NucNews December 18, 2006 -------- NUCLEAR -------- australia Australia sends first uranium shipment to Taiwan Zee News, Dec 18, 2006 http://www.zeenews.com/znnew/articles.asp?aid=342816&ssid=51&sid=bus Melbourne: Australia has sent its first uranium shipment to Taiwan which may clear the way for similar exports in the future to India. The shipment to Taiwan employs an indirect sale arrangement through the us, which will first convert and enrich the ore under a bilateral agreement between Canberra and Washington. The shipment coincides with the shipment of spent nuclear fuel, in six shipping containers, from Sydney`s Lucas Heights Reactor via ship to the east coast of the US. "We like to diversify our fuel sources, so this first shipment from Australia is appreciated," the buyer Taipower`s Sydney-based executive Samson Lee was quoted by Sydney Morning Herald report today. Lee confirmed the uranium would "only be for peaceful power generation". ---- Controversy on uranium shipment to Taiwan December 18, 2006 Source: AAP http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20944545-31037,00.html CONTROVERSY surrounds Australia's first uranium shipment to Taiwan since it may clear the way for future exports to nuclear-armed India. BHP Billiton refused to confirm the timing of the shipment via the US but the buyer was less constrained, Fairfax newspapers reported. “We like to diversify our fuel sources, so this first shipment from Australia is appreciated,” Taipower's Sydney-based executive Samson Lee told Fairfax. Mr Lee confirmed the uranium would “only be for peaceful power generation”. The shipment to Taiwan employs an indirect sale arrangement through the US, which will first convert and enrich the ore under a bilateral agreement between Canberra and Washington. The shipment coincides with the shipment of spent nuclear fuel, in six shipping containers, from Sydney's Lucas Heights reactor via ship to the east coast of the US. ---- Greenpeace angry after nuclear waste transported through Sydney Monday, December 18, 2006 Ausralian Broadcasting http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200612/s1813471.htm A shipment of used nuclear material has been transported through Sydney overnight. Spent nuclear fuel rods from the Lucas Heights reactor have been trucked during the night to a ship docked at Port Botany. The covert operation involved police, helicopters and firefighters to monitor the operation and direct the 10 trucks carrying the nuclear material. Greenpeace says there were a dozen police boats and three Greenpeace boats surrounding the specialised nuclear ship carrier, the Seabird. Greenpeace mounted a protest, which campaigner Steve Campbell says is about highlighting the issue of nuclear waste. "We're here to warn the Australian community that if the Government pushes through with its plan to build nuclear reactors around Australia, that it's going to mean a massive escalation in this kind of dangerous nuclear waste transport through Australian communities," he said. Mr Campbell says the public should be told when nuclear material is being transported through their suburbs. "Residents have not been told of this nuclear transport," he said. "They never are, they always keep these shipments secret, which basically shows how unsafe they are. "The shipment will also be passing out through the Pacific and around the region and if we build more nuclear reactors in Australia we are going to see many many more transports like this." Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation chief of operations Ron Cameron says Greenpeace is blowing the issue out of proportion. "I think it's important to say that residents are informed so, as I say, there have been eight such shipments and each time we have told people beforehand that they will be transported," he said. "We have regular community forums with our residents and they have the opportunity to ask questions and to learn some more - this hasn't been a major issue for them." It is understood the Seabird is heading to the United States, where the spent nuclear material will be stored. ---- Nuclear cargo safe says regulator December 18, 2006 The Age http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/ansto-says-nuclear-cargo-is-safe/2006/12/18/1166290443999.html The nuclear regulator says it cannot tell Sydney residents when cargoes of nuclear material are transported through their suburbs because the information could attract "mischief". Last night, containers carrying spent nuclear fuel rods were taken under police escort from the Lucas Heights nuclear facility in Sydney's south to a ship at Port Botany, for reprocessing in the US. Helicopters and firefighters were involved in protecting the convoy that transported the containers through Sydney streets. Greenpeace, which used inflatable craft to witness the cargo being taken to a ship at Port Botany in the early hours of this morning, says the convoy could have been a terrorist target. "In an age of terrorism and fears about nuclear proliferation, these nuclear waste shipments are a magnet for terrorist activity," Greenpeace spokesman Stephen Campbell said. "Spent fuel rods can be combined with explosives to make dirty nuclear bombs." A spokesman for the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) said local councils were told about nuclear waste shipments but the secret routes were determined by police. "Local councils are sent a letter a few weeks before the shipment takes place and media are notified as well, but specific residents aren't informed," the spokesman said. "We can't inform people of the timing or the route of the shipment for security reasons, in case somebody tries to make mischief and in fact ends up causing more harm to local residents than if they weren't informed. "NSW police determine the route of the shipment." ANSTO chief of operations Dr Ron Cameron said he wanted to assure residents last night's transfer of waste had been carried out safely. "Residents' safety was of paramount concern," Dr Cameron told ABC radio. "These containers are very robust and very well engineered. " ... overseas they crashed a locomotive and four wagons into them and the locomotive was destroyed and the cask was intact, so that just shows how strong they are. "We do of course have contingency arrangements whereby if one truck broke down we have two spare trucks and the capability of transferring the loads onto those." He said more than 7,000 similar shipments had been undertaken throughout the world since 1971. A police spokeswoman said a Greenpeace boat attempted to stop the material being loaded onto a ship at the Port Botany terminal. "A vessel carrying protesters was intercepted and inspected by police from the Marine Area Command as it sailed towards the ship before it docked at Port Botany," she said. But a Greenpeace spokeswoman said no attempt had been made to intercept the shipment and the three Greenpeace inflatable craft had stayed outside the stipulated 30-metre exclusion zone at all times. -------- britain Livingstone and Greenpeace launch nuclear campaign Publisher: Ian Morgan 18/12/2006, 24dash.com http://www.24dash.com/news/58/14456/index.htm The Mayor of London Ken Livingstone and Greenpeace have joined together to launch a stark public information campaign highlighting that there is a real alternative to nuclear power. Under the headline '£70 billion - Nuclear Waste?' the Mayor invites Londoners to participate in the debate now taking place about energy policy. The posters will appear on tube stations across the capital from Friday. The Government has made it clear that it wants to construct a new generation of nuclear power stations. It argues there is no alternative, even though the cost of clearing up the last generation has soared to £70 billion. The Mayor and Greenpeace believe that there is an alternative that would cost a lot less, both financially and environmentally and could lower Londoners' fuel bills. An efficient, decentralised alternative that includes combined heat, power and cooling plants, biofuels and renewables. The Mayor is calling on Londoners to join the debate, and to give their views on London's future energy needs. Mayor of London Ken Livingstone said: "Nuclear power is yesterday's solution to our energy needs. In London we want to lead the way in combating climate change by using the cleanest energy and most efficient technologies rather than adopting solutions that damage the environment. Developing the infrastructure for decentralised energy would be financially and environmentally more cost effective than using nuclear power, it would mean less carbon emissions and it would help reduce Londoners' fuel bills." Sarah North, Greenpeace Climate Change Campaigner said: "A new nuclear age is a dangerous distraction from real energy solutions to climate change. It would also generate highly radioactive waste which remains deadly for up to a million years and would mean Londoners are exposed to a new terrorist threat as the population would be condemned to having vulnerable nuclear waste trains trundling along our public rail network for decades to come." ---- Areva looks to France-China talks after Westinghouse blow PARIS (AFP) Dec 18, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/2006/061218140618.i8oy98gt.html French nuclear reactor maker Areva, set back by delays at a site in Finland and failure to win a big order in China at the weekend, is now awaiting the outcome of France-China cooperation talks on Tuesday. Areva could still be in the running to win contracts for two of its new-generation European pressurised water reactors. The newspaper les Echos reported on Monday that that this possible order by China, in the interests of its relations with France, might be raised when a representative from the Chinese government visits France on Tuesday to discuss co-operation between the two countries in the nuclear field. A spokesman for French nuclear power group Areva said: "We have no comment on this rumour. But if it had some basis, it would really be a success for Areva and for France, and that the strategy of being a global partner developed by Areva is right." Les Echos reported that the construction of nuclear power reactors of a type already in service, referred to as duplication, and a possible partnership for the treatment of nuclear fuel would also be discussed during the visit of the Chinese official. The French economy ministry had announced the visit on Saturday, saying that it would cover the situation and the outlook for "our co-operation with China in the nuclear field". Another French publication, La Lettre de l'Expansion, reported on Monday that the president of Areva, Anne Lauvergeon, had said at a recent meeting of the company's works committee that "the Chinese horizon is clearing" and that an order for two EPRs by China "might be "announced soon". On Saturday, China awarded to Westinghouse, controlled by Japanese group Toshiba, a contract worth several billion dollars (euros) for the construction of four so-called third-generation nuclear reactors. Areva had also bid for the contract. In mid-day trading here on Monday, the price of shares in Areva was showing a fall of 2.03 percent to 554 euros. French Economy and Finance Minister Thierry Breton told Les Echos: "In addition to the industrial problems encountered by Areva in completing the EPR in Finland which have been played up here and there, it is undeniable that today, Areva, with this setback in China, is going through a difficult period." He said that this was despite big efforts made by Areva, particularly in accepting a transfer of nuclear technology to the Chinese. This was an added reason for the French state, as a shareholder, to be more than ever committed alongside Areva in order "to help it get through this patch", Breton said. Analysts say that Areva's failure to win a contract for four nuclear reactors, which China awarded to US group Westinghouse on Saturday, had been in the air for some time and turned crucially on Chinese demands for a transfer of technology which Westinghouse was more willing to accommodate. The value of the contract for the four so-called third-generation reactors is put here at five-eight billion dollars (3.8-6.1 billion euros). Areva is running 18 months late with construction of its European pressurised water reactor (EPR) in Finland and might have to make a new and substantial provision for this in its accounts. A CM-CIC Securities, analyst Patrice Lambert de Diesbach said that some circles at the finance ministry were already attacking Areva for political reasons because of the setback in China, associating it with the problem in Finland. But the decision by the Chinese had nothing to with the reactor in Finland, since the choice of technology was no longer of much significance. A spokesman for Areva said: "In the long term, China represents a market of about 100 billion euros. That amounts to 36,000 megawatts." Lambert de Diesback said that "the real market lies elsewhere" and that Areva was targeting the market for so-called duplication. France has already sold second-generation nuclear power stations to China which has the right to copy them but with parts supplied from France under a process called duplication. Reffering to estimates that China will need about 30 reactors, he said that the biggest part of the market in future would be for second-generation reactors of a type already used by French electricity generator EDF, the biggest provider of nuclear energy in the world, using existing technology. Meanwhile Areva hopes to have an easier time in South Africa, which wants to install several reactors in the next few years. And Lambert de Diesbach said that Areva was strongly placed to promote the EPR in the United States, which was turning back towards nuclear energy. -------- china Westinghouse deal kicks off Chinese drive for nuclear energy drive 12-18-2006 (AFP) http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=155782 BEIJING - China's decision to buy four nuclear power reactors from US-based Westinghouse represents a major step in an ambitious drive to boost atomic energy production. In March this year, China's cabinet approved blueprints to bring nuclear energy capacity from its current level of about 9,600 megawatts to 40,000 megawatts by 2020, or about four percent of its overall energy production. The deal for the third-generation 1,000 megawatt reactors marks only the beginning of the production drive to wean the country away from dependency of polluting fossil fuels. "The target will require China to build some 32 nuclear power units, each capable of generating at least one gigawatt (1,000 megawatts), over the next 15 years," Xinhua news agency quoted Zhang Guobao, vice minister in charge of the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), as saying at the time. China currently has nine nuclear energy reactors in commercial operation with two more Russian-made units expected to go on line by the end of March 2007. France has built four nuclear reactors in China, while Canada has built two atomic power units. The four Westinghouse reactors will be constructed in nuclear power stations in Yangjiang in south China's Guangdong province and in Sanmen, in Zhejiang province along the nation's east coastline. The multi-billion dollar deal was announced on Saturday and comes after years of intense competition with France's Areva and Russia's AtomStroyExport. According to the Chinese government, Westinghouse won the bid on technical merits, with insiders saying the American-based, but Japanese-owned company, was willing to transfer more technology than their French rivals. The deal for the Westinghouse AP 1000 reactors was valued at between 5.5 billion dollars and 8.0 billion dollars, the insiders said. Westinghouse said the deal will create up to 5,000 jobs in the United States. China also announced this year plans to start building a nuclear power station in the nation's northeastern Liaoning province next year that consist of two 1,000 megawatt reactors. It was unclear if those reactors will be imported or Chinese made. Meanwhile state press reports said that more plants are in the pipeline for the provinces of Fujian, Shandong, Anhui, Hunan, Hubei, Jiangxi and Sichuan, as well as Shanghai. All must get final approval from the NDRC, China's planning ministry. "The basic policy to reach the 40,000 megawatt goal is to rely on our own technology to build these plants," an official with the China Atomic Energy Authority told AFP. "But we also have policies calling for the import of advanced technologies from around the world," he added while asking not to be named. He insisted that all international tenders would be judged on their commercial and technical merits, while refusing to comment on the political elements that inevitably become involved with major Chinese projects. "Right now the biggest political element is whether to go with indigenous technology or imported technology, with much of the infighting taking place in the regions and the bureaucracies," a Singapore-based China energy analyst told AFP. "Some people in China are saying that if you give all the contracts to foreign companies, then you are taking away an opportunity for the indigenous industry to develop," he said while declining to be named. According to the China Atomic Energy Authority official, China's indigenous nuclear power industry would continue to produce "second generation" plants of around 600 megawatts each until 2015. After that the nation would be capable of manufacturing "third generation" reactors like the Westinghouse AP 1000s, he said. -------- depleted uranium DOE completes transfer of uranium hexafluoride to Ohio Associated Press Mon, Dec. 18, 2006 http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/news/state/16268568.htm OAK RIDGE, Tenn. - The government has transferred nearly 120 million pounds of depleted uranium from a processing plant in Tennessee to a southern Ohio facility, three years ahead of schedule and within budget. The uranium hexafluoride was left over from the government's uranium enrichment process for nuclear weapons and fuel at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Operations ended there in 1985, and the site is currently being cleaned up to be an industrial park. Tennessee began transferring the slightly radioactive material in 2004 to Piketon, Ohio, where the compound will be processed into a more stable form for long-term storage. The process also will extract hydrogen fluoride that can be sold commercially, officials said. The Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation had ordered the Department of Energy to remove the uranium hexafluoride by Dec. 31, 2009. The project removed about 6,000 cylinders, some weighing as much as 14 tons, and trucked them to the Piketon facility at a cost of $27.5 million. The cylinders, kept in an outside storage yard that required daily security and maintenance, posed the highest radiation threat to visitors at the Tennessee site, said John Owsley, the environmental oversight chief in Oak Ridge. "While there were sufficient controls in place, it was a concern," Owsley said. No major safety issues arose during transportation, said Susan Gawarecki, executive director of the Local Oversight Committee, which evaluates environmental projects for local governments in the Oak Ridge area. After the waste was trucked to Ohio, hundreds of empty cylinders were shipped to disposal sites in Nevada or Utah. Information from: The Knoxville News Sentinel, http://www.knoxnews.com -------- india Bush Enacts Civil Nuclear Agreement With India WASHINGTON, DC, December 18, 2006 (ENS) http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/dec2006/2006-12-18-06.asp President George W. Bush today signed a new law expanding U.S. civil nuclear cooperation with India, even though New Delhi refuses to sign the 1968 Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. "India has conducted its civilian nuclear energy program in a safe and responsible way for decades," Bush said at the White House signing ceremony. "After 30 years outside the system, India will now operate its civilian nuclear energy program under internationally accepted guidelines - and the world is going to be safer as a result," the President said. But India's military nuclear activities and eight of India's civilian nuclear facilities are not included in the agreement and do not fall under the authority of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN nuclear watchdog. The law signed by President Bush, known as the U.S.-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act, lifts long-standing legal restrictions - enacted after a series of nuclear weapons tests by India in the 1970s - that prevented U.S. companies from trading in nuclear fuels and investing in India’s civil nuclear industry. These restrictions were "an aggravating factor" in U.S.-Indian relations until 2005, when the President offered U.S. support in exchange for India’s acceptance of international inspectors to verify that 14 civil nuclear facilities are not diverting materials to build nuclear weapons, said Under Secretary of State R. Nicholas Burns. The law, Burns said, is the centerpiece of a series of initiatives identified by President Bush and Prime Minister Singh to build the U.S.-Indian strategic partnership to promote democracy in the region, deepen military-to-military relations and further expand counterterrorism cooperation between Washington and New Delhi, a development that will contribute positively to stability in the wider region. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh today told the Indian Parliament that the U.S. law on the civil nuclear deal contains "areas of concern" that will be clarified in further "difficult" negotiations with Washington. Singh assured Indian legislators that the nuclear deal would not be allowed to affect India's strategic nuclear program or the development of fast breeder reactors. He attempted to turn aside criticism that India would become a "client" state of the United States under the bilateral deal that paves the way for India to purchase nuclear fuel from the United States. In Washington, President Bush said both countries will benefit from strengthened trade ties, and he called the law a "foundation for a new strategic partnership." Critics say, the U.S. supply of nuclear fuel to India will enable New Delhi to divert its own limited amount of nuclear fuel from power plants to weapons. "President Bush said today that this deal was an 'historic agreement,' but in fact this deal is an historic mistake," said Congressman Ed Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat who serves as a senior member of the House Homeland Security Committee and co-chair of the Bipartisan Task Force on Nonproliferation. "It has shredded the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; it has emboldened Iran’s nuclear weapons program; and has vastly increased India’s capacity to make nuclear weapons to 40 to 50 nuclear bombs per year from two to three nuclear bombs per year," Markey said. If India adds to its arsenal of nuclear weapons, critics worry that a nuclear arms race in Asia would be the result. They warn that the deal undercuts international efforts to prevent countries such as North Korea and Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. "This agreement marks an intensifying and dangerously escalating nuclear arms race in the Middle East and Asia," Markey said. "We are going to rue this day, because the Pakistanis and the Iranians are not going to sit on their hands and allow this to happen." The Nuclear Control Institute, NCI, an anti-nuclear advocacy organization based in Washington, says the most "distressing and dangerous element" of the agreement is "the blind eye both Congress and the White House have turned toward India's most audacious nuclear violation." "From 1960 to the present day, India has been using the world's first Atoms for Peace reactor exclusively for producing plutonium for weapons," said NCI's Paul Leventhal. India signed "peaceful use only" contracts with Canada and the United States which supplied India the CIRUS research reactor and the heavy water needed to make it run, Leventhal said. In 1976, the U.S. Senate uncovered that India had used CIRUS plutonium for its 1974 nuclear test. "This sparked an outcry that resulted in enactment of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978, barring further nuclear exports to India until India accepted international inspections on its entire nuclear program," Leventhal recalled. The 1978 law's key provision, full safeguards under the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, as a condition of nuclear supply, was eventually adopted by the Nuclear Suppliers Group as a backup for the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, NPT. "It is this law and the NPT regime that are now being trashed to make possible the nuclear deal with India," Leventhal said. India has agreed to shut down the CIRUS reactor in 2010, but the plutonium produced by the reactor has gone into India's nuclear warheads, Leventhal points out. "The U.S. has not demanded that India place this plutonium or an equivalent amount from other uninspected stocks under the authority of International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors to ensure civilian use," he said. The White House responds to critics by saying that the United States does not recognize India as a nuclear weapons state. The 1968 Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty defines a nuclear weapons state as "one which has manufactured and exploded a nuclear weapon or other nuclear explosive device prior to January 1, 1967." India does not meet this definition, and we do not seek to amend the Treaty, the Office of the Press Secretary said in a statement March 8, 2006. The United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China exploded nuclear devices before January 1, 1967. Critics also worry that only 14 of India's 22 nuclear power reactors will be safeguarded under the agreement, and India's two developmental fast breeder reactors will remain without safeguards. With these facilities, India can produce enough nuclear weapons to significantly expand its current arsenal, critics warn. The White House Press Office responds that at present, only four of India's nuclear power reactors are under safeguards and the agreement will increase that number to 14. When the United States and India sealed the civilian nuclear cooperation deal with a handshake back in March, IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei welcomed the announcement. "This agreement is an important step towards satisfying India´s growing need for energy, including nuclear technology and fuel, as an engine for development. It would also bring India closer as an important partner in the non-proliferation regime," said Dr. ElBaradei. "It would be a milestone, timely for ongoing efforts to consolidate the non-proliferation regime, combat nuclear terrorism and strengthen nuclear safety." "The agreement would assure India of reliable access to nuclear technology and nuclear fuel. It would also be a step forward towards universalization of the international safeguards regime," Dr. ElBaradei said. "This agreement would serve the interests of both India and the international community." ---- Key Provisions of India Nuclear Deal By The Associated Press Monday, December 18, 2006 http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2006/12/18/national/w091229S40.DTL Key provisions of a bill signed by President Bush on Monday for nuclear cooperation with India: _Allows U.S. shipments of civilian nuclear fuel and know-how to India, providing an exemption to American law that bans nuclear trade with countries such as India that have not submitted to full international inspections. _Requires Indian safeguards and inspections at 14 civilian nuclear plants. Eight military plants would be off-limits. _The United States and India must obtain an exception for India in the rules of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, an assembly of nations that export nuclear material. _Indian officials must also negotiate a safeguard agreement with the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency. ---- India's PM defends nuclear deal with US NEW DELHI (AFP) Dec 18, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/2006/061218123815.p1dsyjm8.html Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said Monday that a landmark civilian nuclear deal with the United States will help India meet its growing energy needs, but admitted some lingering concerns. The deal, which lifts sanctions on the export of civilian nuclear fuel and technology to India, was approved by the US Congress on December 9 and was to be signed into law by US President George W. Bush Monday. Top Indian nuclear scientists and the main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) have criticised the deal, which places a moratorium on nuclear testing by India. The government's communist allies also say the agreement will allow US interference in the country's foreign policy. "India cannot become a client state of the United States," top BJP member L.K Advani said, calling for a rejection of the agreement, first reached between Singh and Bush in July 2005. "Most of those who voted for or against the bill (in the US Congress) were concerned with whether the bill imposed curbs on our weapons capabilities and if it did they voted for it," Advani said. But Singh insisted there would be no global scrutiny of India's strategic programme. "Our strategic programme will respond to our own decisions and not be subjected to any international scrutiny," Singh told parliament. Singh said that the accord had ended India's status as a nuclear pariah since it first conducted a nuclear test in 1974, inviting international sanctions. Under the deal, India -- a non-signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) -- agreed to place its civilian-use nuclear reactors under scrutiny. The agreement includes a set of international safeguards to be approved by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the global nuclear watchdog, to which India must adhere. The law also asks for India's participation in US efforts to "dissuade, isolate, and, if necessary, sanction and contain Iran" -- a clause for which the government has come under fire. Singh told the legislature that the final agreement contained elements which "continue to cause concern", but that the US administration had assured India that it would comply with its commitments made in July. "We will seek full civil nuclear cooperation on the terms acceptable to us," Singh said, adding that New Delhi will press Washington for clarifications during talks. Experts said there were still significant hurdles to be crossed in tough negotiations on the agreement. "There are still many steps before it becomes something that is complete," Michael Levi, a science and technology expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, a respected US think tank, told AFP. They include devising a bilateral agreement incorporating all technical details of the deal, as well as nuclear safeguards for India that must be endorsed by the international community. The bilateral agreement will have to be approved again by the US Congress, to be controlled next year by Democrats known for their strong non-proliferation views. -------- iran Iran within four years of nuclear bomb: Israel spy chief Mon Dec 18, 2006 (AFP) http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061218/wl_mideast_afp/mideastisraeliran_061218145804 JERUSALEM - Iran will have its first atomic bomb within three or four years if its nuclear weapons programme continues to develop at the current pace, Israel's spy chief Meir Dagan has said. General Dagan, head of the Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, made the comments in an address to parliament's foreign affairs and defence commission, according to military radio. "If Iran's nuclear programme continues at its current pace, they will succeed in having a bomb within three of four years," Dagan was quoted as telling the commission Monday. The general had in November 2003 told the same commission that Iran's nuclear programme constituted "the greatest threat" to Israel since its creation in 1948. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has on a number of occasions said Israel will "not tolerate" an Iran with nuclear weapons capability. A week ago, Olmert appeared to admit -- in breach of the Jewish state's decades-long policy of ambiguity -- that Israel possessed nuclear weapons. The blunder sparked outrage, with lawmakers from across the political spectrum calling on the premier to resign. Iran, meanwhile, is facing United Nations sanctions for refusing to stop enriching uranium, which the West fears may be used for weapons development but which Tehran insists is destined for its civilian energy programme. But the Security Council's five veto-wielding members -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- plus Germany have been struggling to reach consensus on a resolution because of Russia and China's opposition to harsh sanctions favored by Western states. Israel is particularly fearful of Tehran developing a nuclear bomb in the light of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's constant threats against the Jewish state and his calls for its to be "wiped off the map". -------- korea N. Korea declares itself a nuclear power By ALEXA OLESEN, Associated Press Writer Mon Dec 18, 2006 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061218/ap_on_re_as/koreas_nuclear_27 BEIJING - North Korea defiantly declared itself a nuclear power Monday at the start of the first full international arms talks since its atomic test and threatened to increase its arsenal if its demands were not met. Reiterating those demands in its opening speech, the North said the United Nations must lift the sanctions imposed on the communist nation for its Oct. 9 nuclear test. It also said the United States must remove the financial restrictions that led the North to break off the six-nation negotiations 13 months ago. The North also said it wants a reactor built for it and help covering its energy needs in the meantime, according to a summary of the speech released by one of the delegations involved. Five nations are trying to persuade the North to abandon nuclear weapons — the United States, China, South Korea, Japan and Russia. The North said that now that it is a nuclear power, it should be treated on equal footing with the U.S. It warned that if its demands were not met, it would increase its arsenal, according to the summary. The U.S. offered in its opening comments to normalize relations with Pyongyang, but only after it halted its atomic program. "The supply of our patience may have exceeded the international demand for that patience, and we should be a little less patient and pick up the pace and work faster," Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, the U.S. envoy, told reporters. China, the North's last major ally, also pushed for results. Opening the talks at a Chinese state guesthouse in Beijing, head Chinese delegate Wu Dawei urged the envoys to work for the implementation of a September 2005 agreement in which the North pledged to abandon its nuclear program in exchange for security guarantees and aid. "We have finished the stage of commitment for commitment and now should follow the principle of action for action," Foreign Ministry spokesman Jiang Yu said, echoing phrasing from the earlier agreement. "The position of the North Korean delegation is wide apart from the rest of us and we cannot accept it," Japanese negotiator Kenichiro Sasae told reporters. A South Korean official who declined to be named because of the sensitivity of the talks said the North was entering the negotiations with a maximum of conditions for success. North Korea agreed to return to the six-nation negotiations just weeks after its nuclear test, saying it wanted to discuss U.S. financial restrictions against a Macau bank where the regime held accounts. That issue will be addressed in separate U.S.-North Korean meetings expected to start Tuesday. The arms talks have been plagued by delays and discord since they began in August 2003. The U.S. has sought to line up support against Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions by enlisting its neighbors in the discussions. The North exploited divisions among the U.S. and its partners in an effort to change the subject and buy time to develop its arsenal. But North Korea's test of a low-yield nuclear device seemed to stiffen the will of other countries — particularly China — to persuade it to disarm. Beijing joined a unanimous U.N. Security Council resolution sanctioning North Korea, and brought Pyongyang and Washington together just a few weeks later to agree to resume discussions. North Korea had boycotted the talks in response to the financial restrictions imposed by the United States. Washington had accused North Korea of using the Macau bank in scheme to launder money and print counterfeit U.S. currency. South Korean nuclear negotiator Chun Yung-woo suggested getting North Korea to dismantle its nuclear weapons program was a two-way process. "We urged North Korea to take bold and substantial initial steps to dismantle its nuclear program and stressed that the other five countries' corresponding measures should also be bold and substantial," Chun said. The latest North Korean nuclear crisis began in late 2002, when U.S. officials said the North admitted running a secret nuclear program. The program violated a 1994 deal with the U.S., in which North Korea agreed to halt its atomic development. After its admission, North Korea withdrew from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, expelled international inspectors and restarted its main nuclear reactor in order to make plutonium for bombs. Associated Press reporters Burt Herman and Bo-mi Lim contributed to this report. -------- russia Moscow research facility shuts down six of 12 nuclear reactors 18/ 12/ 2006 (RIA Novosti) http://en.rian.ru/russia/20061218/57089469.html MOSCOW, December 18 - Six out of 12 nuclear reactors at the Kurchatov nuclear research institute in Moscow have been shut down and pose no danger, a deputy director of the institute said Monday. Russian ecologists have repeatedly called for the removal of all nuclear research reactors from the capital, citing radiation and health risks. Moscow is one of the only European capitals with operating nuclear reactors on its territory. "In all, 12 reactors were constructed at the Kurchatov Institute," Andrei Gagarinsky said. "Only six of them remain operational. Another reactor will be shut down soon, and we will continue exploiting [the remaining] five." He added that three of the idled reactors are undergoing uranium removal. Nikolai Ponomaryov-Stepnoi, a vice president of the institute, said the remaining reactors are safe and pose no threat to human health, although some areas at the institute were radioactively contaminated. "There were some areas that were significantly contaminated with radiation, but our specialists have successfully cleared them," Ponomaryov-Stepnoi said. The vice president also said that all reactors still in use at Russia's leading nuclear energy research and development institute have licenses from the Federal Service for the Oversight of the Environment, Technology and Nuclear Management. Ponomaryov-Stepnoi said the institute still operates the oldest reactor in Europe and Asia, the F-1 graphite research reactor, which is very safe. "Physically, the reactor is an excellent shape and can work for hundreds of years," he said. "It is safe, and we can continue using it for scientific experiments." The Kurchatov Institute is funded through the Ministry of Industry, Science and Technology, and federal budget resources represent about 15% of its total financing. ---- Russia To Get New Mobile ICBMs by Alexander Bogatyryov Moscow, Russia (RIA Novosti) Dec 18, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russia_To_Get_New_Mobile_ICBMs_999.html Russian President Vladimir Putin and Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov recently visited the Teikovo strategic missile division, which placed the first regiment of unique mobile ground-based Topol-M intercontinental ballistic missiles on combat duty. The Russian Strategic Missile Force has received over 40 Topol silo-based ICBMs since 1997. However, unlike these earlier missiles, the mobile, hard-to-detect and interchangeable Topol-M ballistic missiles, which are immune to electromagnetic impulses, can be launched from a wide area. R and D and deployment costs were reduced because the new missile system retains the main engineering solutions of its predecessor. Moreover, the Topol-M can breach any existing anti-ballistic missile shield, including the highly expensive U.S. National Missile Defense system. It is therefore hardly surprising that Topol-M missiles will soon be the mainstay of Russia's Strategic Missile Force and replace other missiles that have been serving for over 20 years. The Topol-M missile has a lift-off weight of 47.2 metric tons, a range of over 10,000 km and carries a 1,200-kg warhead. The Russian Armed Forces, which suffered an all-out crisis in the 1990s, are now receiving new strategic offensive arms under an ambitious modernization program. Just like most other major powers, Russia is focusing on qualitative, rather than quantitative, military development in accordance with the global military-political situation. The United States has withdrawn from the 1972 ABM Treaty and resumed tests of tactical nuclear weapons. It also continues to stockpile (instead of destroying) nuclear warheads and Minuteman ICBM's, which it launches as drones for missile interceptors. Moscow, which is worried about these and many other factors, must react accordingly. Russia's rearmament program is largely motivated by tougher competition between the great powers for unimpeded access to raw materials, energy and science-and-technological resources. U.S. representatives attending a conference that was held simultaneously with the NATO summit in Riga discussed the possible use of power politics for dealing with countries which allegedly threaten European energy security. NATO can use its powerful military leverage and strategic potential to attain this goal. In this situation, Moscow has no choice but to rely on military force to defend its national interests. Consequently, Russia is attaching priority to maintaining and upgrading its strategic nuclear deterrent forces and aerospace defense system. The Russian Army has adopted Topol missiles; the Air Force is overhauling its strategic bombers; and the Navy has ordered Borei-class ballistic missile submarines. On April 5, the Government approved a project for expanding the aerospace defense system up to the year 2016 and beyond. According to the plan, the Russian Army is to adopt state-of-the-art early-warning, reconnaissance, telecommunications, and automated-control systems, as well as missile interceptors. Moscow plans to spend nearly five trillion rubles, or about $200 billion, on weapons development, procurement, modernization and repairs in the next few years. Such massive expenses are motivated by the need to renew the country's strategic nuclear forces, as well as by economic considerations. Russian authorities hope that the growing national defense industry will facilitate cost-effective high-tech production and create thousands of new jobs. In this sense, the modernization of the country's strategic nuclear forces through the procurement of Topol-M missiles is an extremely promising development. It is hardly surprising that the Russian Armed Forces plan to receive another batch of Topol missiles next year. ---- Germany returns shipment of enriched uranium to Russia 18/ 12/ 2006 (RIA Novosti) http://en.rian.ru/russia/20061218/57093237.html MOSCOW, December 18 - A Russian cargo plane carrying around 330 kilograms (730 lbs) of enriched uranium from Germany has landed at an airport near Moscow, Russia's nuclear watchdog said Monday. The uranium was supplied to the Rossendorf nuclear research center, shut down in 1991, as part of bilateral cooperation agreements between the former Soviet Union and former East Germany, the Federal Nuclear Power Agency said in a statement. The one million euro ($1.31 million) relocation, funded by Germany, falls under the Russian Research Reactor Fuel Return (RRRFR) program, designed to reduce global stockpiles of highly enriched uranium. The shipment includes about 268 kilograms (590 lbs) of highly enriched uranium and 58 kilograms (128 lbs) of low-enriched uranium, and is set to be used at one of Russia's nuclear power plants. The weekly storage cost of the uranium at the Rossendorf center was 92,000 euros ($120,000), including spending on security. Therefore, the authorities of Germany's Saxony region are interested in relocating of all its "nuclear legacy," estimated at around 4,500 kilograms (9,900 lbs), to its ex-Soviet supplier. The program will end in 2011. Since 2004, Russia has also repatriated new highly enriched uranium from Soviet-built plants in eight other countries -- Serbia, Romania, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Libya, Latvia, Poland and Uzbekistan. ---- Russia airlifting enriched uranium out of Germany 18 Dec 2006 Source: Reuters By Louis Charbonneau http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L17891030.htm DRESDEN, Germany, Dec 18 (Reuters) - Russian experts were removing a large quantity of highly enriched uranium from a Soviet-era atomic reactor in eastern Germany early on Monday and flying it to Russia for processing, officials said. German police were providing security for the transport from the Rossendorf research reactor site to Dresden airport, police spokesman Thomas Herbst said, adding the operation involved between 300 and 500 police and more undercover officers. Details of the operation, including the route the transport would take, were being kept secret for security reasons, he said. Asked about possible anti-nuclear protests, Herbst said: "We know that there was a mobilisation planned, which was posted on the internet, but we are not expecting a large action." Some 326 kg (717 lb) of enriched uranium was being flown out of Germany to a processing centre near Podolsk in Russia, nuclear officials familiar with the transport details said. Roughly two thirds of the uranium is highly enriched, though it is unclear how pure the uranium fuel is. If enriched to a sufficient level of purity, there could be enough highly enriched uranium (HEU) for several atomic bombs. The other third is low enriched uranium, the officials said. Experts from the United Nations' Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration would be on site assisting the Russians handling the transport. Once back in Russia, the HEU will be mixed with low-grade uranium so that it becomes low-enriched reactor fuel that will no longer represent a proliferation risk. The Rossendorf research reactor was built by the Soviet Union in the former communist East Germany, which ceased to exist after German reunification in 1990. The Rossendorf centre remains a key site for scientific research, though the reactor was shut down shortly after reunification. The transfer of the uranium is part of a joint U.S.-Russian programme in cooperation with the IAEA called the Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI). Its aim is to find, secure and recover dangerous nuclear materials around the world to prevent them from falling into the hands of terrorists. In an August 2006 fact sheet, the U.S. Department of Energy said the GTRI programme had secured more than 400 sites around the world containing enough radioactive material for 6,000 "dirty bombs", conventional explosives laced with nuclear material. The amount of HEU being transported to Russia overnight is more than in all the other GTRI recovery actions combined. The GTRI was launched in 2004. -------- security The White House's Cold-War Cleanup Plan by David Kestenbaum All Things Considered, December 18, 2006 NPR http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6642883&ft=1&f=1003 Dozens of nuclear research reactors still run on the kind of fuel that can be used to make an atomic bomb. The United States and the Soviet Union set them up during the Cold War as part of an effort to encourage the peaceful use of nuclear power and to build alliances. Since the 1980s, there have been various initiatives to undo that work, secure the fuel and convert the reactors. Two and half years ago, the Bush administration pledged to make these programs a priority. NPR's David Kestenbaum has a status report on the U.S. efforts to secure bomb-grade nuclear material around the world. According the Department of Energy, since the new initiative began, almost 750 pounds of highly enriched uranium have been sent back to Russia -- enough for at least several bombs. In the same time, six reactors around the world have been converted so they run off low-enriched uranium. That still leaves 80 on the government's to-do list. One thing the Global Threat Reduction Initiative has not managed to be successful at is to secure the used nuclear fuel from the research reactors built by the Soviet Union. These "spent-fuel" rods are still out there. They can also used to make an atomic bomb, says Matthew Bunn, a nuclear expert at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. He says the initiative is doing reasonably well. But he says it doesn't cover all the reactors out there, or all the bomb-grade nuclear fuel sitting around. If reactors aren't going to be converted, he says, they need to be better protected. "People need to understand the importance of what has been done," Bunn says. "Every one of these buildings that doesn't have highly enriched uranium in it means one less opportunity for terrorists to get their hands on the essential ingredients of a nuclear bomb." ---- Nuclear material secretly moved Updated 12/18/2006 By Peter Eisler, USA TODAY http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-12-18-nuclear-material-moved_x.htm?csp=34 ROSSENDORF, Germany — In a secret mission during the past five days, U.S., Russian and German officials secured nearly 600 pounds of abandoned, Soviet-made nuclear material. On Monday, they moved it from a former East German research lab to a protected site in Russia. U.S. officials considered the highly enriched uranium a top target for terrorists. The cache, moved under heavy guard in a pre-dawn convoy, included enough weapons-grade material to build several rudimentary atomic bombs. TERROR TARGET ELIMINATED: Group secures uranium stash The stockpile was "the Holy Grail," said Andrew Bieniawski, who led the operation for the National Nuclear Security Administration. "This is the stuff we worry about most — it's readily usable for a weapon, and you can handle it with bare hands." Securing it is "a Christmas present to the world," he said. The mission was the 15th so far under the U.S. Global Threat Reduction Initiative and its predecessor programs. The initiative began in 2004 to foster cooperative efforts with Russia to secure and return Soviet-made nuclear material that was left around the world after the Soviet Union's dissolution. The Rossendorf stockpile included more material than the program captured in all previous missions combined. USA TODAY was given access to the mission, along with a handful of other U.S. and European news media. Under a bilateral agreement, Russia cannot use the enriched uranium for military purposes. The pact stipulates that Russia must convert the material into low-enriched uranium, suitable for fueling nuclear power reactors, but not usable in weapons. The material will be stored in a facility just south of Moscow — one of two storage sites where security has been upgraded with $62 million in funding from the United States. The money was used to install enhanced fencing, alarm systems, video monitoring equipment, motion detectors and high-security gates. Graham Allison, a Harvard University scholar who oversaw defense policy toward Russia in the Clinton administration, said the program is a sound non-proliferation initiative, despite growing U.S. concerns about Russia's recent move toward more authoritarian policies. The material is safer at the upgraded Russian facilities than it would be in Germany, he said. "It doesn't in any way contribute to Russian nuclear capabilities," Allison said. Even if Russia reneged on its obligation to convert the material, it would amount to "a tiny pimple compared to the (amount of) highly enriched uranium they already have," he added. Most of the material at the German site, now known as the Rossendorf Research Center, was brought by the Soviets in the 1960s and '70s to fuel a secret research reactor. The Germans shut down the reactor soon after the Berlin Wall fell, and the material has been stored in vaults at the site since then. In addition to the highly enriched uranium, the mission also moved about 125 pounds of low-enriched uranium from the site. Program officials had hoped to empty all sites still holding fresh Soviet-made reactor fuel by the end of 2006. Small amounts remain at three sites in Belarus, Ukraine and Vietnam. U.S. officials expect to empty them in 2007. --- Uranium move eliminates big terror target Updated 12/18/2006 By Peter Eisler, USA TODAY http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-12-18-nuclear-material-inside_x.htm ROSSENDORF, Germany — For decades, hundreds of pounds of weapons-ready nuclear material have been sitting in a former East German research lab near Dresden. The Soviet Union brought the highly enriched uranium here in the 1960s and '70s to fuel a research reactor that the Germans shut down soon after the Berlin Wall came down. The work that was done there remains a mystery. SECRET REMOVAL: Nuclear material secured "Why there was so much material, we do not know," said Udo Helwig, director of the German company, VKTA, that decommissioned the reactor and has been storing the uranium at the site, now known as the Rossendorf Research Center. "We really don't know what they were doing here. It all was secret." The bigger concern was how the material might be used in the future. The U.S. government has long considered it a top target for terrorists trying to build a nuclear weapon. It was seen as one of the world's largest stashes of bomb-ready nuclear material outside the custody of a state-run nuclear weapons program. And now it's gone. In the pre-dawn hours Monday, a truck carrying the nearly 600 pounds of uranium left the lab under the guard of hundreds of heavily armed German agents. The convoy took a 14-mile trip to Dresden Airport, where a specially outfitted Russian transport plane was waiting. Eight hours later, the material was in a secure storage site south of Moscow. The U.S.-Russian mission, conducted with German cooperation, was overseen by officials from the U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). It also included monitors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the global organization that enforces rules on the storage and transport of nuclear material. Andrew Bieniawski, the NNSA officials in charge of the U.S. side of the operation, said it's long past time to get the material into a more secure facility. "It needs physical protection," he said. "It needs the guards and guns." And Helwig, for one, was glad to see the material shipped off the site. "Once it's outside the gate, it's no longer my responsibility," he said. "We don't even know the route of the truck." Packed up a week ago The operation began Wednesday, when German and Russian technicians in green lab coats, thick rubber gloves, paper booties and face masks began the delicate work of packaging the uranium for shipment. Slowly, they removed the material from thick-walled, steel vaults, cataloging every gram as they went. Some of it was in rods, each about a yard long, and some in pellets. The technicians slipped each piece of uranium into stainless steel tubes. Those containers then were packed in special transport casks resembling slightly oversized green oil drums — but with walls about 2 inches thick. The uranium itself isn't particularly dangerous. The type of radiation it carries can't penetrate clothing. It's a health risk if it gets inside the body by, say, inhaling the dust. But it only takes about 55 pounds of it for the most easily built of nuclear weapons. The Rossendorf operation is part of the nuclear security administration's Global Threat Reduction Initiative. The program was set up under a 2004 agreement between the agency's parent, the U.S. Department of Energy, and the Russian atomic energy ministry. It picked up speed in February 2005, when President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a joint declaration in Bratislava, Slovakia, that aimed to expand and expedite cooperative efforts to return Soviet-made reactor fuel to Russia. The Rossendorf mission more than doubled the 370 pounds of "fresh" highly enriched uranium that has been secured and sent back to Russia to date under the program and predecessor initiatives. The program also has collected and sent Russia about 136 pounds of "spent" nuclear fuel, which is too radioactive to handle and can't be used readily in weapons because it already has been used to fuel a nuclear reactor. Heavily armed convoy Finally on Monday, the casks were loaded on the truck. There were 18 in all, each weighing nearly 600 pounds. Every cask was sealed by the international monitors to ensure that none was tampered with between the time they were loaded and delivered to the facility in Russia. It took nearly an hour to arrange the dozens of police vehicles that accompanied the truck from Rossendorf to Dresden Airport. There were police in vans, police in cars, police standing along the roadside — more than 300 state and federal officers in all. And this to guard a truck that itself was heavily armored, with oversized, reinforced tires and other special features. "Security for this mission is the highest of any we've had," Bieniawski said. "This is the piece of the operation we're most concerned about. If someone is going to do something (to steal material), this is when they're going to do it." The convoy left shortly after 2 a.m., a long trail of flashing blue police lights snaking through the night. Normally, it's a 25 minute drive to the airport, but the truck took twice that long because it followed a circuitous route for safety. Fifteen minutes into the route, radios crackled. A small group of anti-nuclear protestors, alerted to the shipment, blocked the route. The disruption lasted only moments. As police cleared the protestors away, the truck steered onto an alternate route. A half-hour later, the convoy pulled into the closed airport. The technicians used a giant hoist inside the truck to lower the casks to the ground so the Russian transport crew could load them on the plane. During the next two hours, the casks were moved one by one into the cargo bay, where they were strapped down. Then each was inspected again to ensure no one tampered with the international seals on the way to the airport. Shortly before 8 a.m., officials poured in for the ceremonial good-bye, including a representative from the U.S. embassy. Eva-Maria Stange, the science minister of Saxony, the German state that's home to Rossendorf, also appeared. Stange received much attention from the U.S. officials, partly because her state government paid the costs of transporting the material to Russia. It's the first time the United States hasn't footed the entire bill for one of these operations, and the Americans thanked her profusely. "It is truly a relief to have this old material out of Saxony," Stange said, noting that the state government will save more than $1 million a year it has been paying to help cover security costs at Rossendorf. "We in Germany have no use for it … and it's out of any danger of falling into the hands of the wrong people," Stange said. At 8 a.m., the plane steered on to the runway, revved its engines and took off. Eight hours later, the material reached the Russian's Luch storage facility, south of Moscow near Podolsk. The Americans didn't wait to celebrate. "It's a big relief to see it go," Bieniawski said. "The world is a safer place today." -------- space Nuclear material secretly moved Updated 12/18/2006 By Peter Eisler, USA TODAY http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-12-18-nuclear-material-moved_x.htm?csp=34 ROSSENDORF, Germany — In a secret mission during the past five days, U.S., Russian and German officials secured nearly 600 pounds of abandoned, Soviet-made nuclear material. On Monday, they moved it from a former East German research lab to a protected site in Russia. U.S. officials considered the highly enriched uranium a top target for terrorists. The cache, moved under heavy guard in a pre-dawn convoy, included enough weapons-grade material to build several rudimentary atomic bombs. TERROR TARGET ELIMINATED: Group secures uranium stash The stockpile was "the Holy Grail," said Andrew Bieniawski, who led the operation for the National Nuclear Security Administration. "This is the stuff we worry about most — it's readily usable for a weapon, and you can handle it with bare hands." Securing it is "a Christmas present to the world," he said. The mission was the 15th so far under the U.S. Global Threat Reduction Initiative and its predecessor programs. The initiative began in 2004 to foster cooperative efforts with Russia to secure and return Soviet-made nuclear material that was left around the world after the Soviet Union's dissolution. The Rossendorf stockpile included more material than the program captured in all previous missions combined. USA TODAY was given access to the mission, along with a handful of other U.S. and European news media. Under a bilateral agreement, Russia cannot use the enriched uranium for military purposes. The pact stipulates that Russia must convert the material into low-enriched uranium, suitable for fueling nuclear power reactors, but not usable in weapons. The material will be stored in a facility just south of Moscow — one of two storage sites where security has been upgraded with $62 million in funding from the United States. The money was used to install enhanced fencing, alarm systems, video monitoring equipment, motion detectors and high-security gates. Graham Allison, a Harvard University scholar who oversaw defense policy toward Russia in the Clinton administration, said the program is a sound non-proliferation initiative, despite growing U.S. concerns about Russia's recent move toward more authoritarian policies. The material is safer at the upgraded Russian facilities than it would be in Germany, he said. "It doesn't in any way contribute to Russian nuclear capabilities," Allison said. Even if Russia reneged on its obligation to convert the material, it would amount to "a tiny pimple compared to the (amount of) highly enriched uranium they already have," he added. Most of the material at the German site, now known as the Rossendorf Research Center, was brought by the Soviets in the 1960s and '70s to fuel a secret research reactor. The Germans shut down the reactor soon after the Berlin Wall fell, and the material has been stored in vaults at the site since then. In addition to the highly enriched uranium, the mission also moved about 125 pounds of low-enriched uranium from the site. Program officials had hoped to empty all sites still holding fresh Soviet-made reactor fuel by the end of 2006. Small amounts remain at three sites in Belarus, Ukraine and Vietnam. U.S. officials expect to empty them in 2007. --- Uranium move eliminates big terror target Updated 12/18/2006 By Peter Eisler, USA TODAY http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-12-18-nuclear-material-inside_x.htm ROSSENDORF, Germany — For decades, hundreds of pounds of weapons-ready nuclear material have been sitting in a former East German research lab near Dresden. The Soviet Union brought the highly enriched uranium here in the 1960s and '70s to fuel a research reactor that the Germans shut down soon after the Berlin Wall came down. The work that was done there remains a mystery. SECRET REMOVAL: Nuclear material secured "Why there was so much material, we do not know," said Udo Helwig, director of the German company, VKTA, that decommissioned the reactor and has been storing the uranium at the site, now known as the Rossendorf Research Center. "We really don't know what they were doing here. It all was secret." The bigger concern was how the material might be used in the future. The U.S. government has long considered it a top target for terrorists trying to build a nuclear weapon. It was seen as one of the world's largest stashes of bomb-ready nuclear material outside the custody of a state-run nuclear weapons program. And now it's gone. In the pre-dawn hours Monday, a truck carrying the nearly 600 pounds of uranium left the lab under the guard of hundreds of heavily armed German agents. The convoy took a 14-mile trip to Dresden Airport, where a specially outfitted Russian transport plane was waiting. Eight hours later, the material was in a secure storage site south of Moscow. The U.S.-Russian mission, conducted with German cooperation, was overseen by officials from the U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). It also included monitors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the global organization that enforces rules on the storage and transport of nuclear material. Andrew Bieniawski, the NNSA officials in charge of the U.S. side of the operation, said it's long past time to get the material into a more secure facility. "It needs physical protection," he said. "It needs the guards and guns." And Helwig, for one, was glad to see the material shipped off the site. "Once it's outside the gate, it's no longer my responsibility," he said. "We don't even know the route of the truck." Packed up a week ago The operation began Wednesday, when German and Russian technicians in green lab coats, thick rubber gloves, paper booties and face masks began the delicate work of packaging the uranium for shipment. Slowly, they removed the material from thick-walled, steel vaults, cataloging every gram as they went. Some of it was in rods, each about a yard long, and some in pellets. The technicians slipped each piece of uranium into stainless steel tubes. Those containers then were packed in special transport casks resembling slightly oversized green oil drums — but with walls about 2 inches thick. The uranium itself isn't particularly dangerous. The type of radiation it carries can't penetrate clothing. It's a health risk if it gets inside the body by, say, inhaling the dust. But it only takes about 55 pounds of it for the most easily built of nuclear weapons. The Rossendorf operation is part of the nuclear security administration's Global Threat Reduction Initiative. The program was set up under a 2004 agreement between the agency's parent, the U.S. Department of Energy, and the Russian atomic energy ministry. It picked up speed in February 2005, when President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a joint declaration in Bratislava, Slovakia, that aimed to expand and expedite cooperative efforts to return Soviet-made reactor fuel to Russia. The Rossendorf mission more than doubled the 370 pounds of "fresh" highly enriched uranium that has been secured and sent back to Russia to date under the program and predecessor initiatives. The program also has collected and sent Russia about 136 pounds of "spent" nuclear fuel, which is too radioactive to handle and can't be used readily in weapons because it already has been used to fuel a nuclear reactor. Heavily armed convoy Finally on Monday, the casks were loaded on the truck. There were 18 in all, each weighing nearly 600 pounds. Every cask was sealed by the international monitors to ensure that none was tampered with between the time they were loaded and delivered to the facility in Russia. It took nearly an hour to arrange the dozens of police vehicles that accompanied the truck from Rossendorf to Dresden Airport. There were police in vans, police in cars, police standing along the roadside — more than 300 state and federal officers in all. And this to guard a truck that itself was heavily armored, with oversized, reinforced tires and other special features. "Security for this mission is the highest of any we've had," Bieniawski said. "This is the piece of the operation we're most concerned about. If someone is going to do something (to steal material), this is when they're going to do it." The convoy left shortly after 2 a.m., a long trail of flashing blue police lights snaking through the night. Normally, it's a 25 minute drive to the airport, but the truck took twice that long because it followed a circuitous route for safety. Fifteen minutes into the route, radios crackled. A small group of anti-nuclear protestors, alerted to the shipment, blocked the route. The disruption lasted only moments. As police cleared the protestors away, the truck steered onto an alternate route. A half-hour later, the convoy pulled into the closed airport. The technicians used a giant hoist inside the truck to lower the casks to the ground so the Russian transport crew could load them on the plane. During the next two hours, the casks were moved one by one into the cargo bay, where they were strapped down. Then each was inspected again to ensure no one tampered with the international seals on the way to the airport. Shortly before 8 a.m., officials poured in for the ceremonial good-bye, including a representative from the U.S. embassy. Eva-Maria Stange, the science minister of Saxony, the German state that's home to Rossendorf, also appeared. Stange received much attention from the U.S. officials, partly because her state government paid the costs of transporting the material to Russia. It's the first time the United States hasn't footed the entire bill for one of these operations, and the Americans thanked her profusely. "It is truly a relief to have this old material out of Saxony," Stange said, noting that the state government will save more than $1 million a year it has been paying to help cover security costs at Rossendorf. "We in Germany have no use for it … and it's out of any danger of falling into the hands of the wrong people," Stange said. At 8 a.m., the plane steered on to the runway, revved its engines and took off. Eight hours later, the material reached the Russian's Luch storage facility, south of Moscow near Podolsk. The Americans didn't wait to celebrate. "It's a big relief to see it go," Bieniawski said. "The world is a safer place today." -------- u.s. nuc facilities -------- tennessee DOE removal project done early Uranium hexafluoride relocated within budget, reducing radiation hazard By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com December 18, 2006 Knoxville News http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/local_news/article/0,1406,KNS_347_5221153,00.html OAK RIDGE - The U.S. Department of Energy is wrapping up its uranium road show and declaring a big success. "It has removed the single greatest potential hazard on this site," DOE's David Hutchins said as he watched workers secure a protective overpack on a 10-ton cylinder of depleted uranium hexafluoride. About 6,000 of the cylinders, some weighing as much as 14 tons, have been hauled to Ohio over the past three years. The $27.5 million project was accomplished within its budget. There were no major safety issues. The work was completed far ahead of schedule. For DOE's cleanup program, which has endured more than its share of failures, mishaps and cost overruns in recent years, that's like winning the triple crown in horse racing. "When DOE puts their mind to it, they can get things done," said Susan Gawarecki, executive director of the Local Oversight Committee, which evaluates environmental projects for local governments in the Oak Ridge area. The uranium compounds are a toxic legacy of the government's uranium-enrichment activities at Oak Ridge. The K-25 plant was built during World War II as part of the Manhattan Project and later expanded to provide the U-235 needed for atomic bombs and fuel in nuclear reactors. Enrichment operations were shut down in 1985, and the Oak Ridge site - now called the East Tennessee Technology Park - is being cleaned up and prepared for use as an industrial park. The outdoor storage yards, where the remnants of Cold War nuclear production sat and rusted for decades, are now virtually empty. They no longer require the day-to-day security and maintenance associated with a Category-2 nuclear facility. DOE was under orders from the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation to remove all of the cylinders of uranium hexafluoride from Oak Ridge by Dec. 31, 2009. The federal agency and its contractors beat the deadline by three years. "We're glad to have the cylinders gone," said John Owsley, the state's environmental oversight chief in Oak Ridge. He said they posed the highest radiation dose to visitors walking around the site. "While there were sufficient controls in place, it was a concern," Owsley said. After a couple of years of debate and negotiations involving environmental officers in Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee, DOE made the first shipment on March 17, 2004. After that, representatives from each of the three states talked by phone on a weekly basis. "For a long time, it didn't look like they'd ever get rid of those cylinders," Gawarecki said. "The LOC had been pushing them to do it, and we're very pleased they've had such great success. I think there were one or two little incidents - no spills or crashes or disasters. What more could you ask for?" Removing the 118 million pounds of uranium hexafluoride was a major part of the government's cleanup strategy. Bechtel Jacobs Co., a partnership of Bechtel National and Jacobs Engineering, is managing DOE's cleanup program in Oak Ridge. Most of the uranium-loaded cylinders were transported by truck to a facility near Piketon, Ohio, where a company called Uranium Disposition Services will process the depleted uranium hexafluoride from Oak Ridge and other sites. The uranium will be converted to an oxide form for safer long-term storage or disposal, and the hydrogen fluoride will be extracted and sold commercially. Hundreds of empty cylinders associated with the Oak Ridge operations or others that contained small amounts of the uranium compound were treated and shipped to disposal sites in Nevada or Utah, Hutchins said. All told, there were thousands of trips to and fro, and trucks used for the project logged more than 3.6 million miles during the past three years, he said. Visionary Solutions LLC managed the transportation under a subcontract to Bechtel Jacobs. Lance Mezga, who heads a citizens' board that advises DOE on environmental issues, said removing the rusting cylinders from outdoor storage was a significant milestone. "Some of those things were in pretty bad shape," Mezga said. Not only did the project reduce the risks to humans and the environment, but it also set the stage for revitalizing the Oak Ridge facilities for other uses, he said. Hutchins said he was proudest of the fact that no injuries were incurred during the loading and shipping operations over a three-year period. "That's a real good thing," he said. Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329. -------- MILITARY -------- israel / palestine Dagan: Syria willing to attack Israel Sheera Claire Frenkel, THE JERUSALEM POST Dec. 18, 2006 http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1164881920351&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter Israel should not take the Syrian peace overture seriously because Damascus is "more prepared than ever before" to take military action against Israel, Mossad chief Meir Dagan said Monday. "Israel's military deterrence was damaged in the second Lebanon war," Dagan told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. "[Syrian President Bashar] Assad's self-confidence grew. They are prepared to take more risks than in the past." Dagan went on to say that the Syrian army was building up its anti-tank missile units, after having seen that tanks were Israel's Achilles' heel in this summer's war. He also told the committee that Syria was stocking up on anti-aircraft weaponry in preparation for a possible aerial attack by the IAF. "Any misstep" could trigger an armed conflict with Syria, stressed Dagan. If Israel were to send a warning signal to Assad - as it did in June when IAF jets buzzed his summer palace while the Syrian leader was in residence - it would be reason enough for Syria to wage war, he said. Dagan told the committee there was little reason to pay attention to Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem's interview with The Washington Post, in which he expressed Syria's willingness to begin negotiations with Israel with no preconditions. While Moallem was giving The Washington Post the "peace overture," said Dagan, other senior officials were vehemently telling Arab media that there would be "no chance for peace" without the Golan Heights. He added that Assad's modus operandi was to "whip out a white rabbit of a peace overture" in order to dispel pressure coming from the US. Dagan summed up by saying that he had no reason to believe that Syria was making any real moves towards peace. "I don't truly see Syria offering to renew negotiations with Israel," he said. "They have their public comments, but have made no attempt to ask the United Sates and Europe to try to advance the political process." One of the committee MKs reported that Dagan also said that for Israel to negotiate with Syria would be for it to "stab the United States in the back." A committee spokesman declined to confirm the comment. During his meeting with the committee, Dagan outlined four other pressing issues that he believed posed "serious threats" to Israel, including the ongoing Palestinian civil unrest; violence in Iraq; infighting between Sunni and Shi'ite groups; and - most pressing - the Iranian nuclear threat. "Iran is approaching nuclear ability. The Iranian president wants 3000 centrifugal processors in bunkers by March 2007," said Dagan. He added that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was not capable of meeting the deadline, noting that the Mossad believed that such numbers would take Ahmadinejad until the end of 2007. Dagan explained that if there were "no sanctions on Iran and no technological holdups," Iran would have 25 kilograms of enriched uranium by 2008 and nuclear warheads by 2009-2010. Moving on to Iraq, Dagan warned there would be a looming threat to the entire Middle East when the United States eventually withdrew its troops from Iraq. Dagan said that Iraq would revert to an Islamic extremist state, which would be "a geopolitical change that will harm Israel." Al-Qaida terrorists, who have taken root in Iraq, have already planned to focus their future attention on Israel, said Dagan. Addressing the situation in Lebanon after the war, Dagan said that "Hizbullah is still in southern Lebanon, hasn't disarmed, is in agreement with the Lebanese army about its presence in southern Lebanon." Dagan said that Hizbullah was doing all it could to nullify UN Resolution 1701, and was unabatedly receiving a steady supply of missiles, some of which they have installed north of the Litani River. -------- nato Air war costs NATO Afghan supporters An increase in air strikes has led to more innocent deaths as Taliban fighters use civilians as human shields By Rachel Morarjee | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor Thursday, 01/18/07 http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1218/p01s02-wosc.html KANDAHAR, AFGHANISTAN – At a large gathering with Afghan President Hamid Karzai in this southern city last Tuesday, Abdul Ghafar sat among hundreds in the audience, clutching a piece of paper. On it were the names of 20 members of his family killed two months ago in a NATO airstrike. Ghafar's extended family in the southern Panjwai district are among the nearly 4,000 people killed since the beginning of 2006 in a Taliban resurgence that is using civilians as human shields against escalating NATO air attacks. The US-based Human Rights Watch estimates that more than 1,000 of those killed were civilians. A recent spate of suicide bombings here has stoked public anger even further. The increased violence has left NATO generals begging for more troop contributions from reluctant member nations. Just Sunday, the French defense minister announced plans to withdraw the 200 special forces troops deployed under US command in southeastern Afghanistan. But with so few boots on the ground, the increased reliance on air power has led to thousands of civilian deaths. The devastating air offenses are undermining support for the Afghan government, say human rights workers and Afghan officials, and are turning public opinion in the four southern provinces of Afghanistan against NATO forces, who took command of the south from the US in August. The US Air Force dropped 987 bombs between June and November and fired some 146,000 cannon rounds as air support for NATO allies in the south. US aircraft fired more bombs in the first six months of this year than in the first three years of its campaign against the Taliban, according to figures released by the Pentagon. President Karzai's meeting last Tuesday of NATO and US generals, ambassadors, and Afghan ministers in Kandahar - southern Afghanistan's largest city and a former Taliban stronghold - was an attempt to examine better methods for tackling the insurgency and curbing civilian deaths. But even as top military officials met, NATO troops posted at a checkpoint in Kandahar shot and killed a local tribal elder who was driving a motorbike. The man had failed to heed warning signals as he drove to the meeting with Karzai. The Tuesday visit came three days after Karzai wept openly on national television about his helplessness to protect the Afghan people from US, NATO, and Taliban violence. "We can't prevent the coalition from bombing the terrorists, and our children are dying because of that," he said with tears in his eyes during a speech to mark International Human Rights Day, Dec. 10. At the Kandahar meeting, Karzai saved some of his harshest criticism for his Pakistani neighbors, a country he says has been actively helping the Taliban. "The problem is not Taliban, we don't see it that way," Karzai told reporters. "The problem is with Pakistan." "NATO's strategy has eroded support for its mission as well as for Karzai - nothing could be more telling than Karzai weeping and complaining about NATO killing Afghan civilians," says Sam Zia-Zarifi, Asia research director for Human Rights Watch. "We are extremely worried - it hurts us, it hurts Afghan civilians. We are worried by it, NATO is also worried by it, and we are working together to reduce such casualties," President Karzai told reporters in Kandahar. "We know that is damaging to our image, and more importantly we do not want to harm innocent people." In contrast to the US, NATO has no unified approach to compensating civilians killed during fighting, instead placing the financial burden on the individual nations engaged in the fiercest fighting in the south: Canada, Britain, the Netherlands, and Romania. By providing much-needed financial aid for the families of victims killed by airstrikes, the Taliban has been able to garner support in the southern provinces, says Sarah Holewinski of the Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict (CIVIC), a Washington-based human rights group. "If NATO doesn't find a way to win the trust and support of the Afghan people, the Taliban will," she says. "In fact they already are." Fighting against Taliban insurgents who are dressed in civilian clothes and hidden among the civilian population is a difficult task. But the sharp escalation in violence has many southern Afghans asking whether NATO troops are making their lives safer or, ultimately, more dangerous. Many Afghans in Kandahar say that they would prefer NATO convoys to avoid the city, because they act as magnets for suicide bombs and the NATO soldiers tend to shoot indiscriminately into crowds. "When we see a military convoy coming we stop our car and leave it where it is. We run and we hide," says Neamatullah, who fled his village in the nearby Panjwai suburb after NATO airstrikes in May killed dozens of civilians. "Both sides are fighting each other for power," he says. "But our lives and homes are ruined." -------- pacific Discovery of stealth sub stirs up the ghosts of war Bernard Langan in Sydney December 18, 2006 UK Times http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,170-2509491,00.html The discovery of a Japanese submarine that wreaked havoc with the wartime Australian psyche has divided opinion. For 64 years the remains of two young Japanese sailors have lain in their undiscovered steel coffin — a midget submarine — not far off Sydney’s crowded northern beaches. The amateur divers who found the M24 have opened up a debate about what should be done with the remains of Sub-Lieutenant Katsuhisa Ban and his navigator, Petty Officer Mamoru Ashibe. Even their families cannot agree on whether they should be raised and returned to Japan. The pair launched a deadly attack on the night of May 31, 1942, when they slipped into Sydney harbour and fired their torpedoes at the USS Chicago, a moored cruiser. They missed and instead struck HMAS Kuttabul, an old barracks ferry, killing 21 Australian navy ratings and injuring scores more. The attack caused thousands of women and children to flee Sydney and sparked fear of a Japanese invasion. The discovery has been made at a sensitive time; Japan and Australia are preparing to increase defence co-operation. The brother of Petty Officer Ashibe said from Japan that he was “filled with hope” that the M24 would be raised. Itsuo Ashibe said: “As a member of a bereaved family — and someone who lost four brothers during the war — I pray that it will happen.” Kazutomo Ban, brother of the M24’s commander, said: “I feel relieved that we now know the exact place he died. Now, I think, we should leave him to rest in peace.” If the M24 is raised, the Australian Navy will need to decide whether to provide full military honours for the submariners. While the M24 did the most damage on the night it entered Sydney Harbour, it was not alone. Two other midget submarines accompanied it. They were both destroyed and recovered. Their four crewmen were secretly given full military honours at their burial in Sydney in a ceremony arranged by Rear Admiral GC Muirhead-Gould, Sydney’s naval chief, an Englishman who was deeply impressed with the bravery of the Japanese submariners. He was later to say: “It must take courage of the very highest order to go out in a thing like that steel coffin. How many of us are really prepared to make one thousandth of the sacrifice that these men made?” While Australian and Japanese officials have begun discussions about what should be done, a diving exclusion zone has been put around the site. Under attack # On February 19, 1942, Darwin was attacked by 188 Japanese planes and eight ships were sunk # Japan raided the Northern Territory and Western Australia. 142 civilians were evacuated # Fearing an invasion, John Curtin, the Prime Minister, recalled two divisions of the Australian Imperial Force from the Middle East # Australia played an important role in defeating Japanese in New Guinea, Borneo and Malaya. 21,000 Australians died and there were 58,000 casualties -------- POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS / JUSTICE -------- drug war Drug war, Taliban, poppies are all in full flower Opium, thugs bloom under U.S. policies in Afghanistan war Ann Jones Sunday, December 17, 2006 San Francisco Chronicle http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/12/17/ING08MTPMB1.DTL A little more than five years since the start of the Bush administration's Afghan war, the "ousted" Taliban is back in full flower, and so is the notorious Afghan poppy. There's no doubt the two are intimately connected. The Taliban, which briefly banned poppy cultivation in 2000 in an effort to gain U.S. diplomatic recognition and aid, now both supports and draws support from that profitable crop; Afghanistan provides 92 percent of the world's heroin. Yet Western policies designed to eliminate the Taliban and the poppy are at odds with each other. While NATO troops scramble, between battles, to rebuild rural infrastructure, U.S. advisers urge Afghan anti-narcotics police to eradicate the livelihood of 2 million poor farmers. So far, the poppy-eradication program, largely funded by the United States, hasn't made a dent. Last year, it claimed to have destroyed 38,000 acres of poppies, up from 12,000 the year before; but during the same period overall poppy cultivation soared from 104,000 hectares to 165,000 hectares (or 408,000 acres). When the Bush administration invaded Afghanistan in October 2001, poppies were grown on only 7,600 hectares. Under the American occupation that followed the defeat of the Taliban, poppy cultivation spread to every province, and overall production has increased exponentially ever since -- this year by 60 percent. Still, the counterproductive eradication program succeeds in one thing: It makes life miserable for hundreds of thousands of small farmers and their families. What happens to them? The Senlis Council, an international drug-policy think tank, reports that the drug-eradication program not only ruins small farmers but actually drives them into the arms of the Taliban, which offers them loans, protection and a chance to plant again. Big farmers, on the other hand, are undeterred by the eradication program; they simply pay off the police and associated officials, spreading corruption and dashing hopes of honest government. In 2002, President Bush announced, "We must reduce drug use for one great moral reason. When we fight against drugs, we fight for the souls of our fellow Americans." There's a profusion of ironies here. The United States in the 1980s fought a proxy war against the Soviet Union on Afghan soil, encouraging Islamist extremists (then "our" soldiers) and helping to set the stage for the Taliban. Now the Bush administration sets Afghan against Afghan again: For what? The souls of American heroin addicts? Or the Republican Party, for whom the "war on drugs" is a moral crusade? While Bush claims the moral high ground, other administration officials worry more pragmatically that the drug trade may destabilize the country and the region. Paradoxically, many a person on the street in Kabul points to the poppy as the source of jobs, wealth, hope and such stability as President Hamid Karzai currently enjoys. Karzai himself often promises to rid the government and country of drug lords, but as a Pashtun and a realist, he keeps his enemies close. His strategy is to avoid confrontation, befriend potential adversaries and give them offices, often in his Cabinet. The trade penetrates even the elected Parliament, which is full of the usual suspects. Among the 249 members of the Wolesi Jirga (lower house) are at least 17 known drug traffickers, in addition to 40 commanders of armed militias, 24 members of criminal gangs, and 19 men facing serious allegations of war crimes and human rights violations, any or all of whom may be affiliated with the poppy business. Through many administrations, the U.S. government has been implicated in the Afghan drug trade. During the Soviet occupation of the 1980s, the CIA sponsored anti-Soviet Islamist extremists, and to finance its covert operations, it fostered the drug trade. Before the American and Pakistani-sponsored mujahedeen took on the Soviets in 1979, Afghanistan produced a very small amount of opium for regional markets, and no heroin at all. By the end of the jihad against the Soviet army, it was the world's top producer of both drugs. As Alfred McCoy reports in "The Politics of Heroin," Afghan mujahedeen -- the guys President Ronald Reagan famously likened to "our founding fathers" -- ordered Afghan farmers to grow poppy; Afghan commanders and Pakistani intelligence agents refined heroin; the Pakistani army transported it to Karachi for shipment overseas; while the CIA made it all possible by providing legal cover for these operations. After the United States invaded Afghanistan in 2001, the Bush administration made use of our old Islamist allies, paying them millions of dollars to hunt Osama bin Laden, a task to which they appear not to have been entirely devoted. Asked in 2004 why the United States wasn't going after drug kingpins in Afghanistan, an unnamed U.S. official told a New York Times reporter that the drug lords were "the guys who helped us liberate this place in 2001," the guys we relied on to get bin Laden. Early on, the British, who were responsible for international anti-narcotics operations in Afghanistan, tried to persuade Afghan farmers to take up "alternative livelihoods" -- that is, to grow other crops -- even though no other crop requires less work or produces a fraction of the profits of poppy. Not that the farmers themselves get rich. Within Afghanistan, where perhaps 3 million people draw direct income from poppy, profits may reach $3 billion this year; but international traffickers in the global marketplace will make 10 times as much, at the very least. The small percentage of profit that stays in Afghanistan enriches mainly the kingpins: warlords, government officials, politically connected smugglers. But as drug lords build mansions in Kabul -- ornate "Pakistani Palaces" of garish tile and colored glass -- they create jobs and a booming trade in all sorts of legal goods from cement to pots and pans. What's more, that small in-country profit adds up to an estimated 60 percent of Afghanistan's gross domestic product, or more than half the country's annual income. It's also more than twice as much as the United States designated in the past five years for Afghan reconstruction, most of which never reached the country anyway. As things stand, the poppy farmer makes a decent living. Poppies enable him to hold on to his scrap of land. He can feed his family and send his children to school. Nevertheless, two years ago, some poppy farmers in Nangahar province were actually persuaded to give up poppy for tomatoes. They were pressured by an aggressive American campaign of defoliant aerial spraying of poppy fields that killed poppies and sickened children and livestock. The United States still denies responsibility for that episode and similar aerial attacks that devastated livestock in Helmand province in February 2005. When word came that the Quran had been dumped in a Guantanamo toilet, Nangahar farmers were among the angry Afghans who rioted in Jalalabad. For them, the desecration of their holy book was the last straw. They were already furious about the tomatoes. They had harvested good crops, then watched them rot because a promised bridge they needed to get their tomatoes to market hadn't been built. Remarkably, the Nangahar farmers still gave "alternative livelihoods" one more try, but they made too little money to feed their children. This year they announced they're planting poppies again. A field of poppies in bloom is a beautiful sight -- especially in Afghanistan where the plant's brilliant greenery and its white-and-purplish flowers stand against a drab landscape of rock and sand, visual testimony to the promise of human endeavor even in the worst of circumstances. It may be that Afghan farmers contemplate their fields as metaphor, Afghans being great lovers of poetry. But they're practical and desperate as well, so they came up with a plan. Afghan farmers officially proposed to British anti-narcotics officials that they be licensed to grow poppy and produce opium for state-owned refineries to be built with foreign aid donations. The refineries, in turn, would produce medicinal morphine and codeine for worldwide legal sale, thereby filling a global need for inexpensive, natural painkillers. The farmers got nowhere with this proposal, although it's hard to think of any plan that could more effectively have bound the rural peasantry to Karzai's feeble central government, stabilizing and strengthening it. One expert the administration sent to Kabul to assess the "drug problem" admitted as much. "The only sensible way out is to legalize drugs," he said in an interview early in 2004. "But nobody in the White House wants to hear that." Sure enough, in November 2004, President Bush, backed by the civilian leadership of the Pentagon and powerful Republican congressmen like Henry Hyde of Illinois, suddenly increased U.S. funds committed to the conventional Afghan war on drugs sixfold to $780 million, including $150 million for aerial spraying. So you see what weird, self-defeating policies a government such as ours can develop when its ideology silences those who might give it good advice. When it can't face facts, it attacks the very people whose hearts and minds it hopes to win. When it spends billions to tear down the lives of poor Afghans even as our NATO allies pray for a break in battling the Taliban so that -- with time running out -- they can rebuild. Ann Jones spent the better part of the last four years in Afghanistan, working on education and women's rights -- and watching. She wrote about what she saw in Kabul in "Winter: Life Without Peace in Afghanistan'' (Metropolitan Books, 2006). Contact us at insight@sfchronicle.com. -------- POLITICS -------- investigations $10 Million Worth of Polonium Used to Poison Former Russian Agent Litvinenko — Paper 18.12.2006 MosNews http://mosnews.com/news/2006/12/18/poloniumprice.shtml British investigators on Litvinenko`s case believe the radioactive substance used to poison former FSB agent cost in excess of 10 million U.S. Dollars, The Times newspaper reported on Monday. Preliminary results from the post mortem on Litvinenko’s body have discovered he was given more than ten times the lethal dose of polonium 210. Large quantities of the radioactive substance were found in his urine. “You can’t buy this much off the internet or steal it from a laboratory without raising an alarm, so the only two plausible explanations for the source are that it was obtained from a nuclear reactor or very well-connected black market smugglers,” said an anonymous British security source. One of the few companies allowed to sell polonium 210 over the internet is United Nuclear Scientific Supplies, based in New Mexico. Experts of the company said it would take at least 15,000 units of the isotope to kill someone which means the total cost would be more than 10 million U.S. Dollars. British detectives currently in Moscow continuing their investigation were due to return to Britain this week. It is reported that Russian officials refused to ask questions of Andrei Lugovoi and Dmitri Kovtun, main suspects on the case. The detectives had not complained publicly because of the importance of the case to diplomatic relations between Britain and Russia. A spokeswoman for London’s Metropolitan Police declined to comment on the investigation. Litvinenko fell ill on November 1 after a meeting with Kovtun and Lugovoy, and died on November 23. Several of his friends have blamed the Kremlin for the murder, but Russia has repeatedly denied it had any involvement in Litvinenko`s death. -------- us politics U.S. support for Iraq war falls to 31 percent Monday, December 18, 2006 (CNN) http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2006/12/cnn-poll-us-support-for-iraq-war-falls.html WASHINGTON -- Fewer than a third of Americans still support the war in Iraq, and more than half say they want U.S. troops out of the country within a year, according to a CNN poll released Monday. Support for the conflict fell to a new low of 31 percent in the poll, conducted Friday through Sunday by Opinion Research Corporation, while a record 67 percent expressed opposition to the nearly 4-year-old war. Nearly three-quarters said Bush administration policy needs a complete overhaul or major changes. But only 11 percent of those polled backed calls to send more American troops to Iraq, as President Bush is said to be considering. Pollsters interviewed 1,019 adults for the survey, which had a sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. But only 32 percent of those questioned in Monday's poll said they would support keeping U.S. troops in Iraq "as long as necessary" to hand over control to a new Iraqi government. By comparison, 21 percent said they wanted to see Americans leave immediately, and 33 percent said they wanted to see a U.S. withdrawal within a year. Despite that opposition to a continued conflict, a solid majority -- 59 percent -- said they opposed any move by Congress to end the war by cutting off spending for the U.S. deployment. But the views of those polled are increasingly pessimistic about the outcome of the war, which has cost nearly 3,000 American lives since the March 2003 invasion that toppled Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. Half of those polled -- an even 50 percent -- said the war was likely to end in a stalemate. The same number said victory was no longer possible. Forty-eight percent said an American victory remained a possibility -- but only 27 percent said it was the most likely outcome, while 20 percent said a U.S. defeat was most likely. Only 34 percent said defeat was impossible. ---- O-bomb-a and the War Party Barack Obama: He's more of the same… by Justin Raimondo Antiwar.com December 18, 2006 http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=10181 Among the Democratic Party's liberal antiwar wing, hopes were high that Barack Obama would become their voice when he made an impressive speech in which he called attention to the likely consequences of an invasion and characterized the entire project as a "dumb war." At last! A Democrat with the guts to call out the Bush administration in no uncertain terms! Alas, it was not to be… He was against the war during the campaign for the Senate seat he now occupies, but once he got into office he came around to the War Party's position, one that closely mimics warhawk John McCain's "we're in it and we gotta win it" stance. In a speech to the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, Obama attacked the Bush administration for exaggerating the threat from Iraq and attacking war opponents as unpatriotic, yet he came out with a position not too far from that of the White House: "Given the enormous stakes in Iraq, I believe that those of us who are involved in shaping our national security policies should do what we believe is right, not merely what is politically expedient. I strongly opposed this war before it began, though many disagreed with me at that time. Today, as Americans grow increasingly impatient with our presence in Iraq, voices I respect are calling for a rapid withdrawal of our troops, regardless of events on the ground." The buzzwords and catch-phrases come at us a mile a minute – "responsible," "a stable foundation for the future," "we owe it to the Iraqi people" – until he finally comes out with his actual position: "In sum, we have to focus, methodically and without partisanship, on those steps that will: one, stabilize Iraq, avoid all out civil war, and give the factions within Iraq the space they need to forge a political settlement; two, contain and ultimately extinguish the insurgency in Iraq; and three, bring our troops safely home." Extinguish the insurgency – how? With more troops? By carpet-bombing Iraqi cities? This is a fantasy scenario, one that only the hoariest neocons still entertain, yet here is Obama – or is that O-bomb-a? – talking like one of our laptop bombardiers. What will stabilize Iraq is the withdrawal of the chief irritant and obstacle to the consolidation of a unitary state supported by the majority – U.S. and British occupying forces. As for avoiding civil war, it's already too late for that. "First and foremost," said Obama, "After the December 15 elections and during the course of next year, we need to focus our attention on how to reduce the U.S. military footprint in Iraq. Notice that I say 'reduce,' and not 'fully withdraw.'" Well, yes, I did notice that, but I'm afraid the Kossacks and the "antiwar" wing of the Democratic Party are averting their eyes. Obama continues: "This course of action will help to focus our efforts on a more effective counter-insurgency strategy and take steam out of the insurgency. … I believe that U.S. forces are still a part of the solution in Iraq. The strategic goals should be to allow for a limited drawdown of U.S. troops, coupled with a shift to a more effective counter-insurgency strategy that puts the Iraqi security forces in the lead and intensifies our efforts to train Iraqi forces. At the same time, sufficient numbers of U.S. troops should be left in place to prevent Iraq from exploding into civil war, ethnic cleansing, and a haven for terrorism." So, when are we getting out of Iraq? If you can tease any clear meaning out of the above, more power to you. Later on in his peroration, he avers that the Bush administration had best narrow the "timeframe" down to more than between one and 10 years, though he conspicuously fails to do this himself. Slipperier than an eel, the rookie senator from Illinois utilizes every rhetorical device known to man to avoid coming to grips with the essential issues. We are all supposed to be so dazzled by his manner, his command of the acting skills that make him more suited for Hollywood than Washington, D.C., that we go along with his dubious distinction between a "timetable" for withdrawal and a "timeframe." (He voted against a resolution that would have pulled the troops out of Iraq by July 2007.) Blinded by the hype surrounding the Obama boomlet, antiwar Democrats can't or won't see the utter phoniness of his position, which urges us to seek a "balance" between getting out and staying in. As far as Obama is concerned, the real balance, one senses, is among the various factions of the Democratic Party. In his quest to be all things to all people, Obama is simply a mirror in which each and every faction is meant to find its own reflection. Yet his real loyalties are with the Democratic Party Establishment – the Democratic Leadership Council/Lieberman wing – and this came through in the party primaries, when his political action committee donated many thousands of dollars to defeat antiwar candidates. He supported Joe Lieberman over Ned Lamont, donating $4,200 to the eventual candidate of the "Connecticut for Lieberman" Party. He also gave $10,000 to defeat antiwar stalwart Christine Cegelis, who nonetheless came within a few thousand votes of winning against a decorated war hero. Obama's position on the Iraq war was pretty much summed up by his comment, cited at Alex Cockburn's Counterpunch, as follows: "On Iraq, on paper, there's not as much difference, I think, between the Bush administration and a Kerry administration as there would have been a year ago. There's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who's in a position to execute." Bush and Obama still hew to the same unattainable goal: a military victory. The only question is who has a better strategy to bring it about. Stealing some lines from Hillary Clinton's playbook, Obama holds up Bosnia and Kosovo as a model: "If one looks at the Balkans – our most recent attempt to rebuild war-torn nations – the international community, from the European Union to NATO to the United Nations, were all deeply involved. These organizations, driven largely by European countries in the region, provided legitimacy, helped with burden-sharing, and were an essential part of our exit strategy. Ten years later, conditions are not perfect, but the bloodshed has been stopped, and the region is no longer destabilizing the European continent." To say that "conditions are not perfect" in Bosnia and Kosovo is a bit of an understatement. A decade later, the occupation force is still there, policing the country and just barely keeping the Albanian Muslims from slaughtering the last of the remaining Serbs. Most Serbs were long ago ethnically "cleansed" from their historic lands, thanks to Bill (and Hillary) Clinton. In Kosovo, we installed the gangster-led Kosovo Liberation Army in power, and thus ensured Europe a steady supply of heroin, black market weapons, and white slavers. Yes, most of the major bloodshed has been stopped, but that's only because the victory of the KLA was – thanks to us – decisive. We sided with the Albanian Muslims in what was a civil war in the former Yugoslavia, precisely the opposite course recommended by Obama in Iraq, where he faults the Bush administration for appearing to side with the Shi'ites. Like most congressional Democrats, he bowed before the Israeli war machine and praised the IDF's brazen aggression in Lebanon, going so far as to visit northern Israel during the war in a show of support. He opposed a cease-fire – "I don't fault Israel for wanting to rid their border with Lebanon from those Katyusha missiles that can fire in and harm Israeli citizens, so I think that any cease-fire would have to be premised on the removal of those missiles" – and absurdly averred: "I don't think there is any nation that would not have reacted the way Israel did after two soldiers had been snatched. I support Israel's response to take some action in protecting themselves." According to this logic, the U.S. should have invaded Iran when the Iranians took hostages at our embassy – and, come to think of it, he does endorse an attack on Tehran, as reported by the Chicago Tribune: "U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama suggested Friday that the United States one day might have to launch surgical missile strikes into Iran and Pakistan to keep extremists from getting control of nuclear bombs." He stresses that military action is a "last resort," and that we ought to squeeze them with sanctions first: "But if those measures fall short, the United States should not rule out military strikes to destroy nuclear production sites in Iran, Obama said. "'The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?' Obama asked. "Given the continuing war in Iraq, the United States is not in a position to invade Iran, but missile strikes might be a viable option, he said. Obama conceded that such strikes might further strain relations between the U.S. and the Arab world. 'On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. … And I hope it doesn't get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I'd be surprised if Iran blinked at this point.'" The United States, in Obama's reckoning , is the ultimate arbiter of who shall join the nuclear club and who is barred from that exclusive group: he makes no mention, naturally, of Israel's nukes. There's only the demagogic assertion that anything is better than Muslims with nukes. Are there any Muslims who aren't "radical," in his eyes? Never mind that Iran is pursuing nuclear power while asserting only its right to nuclear weapons (and, at the same time, disdaining any ambitions to actually acquire them). And it doesn't matter, one assumes, that our own CIA has estimated it will be a good 10 years before the Iranians develop such a capacity. All they have to do, in Obama's view, is maintain their right to do so – and we slap them with sanctions. Which, of course, means war… The pretty-boy face and the accomplished actor's polished technique aside, Barack Obama is just another shill for the War Party. And the sooner antiwar Democrats realize that, the better. --- Obama a Peace Candidate? No way Monday, December 18th, 2006 in News by Justin Raimondo| http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2006/12/18/obama-a-peace-candidate-no-way/ In response to today’s column, a reader writes: Wow… I was just saying that I liked the fact that Obama is anti-war. Guess I was wrong. I believe of all the people who have been mentioned in the news as possible ‘08 candidates… that he is the least pro war next to Kucinich of Ohio. Unfortunately… only Kucinich has called for an immediate removal of US troops. The point is not that Obama fails to call for an immediate withdrawal: his position is that he wants to set no deadline, nor even an approximation of one, for Iraqi forces to entirely supplant the U.S. presence. And we don’t know what other candidates — on the Republican side — might leap into the breach. There’s Chuck Hagel, who was calling for starting the withdrawal process in six months this past August — and don’t forget third party candidates. The idea, after all, is to push the idea of a noninterventionist foreign policy, and not any particular candidate or party. ---- Sen. Clinton opposes troop surge in Iraq By BETH FOUHY, Associated Press Writer Mon Dec 18, 2006 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061218/ap_on_go_co/clinton2008_5 NEW YORK - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday she would not support a short-term increase in U.S. troop presence in Iraq unless it was part of a more comprehensive plan to stabilize the country. Clinton also offered the broadest indication yet that she was close to a decision on whether to enter the 2008 Democratic presidential field. "I want to make sure the decision is right for me, my family, my party and my country," Clinton said during an interview on NBC's "The Today Show." She appeared on the show to promote the rerelease of her best-selling book on child rearing, "It Takes a Village." The former first lady said she knew more than any other potential candidate how hard it was to be president. "I saw it in an up close and personal way for eight years," she said. She reiterated that she would disclose her decision sometime after the first of the year. Clinton's comments on the presidential race were her most expansive since winning re-election to the Senate from New York last month. Since then, she has been contacting potential supporters in key early voting states like Iowa and New Hampshire, but has said very little publicly about her plans. She also offered praise for Sen. Barack Obama, the Illinois Democrat who has also indicated he may enter the race. Obama drew huge crowds on a visit to New Hampshire earlier this month. "He's terrific. He's a friend and a colleague. I have very high regard for him," she said, while sidestepping a question about whether Obama would make a good president. "I think he is a really exciting personality and someone who has a lot to contribute to the national dialogue," Clinton said. Clinton, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said she was not in favor of a proposed "surge" of some 20,000-40,000 U.S. troops into Baghdad to quell the sectarian violence there. President Bush is reportedly considering such a move as one of many options to improve the situation in Iraq. Nevada Sen. Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record), the incoming Senate Majority Leader, suggested over the weekend he would support a short term troop increase if it would speed up the time frame for pulling troops out of Iraq. Clinton indicated she was skeptical of such a proposal. "I am not in favor of doing that unless it's part of a larger plan," Clinton said. "I am not in favor of sending more troops to continue what our men and women have been told to do with the government of Iraq pulling the rug out from under them when they actually go after some of the bad guys." Clinton, who voted in 2002 to authorize military intervention in Iraq, said she was wary of increased military presence in the war-torn country. "I'm not going to believe this president again," Clinton said. In an commentary published Monday in the Wall Street Journal, Clinton and Sen. John Ensign (news, bio, voting record), R-Nev., urged the Bush administration to press the Iraqi government to apportion that country's oil revenues so that "every individual Iraqi would share in the country's oil wealth." Clinton has pushed for an "Iraq Oil Trust" modeled on the Alaskan Permanent Fund to give residents a share of the revenues. "A significant percentage of oil revenues would be divided equally among ordinary Iraqis, giving every citizen a stake in the nation's recovery and political reconciliation and instilling a sense of hope for the promise of democratic values," the senators wrote. Later Monday, Clinton signed copies of "It Takes a Village" at a Manhattan bookstore as several hundred people waited in line. Clinton batted away questions about 2008, but told reporters that children's welfare had taken a turn for the worse since President Bush took office. "We were on the path to providing more health care for our kids, cutting poverty for children, balancing the budget so the debt wouldn't be on their backs. All that has changed in the last six years," she said. -------- ENERGY -------- alternative energy Italy to Build World's First Hydrogen-Fired Power Plant VENICE, Italy, December 18, 2006 (ENS) http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/dec2006/2006-12-18-05.asp The world’s first industrial scale hydrogen-fired power plant will be built near Venice, the Veneto Region and Italian energy company ENEL announced Friday. The announcement came as 20 Greenpeace demonstrators perched atop the towering chimney of an ENEL oil-fired plant to protest its planned conversion to coal. The new plant will be located in the Porto Marghera industrial area on the Italian mainland across from the Venice lagoon, next to ENEL’s coal-fired Fusina plant. The project will involve ENEL investment of 40 million euros over the next five years and more than four million euros in support from the Veneto Region for research and development. At Veneto Region headquarters in Venice on Friday, the Region and ENEL signed an agreement on the granting of funding for research and experimentation of hydrogen technologies. With the signing of the agreement by Gennaro De Michele, head of ENEL Research, the Veneto Region will contribute 4.16 million euros to ENEL. This grant strengthens ENEL’s commitment in the hydrogen field, which began in the Venice area with the founding of Hydrogen Park in 2003, the company said in a statement. The funding will support development of zero-emission hydrogen combustion power generation systems; development of innovative hydrogen production technologies and coal and biomass power generation systems; as well as innovative hydrogen accumulation systems, the company said. ENEL will conduct these research programs in collaboration with numerous industrial and university partners. The signing of the agreement is the final act in a long process that involved the granting of funding to ENEL Ricerca by the Veneto Region under a European call for projects, following the program agreement with the Ministry for the Environment in March 2005 for the creation of a hydrogen district at Porto Marghera. The construction of the hydrogen power plant at Fusina is part ENEL’s plan, announced Thursday by CEO Fulvio Conti, to invest four billion euros over the next five years in renewables and environmentally friendly innovation. Meanwhile, on Thursday 20 Greenpeace volunteers climbed the 250 meter high chimney of an ENEL power plant in Porto Tolle, about 50 kilometers (30 miles) south of Venice. The protest was staged to protest the company's planned conversion of two of its biggest oil power plants to coal - one is in Porto Tolle, while the other is near Rome. Greenpeace calls ENEL the greatest carbon dioxide, CO2, emitter in Italy, and says conversion of the oil plants to coal would raise Italian greenhouse gas emissions above limits required to adhere to the country's commitments under the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations climate treaty. The Greenpeace climbers left the Porto Tolle chimney on Saturday. Nearly 2,000 cyberactivists joined them in virtual protest at the plant, and after failing for three days to respond to entreaties for a meeting, Economy Minister Pierluigi Bersani finally has agreed to meet with Greenpeace representatives. Bersani agreed to turn down ENEL's request for an increase in their carbon emissions cap. "In effect," says Greenpeace, "this means the Porto Tolle plant will get no emissions license and cannot convert to coal." The agreed cap will, however, allow the conversion of the second ENEL plant in Civitavecchia near Rome. The environmental group says it will continue efforts to have that conversion overturned. Greenpeace Italy campaign director Giuseppe Onufrio said, "We will continue to pressure Bersani and the government to find out if they take the part of Kyoto and the atmosphere or only the part of Italy's industrial interests. To dramatize the need to purchase energy efficient consumer electronics, over the next few days, Greenpeace activists will show up in front of electronics stores Rome, Milan, Naples, Palermo, Padova, Parma, Genoa, Venice, Bologna, Modena and numerous smaller localities. The group says preventing climate warming is not just a government and industry responsibility - consumer choices can make the difference between a cooler planet and an overheated one. -------- ACTIVISTS Livingstone and Greenpeace launch nuclear campaign Publisher: Ian Morgan Published: 18/12/2006 24DASH.com http://www.24dash.com/news/58/14456/index.htm The Mayor of London Ken Livingstone and Greenpeace have joined together to launch a stark public information campaign highlighting that there is a real alternative to nuclear power. Under the headline '£70 billion - Nuclear Waste?' the Mayor invites Londoners to participate in the debate now taking place about energy policy. The posters will appear on tube stations across the capital from Friday. The Government has made it clear that it wants to construct a new generation of nuclear power stations. It argues there is no alternative, even though the cost of clearing up the last generation has soared to £70 billion. The Mayor and Greenpeace believe that there is an alternative that would cost a lot less, both financially and environmentally and could lower Londoners' fuel bills. An efficient, decentralised alternative that includes combined heat, power and cooling plants, biofuels and renewables. The Mayor is calling on Londoners to join the debate, and to give their views on London's future energy needs. Mayor of London Ken Livingstone said: "Nuclear power is yesterday's solution to our energy needs. In London we want to lead the way in combating climate change by using the cleanest energy and most efficient technologies rather than adopting solutions that damage the environment. Developing the infrastructure for decentralised energy would be financially and environmentally more cost effective than using nuclear power, it would mean less carbon emissions and it would help reduce Londoners' fuel bills." Sarah North, Greenpeace Climate Change Campaigner said: "A new nuclear age is a dangerous distraction from real energy solutions to climate change. It would also generate highly radioactive waste which remains deadly for up to a million years and would mean Londoners are exposed to a new terrorist threat as the population would be condemned to having vulnerable nuclear waste trains trundling along our public rail network for decades to come." ---- Howard Zinn on The Uses of History and the War on Terrorism Monday, December 18th, 2006 Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/18/1326231 Howard Zinn is one of this country's most celebrated historians. His classic work "A People's History of the United States" changed the way we look at history in America. First published a quarter of a century ago, the book has sold over a million copies and is a phenomenon in the world of publishing - selling more copies each successive year. [includes rush transcript] After serving as a bombardier in World War II, Howard Zinn went on to become a lifelong dissident and peace activist. He was active in the civil rights movement and many of the struggles for social justice over the past 40 years. He taught at Spelman College, the historically black college for women, and was fired for insubordination for standing up for the students. He was recently invited back to give the commencement address. Howard Zinn has written numerous books and is professor emeritus at Boston University. He recently spoke in Madison, Wisconsin where he was receiving the Haven Center's Award for Lifetime Contribution to Critical Scholarship. We bring you his lecture, "The Uses of History and the War on Terrorism." RUSH TRANSCRIPT HOWARD ZINN: Madison is a very special place. I always have a special feeling when I come here. I have a feeling I am in a different country. And I’m glad, you know. Some people get disgusted of the American policy, and they go to live in some other country. No. Go to Madison. So, now I’m supposed to say something. I am glad you’re there, whoever you are, and this light is shining in my eyes to wake me up. Well, do you get the feeling sometime that you’re living in an occupied country? Very often that’s a feeling I get when I wake up in the morning. I think, “I’m living in an occupied country. A small group of aliens have taken over the country and are trying to do with it what they will, you know, and really are.” I mean, they are alien to me. I mean, those people who are coming across the border from Mexico, they are not alien to me, you see. You know, Muslims who come to this country to live, they are not alien to me, you see. These demonstrations, these wonderful demonstrations that we have seen very recently on behalf of immigrant rights, say, and you’ve seen those signs saying, you know, “No human being is alien.” And I think that’s true. Except for the people in Washington, you see. They’ve taken over the country. They’ve taken over the policy. They’ve driven us into two disastrous wars, disastrous for our country and even more disastrous for people in the Middle East. And they have sucked up the wealth of this country and given it to the rich, and given it to the multinationals, given it to Halliburton, given it to the makers of weapons. They’re ruining the environment. And they’re holding on to 10,000 nuclear weapons, while they want us to worry about the fact that Iran may, in ten years, get one nuclear weapon. You see, really, how mad can you be? And the question is, how has this been allowed to happen? How have they gotten away with it? They’re not following the will of the people. I mean, they manufactured a will of the people for a very short time right after the war started, as governments are able to do right after the beginning of an armed conflict, in order to able to create an atmosphere of war hysteria. And so for a short time, they captivated the minds of the American people. That’s not true anymore. The American people have begun to understand what is going on and have turned against the policies in Washington, but of course they are still there. They are still in power. The question is, you know, how did they get away with that? So, in trying to answer the question, I looked a little at the history of Nazi Germany. No, it’s not that we are Nazi Germany, but you can learn lessons from everybody and from anybody’s history. In this case, I was interested in the ideas of Hermann Göring, who, you may know, was second in command to Hitler, head of the Luftwaffe. And at the end of World War II, when the Nazi leaders were put on trial in Nuremberg, Hermann Göring was in prison along with other of the leaders of the Nazi regime. And he was visited in prison by a psychologist who was given the job of interviewing the defendants at Nuremberg. And this psychologist took notes and, in fact, a couple of years after the war, wrote a book called Nuremberg Diary, in which he recorded -- put his notes in that book, and he recorded his conversation with Hermann Göring. And he asked Göring, how come that Hitler, the Nazis were able to get the German people to go along with such absurd and ruinous policies of war and aggression?” And I happen to have those notes with me. We always say, “We happen to have these things just, you know, by chance.” And Göring said, “Why, of course, the people don’t want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war? But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy. The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. All you have to do is tell them they’re being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism. It works the same way in any country.” I was interested in that last line: “It works the same way in any country.” I mean, here, these are the Nazis. That’s the fascist regime. We are a democracy. But it works the same way in any country, whatever you call yourself. Whether you call yourself a totalitarian state or you call yourself a democracy, it works the same way, and that is, the leaders of the country are able to cajole or coerce and entice the people into war by scaring them, telling them they’re in danger, and threatening them and coercing them, that