001, there have been major increases both in the amount of military aid the U.S. provides and in the number of its recipient countries. Following the attacks, arms exports and other types of military assistance became primary tools for securing the cooperation of other governments with the U.S. counter-terrorism agenda. Countries previously ineligible to receive U.S. weapons due to troubling records, on human rights nonproliferation, and democracy were identified as key allies in the "war on terror." Thus, the sanctions against arms transfers to countries such as Armenia, Azerbaijan, Pakistan, and Tajikistan were immediately lifted, allowing millions of dollars of weapons deals to go forward.2 The Bush administration is vehemently opposed to international norms limiting U.S. war-fighting capabilities, scorning them as "permission slip[s] to defend the American people." This being the case, I highly doubt that an arms trade treaty developed with the support of the U.S. would set high humanitarian standards. U.S. participation is likely to affect not only the substance of a treaty, but also its legitimacy. Given the history of the United States in this area, many countries will look at any treaty process supported by the U.S. as an effort to assert hegemony over the arms trade. Many states, mostly from the global South, feel that the current global arms control efforts discriminate against weaker states. The nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, for example, creates a two-class system where strong states are permitted to maintain nuclear arsenals while the rest of the world must not. Some states wonder whether an arms trade treaty would create another class system, in which strong states can develop and sell weapons to whomever they want, while discriminating against weaker states. With the U.S. opposing the treaty, it is more likely that many countries in the global South will support additional controls. The development of the Ottawa Mine Ban Treaty in the late 1990's suggests that creating a strong global treaty may be more important than reaching global consensus at its early stages. An effective ATT must include strong prohibitions against selling weapons to places where they are likely to be used to facilitate human rights abuse or violations of international humanitarian law. Since a negotiation and a vote on a treaty will not occur for at least 3 to 4 years, there is plenty of time for diplomatic and grassroots pressure to enable consensus on the treaty at a later date. If civil society can successfully convince policymakers in the U.S. that an Arms Trade Treaty will reduce global violence and instability, the U.S. will be able to join the efforts down the road. Clearly high hurdles remain. Powerful opponents with fat wallets will continue to oppose enhanced global controls over arms transfers. Underdeveloped countries looking to keep a strategic balance with their neighbors or quell internal opposition will continue to claim a blanket right of self-defense. Yet governments are beginning to listen to the voices of those victims of the unbridled weapons trade. With continued pressure from the millions of people who are fed up with the policy of governments putting profits before human security, an Arms Trade Treaty can be reality. Endnotes 1 "Arms Without Borders," Control Arms Campaign, October 2, 2006. 2 To see examples of the changes to U.S. arms export policy after September 11, 2001, go to: http://www.cdi.org/program/index.cfm?programid=73. Scott Stedjan is a Legislative Secretary for the Friends Committee on National Legislation focusing on conflict prevention and conventional weapons. As part of his work with FCNL, he sits on the global Arms Trade Treaty Steering Committee. -------- business Wars wearing down military gear at cost of about $2 billion a month Updated 11/29/2006 By Matt Kelley, USA TODAY http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-11-28-military-gear_x.htm WASHINGTON — About $2 billion worth of Army and Marine Corps equipment — from rifles to tanks — is wearing out or being destroyed every month in Iraq and Afghanistan, military leaders and outside experts say. That's equal to about a quarter of the $8 billion per month in military war costs. The wear and tear may lead to future equipment shortages and cutbacks in more advanced weapons, such as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter being developed with allies around the world and the Army's new, high-tech family of weapons and equipment, says William Cohen, secretary of Defense from 1997 to 2001. Pressure to keep spending under control can lead to cuts in both current maintenance and future weapons, Cohen says, but "the longer we defer on that, the more expensive it's going to be." The Pentagon needs $50 billion to $60 billion to re-equip and restore units returning from Iraq, says Leon Panetta, the former Clinton White House chief of staff and member of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. On Monday, the Pentagon said it had issued more than $1.7 billion in equipment repair and replacement contracts during November alone. This summer, the leaders of the Army and Marine Corps said their services rack up a combined $23 billion a year in repair costs. Army Gen. Peter Schoomaker and Marine Gen. James Conway told Congress that repair money comes only in special requests for war funding, not in annual budgets. That, they said, makes it hard to plan for future needs. "They've been falling badly behind," says Winslow Wheeler, a former congressional budget analyst now at the independent Center for Defense Information. The Pentagon is considering $127 billion to $160 billion in requests for war funding next year. Vehicles and other equipment are far more complex now than they were in previous conflicts such as Vietnam, making repairs and replacements even more expensive, Wheeler says. The Congressional Research Service says the entire Vietnam War cost an estimated $650 billion in today's money, while the global war on terrorism, including Iraq, has cost more than $500 billion so far. The Army and Marines have reported using about 40% of their ground combat equipment in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO). Units departing Iraq leave much of their heavy equipment behind, which further delays major maintenance and leaves holes in training for future missions, the report says. A separate GAO report this month urged the incoming Democratic-controlled Congress to investigate the Pentagon's planning for repair, maintenance and replacement of war equipment. If the United States entered another war, "it would be difficult for us to accomplish anything," says retired lieutenant general Donald Kerrick, who served on the National Security Council under presidents Clinton and Bush. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has acknowledged the problem and said he is working with the White House to get more money for repairs. "I think we have some reasonable understandings about the coming year and the importance of not having a two- or three-year lag," Rumsfeld said last month. • Charities such as Bake Sales for Body Armor, Soldiers' Angels and Operation Helmet, a favorite of singer Cher, have sprung up to provide some gear, though not heavy equipment. VEHICLE CONTRACTS Among the largest awarded by the Pentagon this month: • $1.2 billion to BAE Systems to rebuild Bradley armored vehicles, and for spare parts. • $380 million to General Dynamics for upgrades to M1A2 Abrams tanks. • $152 million to a Boeing subsidiary to replace AH-64 Apache attack helicopters. ---- Army Contractor to Pay $8M in Claims By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer Wednesday, November 29, 2006 http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2006/11/29/national/w095654S59.DTL (11-29) 09:56 PST WASHINGTON (AP) -- One of the government's largest military contractors will pay $8 million to settle six-year old claims it overcharged the Army for construction and other support services in the Balkans, the Justice Department said Wednesday. Kellogg, Brown & Root, a subsidiary of Houston-based Halliburton Co., was accused of double-billing the government and ordering unusable products while helping build Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo, prosecutors said. The contractor also allegedly inflated prices for some unspecified goods that were not put out for competitive bid, the department said. Prosecutors said those incidents occurred between 1999 and 2000. The department "remains committed to vigorously pursuing allegations of procurement abuses affecting the military," Assistant Attorney General Peter D. Keisler said in a statement. Halliburton spokeswoman Melissa Norcross said the company was pleased with the settlement, which was reached without charges being filed. "The government closed its investigation without making allegations of fraud or filing a complaint," Norcross said in a statement. -------- nato Accept defeat by Taliban, Pakistan tells Nato By Ahmed Rashid in Islamabad 29/11/2006 UK Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/29/wafghan29.xml Senior Pakistani officials are urging Nato countries to accept the Taliban and work towards a new coalition government in Kabul that might exclude the Afghan president Hamid Karzai. Pakistan's foreign minister, Khurshid Kasuri, has said in private briefings to foreign ministers of some Nato member states that the Taliban are winning the war in Afghanistan and Nato is bound to fail. He has advised against sending more troops. Western ministers have been stunned. "Kasuri is basically asking Nato to surrender and to negotiate with the Taliban," said one Western official who met the minister recently. The remarks were made on the eve of Nato's critical summit in Latvia. Lt Gen David Richards, the British general and Nato's force commander in Afghanistan, and the Dutch ambassador Daan Everts, its chief diplomat there, have spent five days in the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, urging the Pakistani military to do more to reign in the Taliban. But they have received mixed messages. Mr Karzai has long insisted that the Taliban sanctuaries and logistics bases are in Pakistan while Gen James Jones, the Supreme Commander of Nato, told the US Congress in September that the Taliban leadership is headquartered in the Pakistani city of Quetta. Lt Gen Ali Mohammed Jan Orakzai, governor of the volatile North West Frontier Province has stated publicly that the US, Britain and Nato have already failed in Afghanistan. "Either it is a lack of understanding or it is a lack of courage to admit their failures," he said recently. Gen Orakzai insists that the Taliban represent the Pashtun population, Afghanistan's largest and Pakistan's second largest ethnic group, and they now lead a "national resistance" movement to throw out Western occupation forces, just as there is in Iraq. But his comments have deeply angered many Pakistani and Afghan Pashtuns, who consider the Taliban as pariahs and a negation of Pashtun values. Gen Orakzai is the mastermind of "peace deals" between the army and the heavily Talibanised Pashtun tribes on the Pakistani side of the border, but these agreements have failed because they continue to allow the Taliban to attack Nato forces inside Afghanistan and leave the Taliban in place, free to run a mini-Islamic state. Gen Orakzai is expected to urge the British Army to strike similar deals in Helmand province. Meanwhile aides to President Pervez Musharraf say he has virtually "given up" on Mr Karzai and is awaiting a change of face in Kabul before he offers more help. Many Afghans fear that Pakistan is deliberately trying to undermine Mr Karzai and Nato's commitment to his government in an attempt to reinstall its Taliban proxies in Kabul – almost certainly leading to all-out civil war and possible partition of the country. To progress in Riga, Nato will have to enlist US support to call Pakistan's bluff, put pressure on Islamabad to hand over the Taliban leadership and put more troops in to fight the insurgency while persuading Mr Karzai to become more pro-active. ---- Nato split on Afghan combat curbs Wednesday, 29 November 2006 (BBC) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6191504.stm Nato leaders at a summit are continuing to limit troop deployment to south Afghanistan, despite calls from the US to accept "difficult assignments". France and Germany have agreed to small changes on how troops can be used, but will not move large numbers to the area where Nato faces a resurgent Taleban. But the Dutch and Romanians are among those agreeing to relax such curbs. The US, UK, Canada and the Netherlands have borne the brunt of fierce fighting with the militants in the south. See map of key Afghan flashpoints Violence has risen to heights not seen since the toppling of the Taleban. Some 4,000 people are believed to have died this year in the insurgency - about a quarter of them civilians. In fresh violence, two Nato soldiers were killed when their vehicle struck a roadside bomb in Logar province on Tuesday. The nationalities of the victims have not yet been disclosed. 'Clear position' Details of the agreement to relax restrictions are due to be announced shortly. Correspondents say the combat curbs have been the most contentious issue at the two-day summit in Latvia, following tension over the reluctance of France, Germany, Spain and Italy to send their troops to southern Afghanistan. Nato sources say more than three-quarters of the 32,000-strong force in Afghanistan will soon be allowed to operate more widely if necessary. Those agreeing to ease the restrictions on deployment against the Taleban include the Dutch, Romanians and smaller nations such as Slovenia and Luxembourg. France, Germany, Spain and Italy have said they will now send help to trouble zones outside their areas, but only in emergencies. "This has been our clear position from the beginning," Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi told journalists after a working dinner on the issue. "That also goes for the French president, the German chancellor and the Spanish." An alliance spokesman told Reuters news agency that three countries had also agreed to send more troops, with several more agreeing to increase funding for Afghanistan. Commanders have requested 2,500 extra troops for the battle in the south of the country. Earlier, US President George W Bush called on Nato not to undermine the effort in Afghanistan. "For Nato to succeed, its commanders must have the resources and flexibility they need to do their jobs," he said. Nato Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer described the Afghan operation - Nato's first outside Europe - as "mission possible", and said that it might even be able to start pulling out from 2008. New members The summit, the first Nato meeting in an ex-Soviet state, will conclude after discussions about Nato's role in the 21st Century. The alliance leaders will also discuss ways to enhance Nato's partnership activities, including efforts to draw countries like Japan and Australia more closely into alliance activities. Speaking in Latvia, Mr Bush said Nato would keep its doors open to new members, including Georgia and Ukraine. The US president said the US would support Georgia's bid to join Nato as long as it continued on the path of reform and that membership of the military bloc would be open to Ukraine if the people chose it. Correspondents say membership for either country could further strain their relations with Moscow. --- Afghan security handover is on track for 2008, says Nato Michael Evans, Defence Editor, Riga November 29, 2006 UK Times http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,172-2476920,00.html Four Nato countries yesterday agreed to commit troops for combat in southern and eastern Afghanistan in emergencies. The decision came as the head of the alliance set a target of 2008 for the Afghan National Army to begin to take control of security. Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, the Nato Secretary-General, speaking before the start of the alliance summit in the Latvian capital, said that he envisaged that “effective Afghan security forces would be gradually taking control” by the time of the next summit, which is due in the spring of 2008. He foresaw no reduction in the number of troops based in Afghanistan in the next two years. There are currently 32,000 troops assigned to Nato’s International Security Assistance Force, which has security responsibility for the whole country. The concessions made by France, Germany, Italy and Spain to deploy troops outside their own area of operations came as President Bush criticised alliance members who used national caveats to restrict the role of their forces. All four countries have troops in Afghanistan but have not provided assistance in Helmand and Kandahar provinces in the south, where most of the Taleban attacks have taken place. The concession did not amount to an absolute guarantee to assist but diplomats said that the mood had changed after rising criticism, particularly from Canada, which has been fighting the Taleban and suffering high casualties in Kandahar. Diplomatic sources said that France, which has troops in Kabul, was prepared to review its policy on a “case by case” basis, and Italy and Spain, with troops in Western Afghanistan, were also ready to redeploy soldiers “in extreme circumstances”. Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, said recently in Berlin that German troops based in northern Afghanistan could not be sent to other regions. Franz Josef Jung, the Defence Minister, said yesterday, however, that Germany would consider sending its troops elsewhere in Afghanistan in an emergency. Mr de Hoop Scheffer had earlier summed up irritation over the national caveats. He told a parallel security conference in Riga: “We can ill-afford reconstruction armies that can’t do combat. National caveats take away the commander’s flexibility.” General Jim Jones, the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, told the conference that there were 50 national caveats operating in Afghanistan. Lifting these could mean the availability of another 2,000 troops for combat missions. Summit city # Riga residents have been given a three-day holiday during the summit and most have decamped, leaving a ghost town # Most shops are closed and large areas are cordoned off # There are 7,000 Latvian troops and 2,000 Nato troops on the streets, backed by helicopters and two warships in Riga harbour ---- Analysis: Nato strikes deal – but where are the reserves? Michael Evans, Defence Editor of The UK Times, Riga November 29, 2006 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2477822,00.html The Nato summit in the Latvian capital has been dominated by Afghanistan, underlining the changed and changing role the 26-nation alliance is now playing in the world. Yet the old traditional methods of doing business are still as evident as they were during the Cold War days: summits expose all the idiosyncrasies and internal bickerings that make this military and political organisation complex, difficult to manage and often tiresome. All the leaders agreed that the mission in Afghanistan must succeed. The credibility of the alliance was at stake, Tony Blair reiterated today. So why was it so difficult to persuade each member state of the importance of helping each other out in Afghanistan and providing all the required military capabilities? Nato now has 32,000 troops in Afghanistan - a huge operation - but until last night over dinner there were 50 separate national caveats in existence, under which individual alliance countries reserved the right to limit their troops geographically and operationally. Today it emerged that some of these caveats have now been lifted. This means that countries like France, Germany, Spain and Italy, all of whom have a significant presence in Afghanistan but are located in more benign areas than the British, Canadian, Dutch and American soldiers are, will now be prepared to leave their locations to provide reinforcements elsewhere when required in an emergency. The concession has been hailed as a significant change in mood within the alliance, and will give Lieutenant-General David Richards, the British commander of Nato’s International Security Assistance Force (Isaf), more flexibility when deciding what troops to deploy at short notice to reinforce alliance comrades under attack. Whether the agreement over dinner between the 26 Nato leaders will make a marked difference on the ground in Afghanistan can only be tested when the next emergency arises. No one has clearly defined what an emergency would be, but President Chirac of France stated that French troops could be deployed out of their area of responsibility, which is Kabul, the Afghan capital, if called upon by the Isaf commander. Nato is using the phrase "in extremis" as a defining yardstick, but does that mean the French, German, Spanish and Italian troops will only be allowed into a combat zone if, say, the British are facing a Rorke’s Drift scenario in Helmand province or the Canadians are taking heavy casualties in neighbouring Kandahar? Still, progress has been made in Riga, if only because the political leaders have conceded that while all have soldiers deployed in Afghanistan, some are engaged in wholesale combat, while others are having a pretty quiet time. The Canadians, in particular, have been laying down the law about other Nato members sharing more of the risks. Canada has suffered a large number of casualties, even more than the British in Helmand, and resent it when alliance members have failed to come to their aid when facing relentless attacks by the Taleban. Lifting of some of the 50 caveats will release another 2,000 troops for Afghanistan-wide deployments, according to General Jim Jones, the Supreme Allied Commander Europe. Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, Nato Secretary-General, claimed that 26,000 of the 32,000 alliance troops in Afghanistan would now be available for deployment throughout the country. While this might seem a boost for General Richards, it’s a fairly meaningless figure. What General Richards really wants is a reserve force ready to go anywhere. He has been waiting for one ever since he took over the command of Isaf in January, and he will have handed over his job to a four-star American general before the proposed unit is formed. It will consist of one Polish battalion and three American battalions. As the summit came to an end today, Mr de Hoop Scheffer reached the traditional conclusion that it had been a success and had met all his expectations. But apart from the moves over national caveats, only a handful of member states offered more troops and equipment for Afghanistan, enough to reduce the present 15 per cent shortfall in capability to ten per cent. General Jones said that a shortfall in capability in a peacekeeping mission was one thing, but a capability gap in an operation where soldiers were being killed in combat was potentially more dangerous. ---- NATO's rapid response force declared fully operational 11/29/2006 (AP) http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-11-29-nato-force_x.htm RIGA, Latvia — NATO declared its elite new rapid-response force fully operational at its summit Wednesday, giving European allies a means of responding quickly to terror threats, failed states or regional conflicts around the world. A summit-ending communique confirmed that the NATO Response Force — which Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer described as "a cutting-edge air, land and sea expeditionary force" — was fully operational and ready for a full range of missions. The 25,000-strong force is touted as the centerpiece of efforts to modernize NATO's military and keep pace with the United States' ability to swiftly mobilize troops to trouble spots. As part of that drive, the leaders also agreed to increase cooperation among their special forces and to develop high-tech surveillance and intelligence facilities. Sixteen nations agreed to jointly acquire three giant C-17 transport planes from Boeing to fill a long-standing shortfall in NATO's arsenal. Allied military commanders had struggled to persuade governments to provide the remaining specialist troops and equipment needed to fill gaps in the force by the summit deadline. But allied officers said commitments eventually exceeded expectations. "This is a significant achievement," said Canadian Gen. Ray Henault, NATO's top soldier. "We now have the forces we require." The response force is designed to integrate land, air and maritime units poised to deploy around the world within days for missions ranging from humanitarian relief and peacekeeping to high-intensity warfare. Late offers to make up the force included helicopters, infantry battalions, medical units, transport and combat planes, and combat support services to ensure supplies of food, ammunition and spare parts over long distances, said Henault, chairman of NATO's Military Committee. The response force idea was first suggested by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Under the plan, nations commit units to the force for six-month rotations. The rotation due to start on Jan. 1 will be the first certified as able to tackle the full range of missions. Since 2003, NATO has tested smaller scale rotations — in 2005 they were used to rush aid from NATO nations to earthquake-hit Pakistan and the U.S. after Hurricane Katrina. However, differences have emerged about how the forces should be used. France blocked a call by some NATO nations for the force to be used for peacekeeping in Lebanon, after the Israel-Hezbollah fighting in July and August. Latvian President Vaira Vike-Freiberga complained that the force was not being used to support NATO's mission in Afghanistan, where allied troops have come under increasing attack from Taliban insurgents in recent months. She said Latvia had committed a specialist explosives disposal team to the NATO Response Force from its tiny armed forces, and was therefore unable to send the unit. ---- NATO rebuffs Bush on troop restrictions in Afghanistan By Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Judy Dempsey The New York Times: November 29, 2006 http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/29/news/web.1129NATO.php Leaders of the 26 NATO nations failed to agree Wednesday on President Bush's demand that member countries with troops in Afghanistan lift their restrictions on how the troops are used. Those rules keep some soldiers from operating in the most dangerous part of the country. Instead of lifting the restrictions entirely, France, Germany and Italy agreed to allow their troops to be sent in emergencies to bolster the NATO forces in the south, where Taliban forces have fought with renewed vigor. The NATO leaders also unexpectedly opened the door to membership to Serbia by offering it partnership status, along with Bosnia and Montenegro. Up until now, the United States, Britain and the Netherlands have blocked Serbia because of its failure to arrest two men who led Serbian forces during the fighting in Bosnia - Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic, who have been indicted for war crimes by the international tribunal in The Hague. The offer Wednesday of offered partnership status - a step toward full membership - came with the condition that Serbia promise to try to capture the wanted pair and other figures charged with war crimes. NATO's Secretary-General, Jaap de Hoop Schieffer, denied that the move constituted a softening of the alliance's position. "We'll keep up the pressure," he said. But Reuters quoted Carla del Ponte, the chief United Nations war crimes prosecutor, as saying she was "very surprised" and disappointed by the decision. "It looks like a reward for not fully cooperating with the prosecutor," a spokesman for Ms. Ponte said. Mr. Schieffer also defended the move by saying that Serbia is "an important player," and diplomats said the change of policy comes at a critical juncture for the entire Balkan region, which throughout much of the 1990's had been engulfed in civil war. The United Nations Security Council has been debating the status of the Serb province of Kosovo, which has been under U.N. protection since 1999 after NATO fought a brief war against Serbia to stop its crackdown on ethnic Albanians in the region. A decision by the council is expected in the coming months, and the negotiations have already raised tensions with Russia, which has traditionally seen itself as the protector of the Serbs. The ethnic Albanians in Kosovo have consistently demanded nothing less than full independence for the province, but Boris Tadic, Serb president, has so far supported the idea of wide autonomy. Russia has also linked independence for Kosovo to independence laims by two breakaway regions backed by Moscow, Transnistria in Moldova and Abkhazia and Northern Ossetia in Georgia. But Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned against changing the status of Kosovo, but the Kremlin has also said it would not block any moves which were acceptable to Serbia. One NATO diplomat said the Kosovo dispute was central to the decision to offering Serbia the opportunity to move toward membership in the alliance. "We want to give Serbia a Euro-Atlantic perspective rather than just have it completely focus on Kosovo or even lean on the support of Russia," said the diplomat. who requested anonymity because he was not authorized to comment. In Belgrade, Mr. Tadic hailed the decision as "great news for our citizens, army and the state," according to Agence France-Presse. He said that Serbia "must solve this problem" of capturing its war-crime fugitives. The decision on Serbia was a departure from the planned agenda of the meeting, which was centered on Afghanistan. Mr. Bush had come to the NATO summit, held here in the Baltic nation of Latvia, to argue for sending more troops to Afghanistan under fewer restrictions, a call echoed by Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain. Troops from Britain, Canadaand the Netherlands have taken heavy casualties in recent months. But after the two-day summit, the question of troop numbers appeared unresolved, and the only agreement reached was one for more flexible deployment in emergencies. The alliance issued a statement asserting that peace and stability in Afghanistan is a critical priority. The nations pledged to develop a "contact group" that will evaluate issues critical to Afghanistan's long-term stability. The 26 member nations of the alliance, along with 11 partner countries, have committed 32,000 troops to Afghanistan. But many of those troops have been operating under geographic and operational limitations. In a speech at Latvia University on Tuesday, Mr. Bush said NATO had transformed Afghanistan from "a totalitarian nightmare to a free nation." The NATO leaders have been meeting to chart the alliance's course in the coming decades. Though it was originally founded to protect Western Europe, its mission has expanded greatly since the end of the cold war, and there is fierce debate among member nations about whether the commitment of troops in Afghanistan should set a precedent for future NATO engagement, or be regarded as an aberration not to be repeated. On Wednesday, the alliance took a step toward resolving that question, issuing a dense planning document - a "comprehensive political guidance," in NATO terms - that recognizes that NATO will have to grapple with terrorism in the future. "Terrorism, increasingly global in scope and lethal in results, and the spread of weapons of mass destruction are likely to be the principal threats to the Alliance over the next 10 to 15 years," the document states. -------- spies The Company In his memoir, CIA spy T.J. Waters reveals the human side of intelligence gathering. It's not entirely flattering. By Tara McKelvey Web Exclusive: 11.29.06 http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=12263 Given how battles within the Bush administration have played out, liberals have found themselves embracing the CIA in recent years. CIA officers -- so the argument goes -- are hard-working professionals with a keen understanding of the world and its problems, victimized by administration officials who have distorted their analyses for political gain. In fact, it's hard to believe CIA officers are all they're cracked up to be -- especially after reading a memoir by T.J. Waters, a member of "the most talked-about spy class in CIA history," as he describes it -- "the best and the brightest the United States had to offer." The book, Class 11: Inside the CIA's First Post 9-11 Spy Class starts out on a hopeful, albeit self-congratulatory, note. After the September 11 attacks, Waters, a 37-year-old former consultant in intelligence and training, is working hard with his classmates to create a new kind of CIA that will protect Americans from future al-Qaeda attacks. As one of Waters' classmates announces one morning in November 2002 on a government bus, one of three vehicles transporting them to a CIA training facility in central Virginia, "'It's no longer a gentleman's game.'" "Terrorists aren't on the diplomatic circuit," explains Waters. "They quietly toil in towns and village, away from the capital cities where the United States maintains an official presence. Commercial cover operations, paramilitary action, and covert influence programs have replaced embassy parties. Unfortunately, there's a shortage of qualified field officers to do the work. That's where we come in." Waters and his colleagues belong to the CIA's Clandestine Service Training Program Class 11. They're an unusual bunch: 70 percent of the students have never worked for the military or the government. They include a private chef, a New York City comedian, and an NFL football player -- all of whom joined the CIA after September 11. (In at least one case, the reasons were personal: a member of Waters' class lost her fiancé in the World Trade Center attack). Many of them had led comfortable lives prior to joining the agency. Waters, for example, left behind "a waterfront Florida home" and a bride of six weeks. Still, the sacrifice is worth it, given that it is, in Waters's words, "the sexiest job in the world." "We are, in essence, investigative reporters for the most expensive newspaper in the world -- the President's Daily Brief," he writes. CIA officers are entrusted with "providing policy makers with the information necessary to defend the nation." Under the pressing circumstances, Class 11 was put on a particularly fast track to begin carrying out that mission. Agency officials processed their applications in an abbreviated period -- six months instead of 18. Afterwards, Waters and his classmates entered a one-year program, including six months in the Washington, D.C., area and six months at the central Virginia location known as "the Farm," a "concrete and steel fortress" guarded by men "holding Heckler & Koch MP-5 submachine guns." Educated, committed, passionate future spies, trained with the best resources available. It all sounds promising, until one arrives at Chapter 2, "On-the-Job Training." In this chapter, and in pages that follow, Waters describes how he and his colleagues learn the ropes. As it turns out, clumsy, old-fashioned methods, in some cases pushed by incompetent private contractors, are used, producing a class that has a lot of zeal but only a superficial understanding of the world. In other words, the new CIA seems plagued by the same old problems. Waters -- often unintentionally -- describes many in his book. For one thing, in Waters's telling, CIA training is apparently modeled on an International Spy Museum tour. Early on, Waters is given a false identity, and he uses the names of old fraternity brothers for members of his made-up family during the exercise. He and his colleagues spend time practicing "hotel and restaurant meetings right out in the open, having innocuous conversations alongside congressional aides, lobbyists, and every variety of private-sector vendor who prowls the swirling maelstrom of the capital city." In a comical, Spy vs. Spy incident, Waters and his colleagues accidentally collide with members of two other undercover teams -- one involved in a Defense Department surveillance exercise and Secret Service agents providing security for a family -- all in the Torpedo Factory Art Center in Old Town Alexandria. The Torpedo Factory, along with a La Madeleine restaurant in Bethesda, where Waters studies maps of the surrounding area, may not be ideal places to train in the skills needed to hunt down Osama bin Laden. And indeed, the training regimen doesn't appear to involve in-depth study of other cultures. Many of the officers-in-training Waters describes have never been abroad on a business trip. Yet foreign-language training, or even a cultural-studies curriculum, are missing from the program, with the exception of a crash course on Muslim terrorism, which Waters dutifully summarizes: "We learn that Islamic extremists don't exclusively kill Jews and Christians." Meanwhile, TV shows provide the frame of reference for Waters and his colleagues to a disconcerting degree. 24, The Agency, Alias, Mission Impossible, and other shows and films provide a guiding light throughout the book. One of the students makes a presentation at the end of the course. "You see, everything I ever needed to know about espionage, I learned from watching Magnum, P.I.," he explains. In a final session, a course leader plays a clip. "When you leave the building today," he says, "You are stepping out on to the rice paper." Many of the instructors are retired officers who've been hired back as CIA contract workers. They're not exactly charged-up teachers. One confuses Waters with someone else in an evaluation of a training exercise. Another contractor writes an evaluation of a student before her training exercise even takes place. (The student quits.) Later, the same contractor writes an evaluation of Waters's work, mixing the two students up in his report. Waters is, understandably, furious. "The independent contractors provided to us in training were the result of haste, urgency, and shortsighted decision making," he writes. "The CIA simply did not have enough instructors for the number of new employees it was training, and quality was sacrificed for expediency … These independent contractors had no real management and little oversight; their failure was a virtual certainty." Waters makes a persuasive case throughout Class 11 for the importance of human intelligence (such as recruiting spies) over long-distance intelligence gathering (such as electronic surveillance) in the war on terror. He writes about the CIA training he and other students receive with the authority and knowledge of an insider. His prose is sometimes un-illuminating ("Let it never be said the fairer sex isn't also the smarter one;" "as Dorothy from The Wizard of Oz