* Today's Highlight in History
* Workers Paying for Uranium Checkups
* Text of Clinton news conference: Two-thirds of Russian aid goes to de-nuclearization and safeguarding nuclear materials
* Concerns About Panama Canal Turnover
* Prueher To Be Sworn In As New US Ambassador To China
* China Builds 2nd Missile Base Near Taiwan-Newspaper
* China targets Taiwan with 2nd missile base
* Facing China Missiles, Taiwan VP Wants Deterrent
* Taiwan Discusses Missile Development
* Dalai Lama Urges China Awareness
* Japan To Put Soldiers on Y2K Alert
* Japan To Cancel Key Rocket Program
* Cold War Deadlock Continues in Korea
* Russian Nuke Chief: Ready for Y2K
* Russia, US Discuss Weapons Control
* Russia, Belarus Sign Pact
* Russia May Vote on Nuclear Pact (next week)
* Russians May Discuss Arms Reduction
* Swedes Want New Referendum on Nuclear Power
* Commercial Reactor To Sell Tritium
* Beryllium Workers Get New Standards
* Energy Dept. Will Cut Standard for Its Workers' Exposure to a Metal Tied to Lung Disease
* Decision Nears on the Fate of Ex-Los Alamos Scientist
* Pentagon Studies F-22 Alternatives
* McCain Calls for Overhaul of National Security Policy
* Defense Speech Remarks of Senator John McCain (text)
* McCain Outlines Military Priorities
* White House Preparing Gun Lawsuit
* Utility Declares Millstone Plant Ready for 2000
* 10 workers injured in accident at Tenn. nuclear weapons plant
* Saddam's Weapons Program Questioned
* Questions Remain About Iraq Weapons
* New Arms Inspection Plan Could End Sanctions Against Iraq
--- [Older stories] ---
* Top weapons broker defends arms control policy (Bulgaria)
* Finland considers new nuclear power plant

----------- nuc history

Today's Highlight in History:
Dec. 8, the 342nd day of 1999. There are 23 days left in the year.

Associated Press Tuesday, Dec. 7, 1999; 7:02 p.m. ESTToday In History
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/19991207/aponline190235_000.htm

In 1987, President Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail S. Gorbachev signed a treaty calling for destruction of intermediate-range nuclear missiles.


-------- us uranium workers

Workers Paying for Uranium Checkups

New York Times December 8, 1999 Filed at 7:30 a.m. EDT By The Associated Press
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/a/AP-Uranium-Workers.html
http://wire.ap.org/APnews/center_story.html?FRONTID=NATIONAL&STORYID=APIS7174UO80

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) -- The federal government hasn't kept its promise to pay for expanded health screenings of uranium workers in Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee, The Columbus Dispatch reported today.

The latest federal budget had included $7 million for the programs, but Congress removed the funds.

As a result, thousands of people exposed to highly radioactive materials aren't getting medical checkups that could save their lives, the newspaper reported today.

More than 300 current workers at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Piketon are awaiting screening, said Mark Lewis, coordinator of the Worker Health Protection Program at the plant.

Until the program is expanded, only former employees are eligible, he said.

``The money's not there so far,'' Lewis said. ``I'll believe it when it's there.''

The Clinton administration proposed Sept. 16 to provide $5.8 million for expanded health checks of workers at the Piketon plant, its sister plant in Paducah, Ky., and a former uranium-enrichment plant in Tennessee. An additional $1.2 million was allocated for identifying and assessing the health and safety risks at those plants.

The money would have covered checkups, including tests for early detection of lung cancer, for nearly 6,000 former and current workers.

Currently, only $1 million is available, enough to cover about 1,200 former workers, the newspaper said.

----------- clinton text

Text of Clinton news conference:
Two-thirds of Russian aid goes to de-nuclearization and safeguarding nuclear materials

Transcribed by the Federal Document Clearing House:
12/08/99- Updated 05:26 PM ET
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washdc/ncswed08.htm

CLINTON: Good afternoon. Please be seated.

Before I take your questions, I have a statement to make. We are at a pivotal moment in the Middle East peace process, one that can shape the face of the region for generations to come. As I have said on numerous occasions, history will not forgive a failure to seize this opportunity to achieve a comprehensive peace.

We've made good progress on the Palestinian track, and I'm determined to help Prime Minister Barak and Chairman Arafat move forward in accordance with their very ambitious timetable.

We have also been working intensely for months for a resumption of negotiations between Israel and Syria. Today I am pleased to announce that Prime Minister Barak and President Assad have agreed that the Israel-Syrian peace negotiations will be resumed from the point where they left off.

The talks will be launched here in Washington next week with Prime Minister Barak and Foreign Minister Sharaa. After an initial round for one or two days, they will return to the region and intensive negotiations will resume at a site to be determined soon thereafter. These negotiations will be high-level, comprehensive, and conducted with the aim of reaching an agreement as soon as possible.

Israelis and Syrians still need to make courageous decisions in order to reach a just and lasting peace. But today's step is a significant breakthrough, for it will allow them to deal with each other face to face, and that is the only way to get there.

I want to thank Prime Minister Barak and President Assad for their willingness to take this important step. And I want to thank Secretary Albright, who has worked very hard on this and as you know has been in the region and meeting with the leaders as we have come to this conclusion.

Before us is a task as clear as it is challenging. As I told Prime Minister Barak and President Assad in phone conversations with them earlier today, they now bear a heavy responsibility of bringing peace to the Israeli and Syrian people.

On the Palestinian track, Prime Minister Barak and Chairman Arafat are committed to a rapid timetable: a framework agreement by mid-February, a permanent status agreement by mid-September.

I'm convinced it is possible to achieve that goal - to put an end to generation of conflicts, to realize the aspirations of both the Israeli and the Palestinian people - and I will do everything I can to help them in that historic endeavor.

It is my hope that with the resumption of Israeli-Syrian talks negotiations between Israel and Lebanon also will soon begin.

There can be no illusion here. On all tracks the road ahead will be arduous, the task of negotiating agreements will be difficult.

Success is not inevitable. Israelis, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese will have to confront fateful questions. They face hard choices. They will have to stand firmly against all those who seek to derail the peace - and sadly there are still too many of them.

But let there also be no misunderstanding. We have a truly historic opportunity now. With a comprehensive peace, Israel will live in a safe, secure and recognized border for the first time in its history.

The Palestinian people will be able to forge their own destiny on their own land. Syrians and Lebanese will fulfill their aspirations and enjoy the full fruits of peace. And throughout the region, people will be able to build more peaceful and clearly more prosperous lives.

As I have said and I say one more time: I will spare neither time nor effort in pursuit of that goal.

Today the parties have given us clear indication that they, too, are willing to take that path.

Peace has long been within our sight. Today, it is within our grasp, and we must seize it.

Thank you very much.

Q: Mr. President, on another matter involving a foreign government, as a father, do you sympathize with the demand of Elian Gonzalez for the return of his 6-year-old son to Cuba now that the boy's mother and stepfather had - were drowned in a boating accident on the way to Florida?

CLINTON: Well, of course, I think all fathers would be sympathetic. The question is - and I think the most important thing is - what would be best for the child. And there is a legal process for determining that.

And I personally don't think that the - that any of us should have any concern other than that. That the law be followed. I don't think that politics or threats should have anything to do with it, and if I have my way, it won't.

We should let the people who are responsible for this, who have a legal responsibility, try to do the right thing by the child. These decisions are often difficult even in domestic situations, and - but I hope that is what will be done, and it should be done without regard to politics.

Q: Mr. President, did both sides make a lot of concessions to get to this breakthrough point? And also, are you aware that Amnesty International says that Israel is continuing the demolition of Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem and on the West Bank? And also, the expansion of the settlements. Are all these part of the package?

CLINTON: Well, Prime Minister Barak made a very important statement about settlements yesterday which I think was quite welcome.

And it's a good first step. As you know, we believe that nothing should be done which makes it more difficult to make peace or which prejudges the outcome. But I do think that the statement yesterday is a step in the right direction.

As to your question about Syria, I think it's very important at this point, that we maximize the chances for success, which means that it would not be useful for me to get into the details.

But the negotiations are resuming on the basis of all previous negotiations between the United States and Syria - I mean, between Syria and Israel, and with the United States. I think it is clear that both parties have sufficient confidence that their needs can be met through negotiations or they would not have reached this agreement today.

Q: On Chechnya, you used sanctions to punish Yugoslavia and Indonesia for repression. Why aren't sanctions being considered against Russia?

CLINTON: Well, there are two categories of aid here in question. Or at least let's talk about the aid. A sanctions regime has to be imposed by the United Nations, and Russia has a veto there. But I'm not sure that would be in our interest or in the interests of the ultimate resolution of the crisis.

Let me just say with regard to the aid, because I've been asked about that. I think it's important to point out to the American people that two-thirds of the aid that we spend in Russia is involved in de-nuclearization and safeguarding nuclear materials. And I think it is plain that we have an interest in continuing that.

The other third goes to fund democracy - the things that we Americans believe would lead to better decisions. It goes to an independent media. It goes to student exchanges. It goes to NGOs, to helping people set up small businesses. I don't think our interests would be furthered by terminating that.

And as of now, there is no pending IMF transfer because of the general opinion by the IMF that the - not all the economic conditions have been met.

CLINTON: So that's a bridge we'll have to cross when we get there. Yes.

Q: Mr. President, when Israel and Syria do sit down, they obviously are going to have to confront the issue of the Golan Heights almost immediately. How are they going to resolve that? What will the U.S. role be? Will you see the administration - Secretary Albright, yourself possibly - being a mediator?

And finally, why isn't President Assad sitting down with Prime Minister Barak at this point?

CLINTON: Well, I think they're sitting down because they want to make peace and they have now concluded that they can do it on terms that will meet both their interests.

You've asked good questions, but any answer I give will make it unlikely that they would be successfully resolved. I just - frankly, we all took a blood oath that we wouldn't talk beyond our points today, and I'm going to keep my word.

Q: I'm sorry, sir. Maybe you misunderstood. I was asking why President Assad is not personally involved in the talks at this point.

CLINTON: Oh, he is very personally involved. I think that - I believe that he felt it was better, and maybe you should ask the Syrians this, but let me just say, he is very personally involved in this. I think it is - he thinks it better, for whatever reason, he's made the decision that Foreign Minister Sharaa, who thankfully has recovered from his recent stroke and is perfectly able to come here to do so, and I'm quite comfortable that this is - it's as close to person-to-person talks that they could have without doing it.

Q: Mr. President, can I follow up on both Cuba and Chechnya?

CLINTON: Sure.

Q: With regard to Cuba, you said that politics ought to stay out of this decision regarding the boy. Are you saying, sir, that you can envision a circumstance where in your mind it would be appropriate to return this young boy to Communist Cuba?

Q: Second question, regarding Chechnya, given the fact that two-thirds of the aid goes to de-nuclearization, a third to democracy efforts, do you envision no circumstances, sir, under which the United States would cut off that aid? And how does that square with your statement that Russia will pay a heavy price for its war against Chechnya?

CLINTON: First question first. I do not know enough about the facts. So you can - you can draw no inference as to what I might or might not do because it's not a decision for me to make. There is a law here, there are people charged with making the decision. I think they ought to do their best within the parameters of the law, do what seems to be best for the child. That is all I have to say and you shouldn't read anything into it. I don't know enough about the case. And I don't think that we should, any of us, should interfere with what is going to be a difficult enough decision as it is.

Now, on Russia. I have stated what my present view is, and that is all I have done. Now what - I think Russia is already paying a heavy price. I think they'll pay a heavy price in two ways. First of all, I don't think the strategy will work. As I've said, I have no sympathy for the Chechen rebels. I had no sympathy for the invasion of Dagestan, and I have no sympathy for terrorist acts in Moscow, and none of us should have.

But the people of Chechnya should not be punished for what the rebels did. They don't represent the established government of Chechnya. They don't represent the majority of the people there. And the strategy, it seems to me, is more likely to hurt ordinary citizens than the legitimate targets of the wrath of the Russian government.

So I think that - first of all, I think the policy will not work, and therefore, it will be very costly, just like it was before when it didn't work.

Secondly, the continuation of it and the amassing of hundreds of thousands of refugees, which will have to cared for by the international community - we've already set aside I think at least $10 million to try to make our contributions for it - will further alienate the global community from Russia.

And that's a bad thing because they need support, not just from the IMF and the World Bank. They need investors. They need people to have confidence in what they're doing. They're about to have elections.

And so there will be a heavy price there. And I don't think there's any question about that. I think it's already - yes, go ahead.

Q: Sir, regarding the Cuban boy, you say you don't know enough about the facts. A lot of people in South Africa think the facts are pretty simple. They say that even though the boy's father in Cuba, this boy would be better off growing up in the United States than in Cuba under Castro. What would you say to those people?

CLINTON: Well, I think that's - you know, I think the decision-makers will take into account all the relevant facts. But I don't think I should make the decision. First of all, I can't make the decision under the law and I don't think I should tell them how to make the decision because I don't know enough about the facts. I think - I believe they'll do their best to make the right decision.

Q: ... growing up in Cuba as opposed to growing up in the United States.

CLINTON: Well, of course, I'd rather grow up in the United States.

But there may be other considerations there, and one was asked in the previous question about it. So we'll just have to evaluate it.

You know, there are times in the United States when judges have to make decisions. A legal standard governing domestic cases is the best interest of the child. There's a slightly different characterization, I think, of what will determine the international decision here. This is, you know, an unusual case for us.

But even here, sometimes it's very hard to say, you know, would children be better off with their parents in America? Almost always, but not always.

So you just can't - I don't think you - I can't serve any useful purpose by commenting on it, because I don't know enough about the facts of the family life or even the governing law on this.

CLINTON: I just know that I think we ought to let the people make the decision, urge them to do their best to do what's best for the child and try to make it - try to take as much political steam out of it as possible so that the little child can be considered.

Q: Sir, on another legal matter, your threat of a class action against gun manufacturers. Is this an attempt, sir, through either coercion or ultimately the judicial branch, to get accomplished what you couldn't get accomplished through legislation?

And with the difficulties that you've had recently getting some of your initiatives passed in Congress as you head into this last year of your presidency, is this the hint of a new tactic to get those initiatives passed when you can't get them through Congress?

CLINTON: Let's talk about the gun suit first, and then I'll respond to the general question. The litigation, which is being initiated by public housing authorities, has a good grounding in fact. There are 10,000 gun crimes every year in the largest public housing authorities.

Now, they spend $1 billion on security. And I think that it's important that the American people know, they are not asking for money from the gun manufacturers. They are seeking a remedy to try to help solve the problem. They want, first of all, more care in the manufacturers and the dealers with whom they deal.

Senator Schumer released a study - you may remember - that said that one % of the gun dealers sell 50% of the guns involved in gun crimes. Now if that study is accurate, and he believes it is, that is a stunning fact.

And there ought to be something done about that. And if there's a way that the court could craft a resolution of that, that would be a good thing, I think.

Second thing we want to do is to stop irresponsible marketing practices. You all remember that one company advertised an assault weapon by saying that it was hard to get fingerprints from. You know, that's - you don't have to be all broke out with brilliance to figure out what the message is there.

And the third thing they want is some safety design changes.

Now, let me hasten to say that we have a lot of gun manufacturers in this country who have been, I think, immensely responsible. You'll remember that the majority of the gun manufacturers signed on to our proposal for child trigger locks. I still would like legislation to cover them all.

But this is - this should not be viewed - if you look at the nature of the relief, they're not trying to bankrupt any company. They're trying to make their living spaces safer. And I think it's a legitimate thing.

Now, to your general question - I think if you go back over the whole reach of our tenure here, I've always tried to use the executive authority in areas where I thought it was important.

We're doing it on medical privacy. We're doing it on - yesterday, we had the press conference on prevention of medical errors. We're doing it with the paid family leave initiative we offered to the states. We did it when we set aside the roadless areas and the forests. And so, I think this is an appropriate thing to do.

But I would also remind you at the end of this legislative session, from the Congress, we got 100,000 teachers, 50,000 police, 60,000 housing vouchers to help people move from welfare to work. We passed the Kennedy-Jeffords bill to allow people with disabilities to move into the workplace and keep their medical care from the government.

We passed Financial Modernization Act, which will dramatically, I thin, improve financial services, grow the economy, and we protected a Community Reinvestment Act. We doubled funds for after-school programs, we provided for the very first time ever funds to help school districts turn around failing schools or shut them down.

So I'm continuing to work with Congress, and I will do so vigorously. But I think the - this was an appropriate thing to do, on the merits.

Q: Mr. President, some of your critics have suggested that the reason that you pressed issues of the environment and labor at the WTO meeting in Seattle was to benefit the presidential candidacy of Vice President Gore, knowing that there might be a backlash from the developing nations. How do you respond to that?

CLINTON: That's wrong. And I would like to make two comments, one on the WTO ministerial meeting and, secondly, on that general issue. The Uruguay round was launched in 1986. The trade minister started trying to launch it in 1982. It took them four years to get it off the ground. The fundamental reason a new round was not launched here had, in my judgment, very little to do with my philosophy of trade, which I'll talk about in a moment.

There were - the big blocs here were the Europeans and the Japanese, on the one hand; the United States and the developing nations. We all had positions that couldn't be reconciled.

The Europeans were not prepared at this time to change their common agricultural policy which accounts for 85% of the export subsidies in the world. The Japanese had their own agriculture and other issues to deal with. The United States was not prepared to change its policy on dumping because - and I think the recent Asian financial crisis justifies it, I might add.

Even though we did finally move under our dumping laws, and we had to move to try to keep our steel industry, which took down 60% of its employment and modernized during the '80s and the early '90s, we still bought 10 times as much steel during that crisis as the Europeans did.

The recent WTO agreement we made with China protects us from surges and unfair dumping. We have the largest trade deficit in the world. Now I - we get a lot of good out of it. We get low inflation, we get goods from all over the world, but there has to be some sense of fairness and balance here.

And the developing nations for their part felt that they had not yet gotten enough benefits from the last trade round and the entry into the WTO. They think that we and everybody else - the Europeans, the Japanese, everybody - they think we ought to have more open markets for agricultural products, which doesn't affect America so much, and for textiles, which does affect us.

CLINTON: That's the big issue being negotiated still with the Caribbean Basin and the Africa trade initiative.

So it's very important that you understand that there were real differences that we thought we could bridge unrelated to labor and the environment, which we couldn't. And which I think would have been clearer but for the backdrop of the demonstrations in Seattle over these other issues.

Now, to your second question. When I ran for president in 1992, and the big issue being debated was NAFTA. I said that I wanted to be for NAFTA. I would fight hard for it, but I felt strongly there ought to be revisions of labor and the environment in the agreement. And those provisions were included.

I have always had - what I guess you would call a third way position on trade. I think the position of Americans including some in my party, that trade is bad for America and bad for the world is just dead wrong.

I think that the world is more prosperous and I know America is more prosperous because of the continuing integration of the world's economy and the mutual interdependence of people and people being able to produce what they produce best in a competitive environment. Including cost.

And I don't think there's - and I think we benefit not just from our exports, but from the imports. That's what I believe. I believe we will have both a more prosperous and a more peaceful world if we have more of the right kind of globalization.

I read one of the many, many articles that's been written in the last several days in the aftermath of Seattle, pointed out that many of the world's most troubled places - the Balkans, the Caucasus, Africa, to some extent the Middle East - suffer because they have too little economic interconnection with the rest of the world.

I believe, even though I'm proud of the role that we played and especially proud of the role George Mitchell played in the Irish peace settlement.

I think it is unlikely that we would have done that if also Ireland didn't have the fastest growing economy in Europe and Northern Ireland weren't growing and people didn't imagine that they could have a totally different life if they just let go of what they've been fighting over. So the people who don't believe that trade is good, I just think they're wrong.

Now, having said that, I think that as the world grows more interdependent, it is unrealistic to think that there will be an international economic policy with rules unrelated to an emerging international consensus on the environment and international consensus on labor.

That does not mean that I would cut off our markets to India and Pakistan, for example, if they didn't raise their wages to American levels. I know that's what the sort of stated fear was. I never said that. I don't believe that.

But I think that - let me give you an analogy. Several years ago, the Europeans did this, and I applaud them. They were actually the impetus for protecting intellectual property - more than the United States was.

And people debated that for years why intellectual property has no place in trade bills. Who cares if people are pirating books and selling them for 60 cents apiece when they cost $20 somewhere else?

And now we just take it as a given, and it's a good thing for the United States. You think about all the software we're exporting, all the CDs we're exporting, all this intellectual property - it's a big deal to us now.

It was just an alien a subject a few years ago to trade talks as questions of labor and the environment are today.

So I think I've got a good position here. It has nothing to do with this campaign. It's a position I've had for years, and I believe the world will slowly come to it.

We do have to be sensitive to the developing countries. We cannot say that, you know, you're out of here because you can't have the same labor environment we do.

But we also have to - all we asked for was to start a dialogue within the WTO on trade issues.

On the environment, all we ask is that the decision-making process not degrade the environment, and when countries have environmental policies and interests, just blithely override them because there's an immediate short-term economic benefit.

I think that's right. And I believe that 10 years from now, somebody will be sitting here and we'll all take it for granted that we've come a long way in integrating trade and the environment - I mean - and trade and labor. That's what I think and that's what I believe.

Q: Mr. President, I'm afraid this is in the pop quiz category of questions, but I'll try to make it easy for you. Every year this time of year we pick a man of the year. Maybe one day it will be ''person'' of the year. I'd like to know what your pick of the man of the century would be - and note that I'm not asking you for the millennium.

CLINTON: Well if it were the millennium, it might be someone different. Well there are - this century produced a lot of great men and women, but as an American I would have to choose Franklin Roosevelt. Because in this century our greatest peril was in the Depression and World War II, and because he led us not only through those things and laid the building blocks for a better society with things like Social Security and unemployment insurance, which was, interestingly enough, first recommended by his cousin, Theodore Roosevelt, when he was president.

But he also looked to the future - endorsing the United Nations and a lot of the other international institutions which were subsequently created under President Truman.

Finally, I think Roosevelt was an example to Americans of the importance of not giving up and of the dignity inherent in every person.

And you know, when Franklin Roosevelt was first elected, Oliver Wendell Holmes was still in the Supreme Court.

CLINTON: He was 92 years old. And he was taken - President Roosevelt was taken to see Oliver Wendell Holmes, who was still Plato in his nineties and all that. And Holmes was a pretty acerbic fellow and he said, after meeting Roosevelt, that he thought he might not have had a first-class mind but he certainly had a first-class temperament.

And he did. He understood that reality is more than the facts before you, it also is how you feel about them and how you react to them, what your attitude is. That was the embodi - that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself was much more than just a slogan to him, he had lived it before he asked the American people to live it.

So for all those reasons, if I had to pick on person, I would pick him.

Q: Mr. President?

CLINTON: Yes, sir.

Q: I'd like to ask you two questions on two very important South American countries that are vital to U.S. foreign policy, Colombia and Venezuela. First of all, on Colombia, sir. President Pastrana has been extraditing people and they're still waiting for the help that he is expecting from the United States. Will you fight - will you go to the mat for this starting in the year 2000, for President Pastrana? That's the first question.

The second question, you have met...

CLINTON: You are all asking two questions. That's pretty impressive.

Q: We're just following the others.

Sir, you met President-elect Hugo Chavez when you first came to Washington. And then you met him as president in New York. He will be - Venezuela will be holding a very unique plebiscite a week from today, which has polarized the country. Some people who backed President Chavez, think it's great. Others think it will cause damage to democracy.

I'd like your opinion on both subjects, sir.

CLINTON: My opinion on the second question is, that I'm not a citizen of Venezuela.

And I think that they ought to make their own decisions. But I'm glad that they're getting to vote on it. My opinion on the first question is - I should point out, remember, now Colombia is already the third-biggest recipient of American aid. But I do think we should do more, and President Pastrana has, number one, extradited drug criminals to this country, which is important.

Number two is facing a terribly difficult situation where he has both a long-standing civil insurgency in Colombia and all the problems of the drug cartels and the possible interrelation of the two. It's a terrible situation.

Colombia is a very large country. They've been our ally for a long time. They had a long period of steady economic growth. They have suffered terribly in the last couple of years, and I think we should do more.

I had a talk with Speaker Hastert about it - who is also, by the way, very interested in this - when we were together in Chicago recently. And I hope that early next year, we will have a proposal to provide further assistance to Colombia that will be substantial, effective and have broad bipartisan support. That is my goal.

Q: Mr. President, Vice President Gore has made a point of saying that his candidacy for president now will take precedence over his duties and activities as vice president.

I wonder, how has his role diminished in this administration, and how much has he missed, and does a diminished role by a vice president in your administration hamper what you're trying to do in any way?

CLINTON: Well, obviously he's not around as much. We don't have lunch every week, and I miss that terribly. But he was there all day today. He had the meeting with President Kuchma. He knows that the future of Ukraine is very important to our interests and to what we're trying to accomplish in that part of the world.

And he came to our meeting this morning and then after our meeting was over, he ran a whole series of meetings for several hours after that. So in his critical functions, he's still performing them. And I would say first of all I strongly support what he's doing. I think he has a right to run. I'm glad he's running. And you know, I think he'd be a great president.

But he - even having said that, whenever there's an important decision in an area that he's been very active in, I always call him. We still talk about it. And his role is probably still larger than that of any previous vice president, even though he's out campaigning. But it's just less than it used to be because he's not here all the time.

But I have no criticism of it. I think he's doing what he ought to be doing and I think it's in the best interest of the country for him to do it.

Q: You're ending a tumultuous year that began with impeachment and it closed with tear gas in Seattle. Could you tell us what you're proudest of this year, and what events or accomplishments of yours that you're the least proud of?

CLINTON: Well, I'm very happy - what I'm proudest of is that it turned out to be a very productive year.

If you look at - I'll just mention them again. I did before, but we had - we wound up after a year in which almost nothing was accomplished in the Congress - we wound up with a recommitment to the 100,000 teachers and the 50,000 police. We passed the financial modernization bill. We passed a historic 60,000 housing vouchers to move people from welfare to work.

We passed the bill to give disabled people the right to take health care into the workplace. We doubled after-school fundings. We passed this fund that I've been pushing hard for for a long time to help the states turn around or shut down failing schools. So it was - we had quite a lot of accomplishments.

On the foreign front, we had the China WTO agreement, progress with the Middle East peace, the Northern Ireland peace agreement. Kosovo, which I am very, very proud of.

CLINTON: I still believe our country did the right thing there. We've got talks starting on Cyprus now.

We were - we got the Caspian pipeline agreements, which I believe 30 years from now you'll all look back on, say that was one of the most important things that happened this year.

We had the Caspian - I mean, excuse me, we had the Conventional Forces in Europe agreement with Russia, which will result in the removal of their forces from Georgia and Moldova.

We had the debt relief for the poorest countries in the world, something I'm immensely proud of and deeply committed to. We made a big dent in our UN arrears issue. And we have worked with North Korea to end their missile program.

So I'm very proud of what happened this year. What I'm most disappointed in is what still got left on the table.

I'm terribly disappointed that we still haven't passed a Patients' Bill of Rights; that we still haven't raised the minimum wage; that we still haven't passed hate crimes legislation; that we still didn't pass that common-sense gun legislation, which was crying out for action after what happened at Columbine. And we had another school incident this week.

I'm disappointed that we didn't pass a school construction bill. I'm hoping we'll pass the New Markets Initiative next year. If we don't do something now to bring economic opportunity to the areas of this country which have been left behind, we will never forgive ourselves.

And I'm profoundly disappointed that we still haven't done anything to take the life of Social Security out beyond the baby boom generation and to extend the life of Medicare and add a prescription drug benefit. So my only disappointments are what we didn't get done, but I'm gratified by what was accomplished.

Q: So do you blame yourself for that - that you didn't put forward a plan on Social Security to make it more solvent? Is there something you're not...

CLINTON: No, I gave them - first of all, I asked them. There's no point in putting forward - look, I tried it the other way with health care. I put forward a plan. And everybody said, ''You put forward - I remember Senator Dole saying, ''You put forward your plan, then I'll put forward my plan. We'll get together. We'll agree, and we'll pass a plan.'' And so, you know, I've had experience with that. That didn't work out too well.

So I had all these meetings on Social Security. You remember, I worked very hard on it, and I asked if we could get together and work out something. I still haven't given up on that, by the way, and I know the conventional wisdom is that these things are less likely to be done in election years, but in some ways they may be more likely.

And I did give them a plan, which if they had embraced it, which would simply require them not only to save the Social Security surplus, but to take the interest savings from paying down the debt, with the Social Security surplus, and if you just put that back into Social Security, you could take Social Security out beyond the life of the baby boom generation.

And I offered to do more with them. But we - in order to pass something like that we've got to have a bipartisan process. And I will do whatever it takes to get that done.

But I worked as hard as I could this year to keep working in a very open and collegial spirit with not only the Democrats - without whom I wouldn't have passed any of those things I just mentioned. I mean, all of you know that. They hung in there at the end and we got those things done - but also with the Republicans with whom I began to have I think some real progress there along toward the end of the legislative session, and I hope we will continue it.

Yes, go ahead.

Q: Mr. President, on Chechnya, it seems as though the Russians don't feel they will pay a heavy price. Perhaps they don't care. I'm wondering if between now and Saturday's deadline you plan to try to directly contact President Yeltsin to once again convey your feelings on this matter?

CLINTON: Well, I haven't decided what else I can do. I do think, first of all, they may believe that because of their position in the United Nations and because no one wants them to fail and have more problems than they've got that they can do this. But you know, most of life's threat is wounds - for individuals and for countries that are self-inflicted. They're not inflicted by other people. And I will say again, the greatest problems that the Russians will have over Chechnya are - one is that I don't think the strategy will work.

I have never said they weren't right to want to do something with the Chechen rebels. But I don't think the strategy will work. And therefore, it will be expensive, costly and politically damaging internally to them. Secondly, it will affect the attitude of the international community over a period of time in ways that are somewhat predictable and in some ways unpredictable. And that is a very heavy price to pay because it works better when everybody is pulling for Russia.

It's a great country, and they have all these resources and talent, educated people. And they need to - and yet they've got a declining life expectancy, as well as all these economic problems. And I think it's a bad thing for this to be the issue, the number one issue both inside the country and in our relationships with them. So, I do think it's going to be a very costly thing.

Q: Mr. President, with China building a second short-range missile base allowing them to take Taiwan with little or no warning, are you concerned about America's ability to defend that island, especially with a Chinese company taking over the Panama Canal's ports at the end of this month?

CLINTON: Well, let's talk about China - let's talk about the Panama Canal, and then I'll come back to Taiwan.

And I - to be fair, I think I may have misstated this earlier. It's important for the American people to understand that the canal itself will be operated and controlled entirely by the government of Panama through the Panama Canal Authority. That is the locks, ingress and egress, access, openness to the canal is completely and totally within the control of the Panamanians.

Now, the Hong Kong company which got the concession to operate the ports will be responsible for loading and unloading ships. They also do this in three or four ports in Great Britain. It's one of the biggest companies in the world that does this. The managing director is British. Most of the employees will Panamanian.

So I feel comfortable that our commercial and security interests can be protected under this arrangement. That's the first question.

Now, the second question is, China is modernizing its military in a lot of ways, but our policy on China is crystal clear: We believe there is one China; we think it has to be resolved through cross-strait dialogues; and we oppose and would view with grave concern any kind of violent action.

But let me say, first of all, Hillary and I said when the health care plan went down that the number of people uninsured would go up. And you would all draw the same conclusion. You would have drawn the same conclusion back then if you spent as many years and as much time studying it as we have.

So what happened is exactly what we predicted would happen. Ironically all those people who attacked me and said I was trying to socialize medicine - which is a ridiculous charge - trying to help the government take over health care - which was a ridiculous charge - they got their way in that debate, and the consequence is now we now have a higher percentage of Americans whose health care is funded by the government than we did in 1993.

But we also have a higher percentage of people without insurance. Now, I'm not going to get in the middle of that but I'll tell you what questions you ought to ask. First of all, anybody who makes any proposal, you have to make certain choices. If you want to cover people who don't have coverage and you except the premise that they all can't afford it, you have to decide are you going to be them buy insurance, are you going to make their employers pay in? If not, are you going to have the government do it or are you doing to have a big tax subsidy?

All of those choices have problems with them. You know what the employer mandate problem was, we couldn't pass it because a lot of people said it's too burdensome even though we exempted small businesses and tried to give them subsidies.

If you give all taxpayers subsidies, the problem is you have to give subsidies to people who already have insurance and it may operate as an incentive for people who are employers to drop people even faster.

So, there is no perfect plan. Let's start with that. There is no plan without difficulty. If it were easy, somebody would have done it already.

The second question is, how much are you going to - if you're going to have the taxpayers involved either in a tax incentive or an expenditure program, how much does it cost and what do you give up?

And I think these are the - this is the way this thing ought to debate. People ought to actually try to figure out what the consequences of these plans are and evaluate them and decide. You talked about the prosperity of the country. That's true. We are prosperous. But do we want to - how much do we want to spend on that as compared with eliminating child poverty or continuing to improve education? Are we willing to get into the Social Security surplus?

If we're not, are we willing to raise taxes for it? In other words, I think whatever the choice is, I think it's important that we be as honest as possible about what it costs, everybody be as honest as possible that there is no perfect plan, and then you be as honest as possible about what the - what else you're giving up if you do it.

It's a very complicated issue. I did my best on it. I am gratified that we finally passed a child health insurance program. We might get those numbers down again. We've now - I think we're at about two million. I think we've gone from one million to two million just in the last several months, the number of people covered under CHIP. And if we can get up to five with CHIP and extra Medicaid kids - and the states are really gearing up now, they're really trying now - then maybe we can drive that number back down some.

And, you know, what the vice president's trying to do is to target discrete populations on the theory that you can cover more people for relatively less money. And that's his position, and he believes he can pass that.

And so I think I - let me just say one other thing. It makes me proud to be a Democrat. I am proud that number one, that my party is debating this. And as near as I can see, there is no debate going on in the other party. And if they pass the size tax cut plan they're talking about, they not only won't have any money to help more people get health care, they'll either have to get into Social Security surplus or they won't have any more money for education or environment or anything else. That's the first thing I want to say.

The second thing I want to say is I'm grateful that my country is doing so well that these kinds of issues can be debated, in this way, and we seriously debated. But I'm not going to get into handicapping the campaign. I can tell you what questions I think you should ask, how you should analyze it, but there is no perfect solution here.

And I'm glad that the two candidates from the Democratic party are debating it.

Q: Mr. President, in the decade that is just closing, the American people have seen around $1.5 billion of their tax dollars lost in space. Most recently, either up in smoke in the Martian atmosphere or trashed on Mars itself. Does NASA need better quality control or better management? And, sir, how do you answer Americans who say that that money could be much better spent on more urgent needs here on this planet?

CLINTON: Well, let me try to answer all those questions.

First of all, I think Dan Goldin has done a great job at NASA, and he's adopted a lot of economy measures and gone for smaller more discrete missions, including more unmanned missions that I think make a lot of sense.

Secondly, you know, we all use the slogan: Well, this isn't rocket science. Well, this is rocket science.

We're trying to take a space ship the size of a boulder and throw it 450 miles into a very uncongenial atmosphere and hit a target, and it isn't easy.

And, you know, I regret that both of those things didn't succeed as much as (inaudible). On the first Mars mission we got quite a lot out of it because I think it's important.

I think it's important not only for the American tradition of exploration, but it's important if we want to know what's - we have to keep doing this if we ever hope to know what's beyond our galaxy. We now know there are billions of them out there. We know there are all these big black holes in the universe. We know all these things. And I think it's important that we find out.

The third point I'd like to make is that we actually do get a lot of benefits here on Earth from space travel. We get benefits in engineering advances, in material science, in environmental protection, and in medical science. We've made quite a lot of interesting health-related discoveries.

I remember going down to the space center in Houston and talking to people who were from the vast medical complexes in Houston about all the interesting joint work they were doing.

-------- panama

Concerns About Panama Canal Turnover

By The Associated Press New York Times December 8, 1999 Filed at 6:45 p.m. EDT
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/w/AP-US-Panama.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- With ceremonies symbolically handing over the canal scheduled next week, several members of Congress and former military officers tried Wednesday to stir interest in protecting against Chinese control of the waterway -- a threat the Clinton administration says does not exist.

Rebuffed by the administration, Rep. Spencer Bachus, R-Ala., completed two days of hearings stacked with testimony against the 1978 treaty that gives up the canal on Dec. 31.

Bachus said the administration ignored his requests for testimony from State, Defense and Justice department officials.

Canal opponents also were seeking a temporary restraining order in federal court against any official turnover of the canal at the Dec. 14 ceremonies in Panama City. Officials have said the event would be symbolic, with actual transfer occurring at noon Dec. 31.

The suit against the turnover, first filed in late October with President Clinton and 14 other U.S. and Panamanian officials as defendants, was being served Wednesday on the White House, lawyers said. Other officials had received notice earlier.

Larry Klayman, chairman of the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, said he would join in the suit filed by treaty opponent Larry Elgin, refiling it soon to seek a permanent injunction against the 1978 treaty that provided for the turnover.

Congress approved the treaty, and any congressional action is unlikely despite a crescendo of criticism as the 20-year-anticipated date nears.

Elgin's suit claims the treaty is flawed and should be declared null and void.

Most of the testimony before the House Banking subcommittee on domestic international monetary policy focused on the threat of a perceived Chinese takeover of the canal, even though the Clinton administration, Panama and China have all denied that will happen.

``It may be too late to do anything, but maybe not,'' said retired Gen. Gordon Sumner, who accused the Panamanians of corruption. He said ``bushels of cash'' from China had been pouring into the country, although he offered no details beyond operation of port concessions by a Hong Kong-based international corporation, Hutchison Whampoa Ltd.

Officials of the company, which operates ports around the world, have denied assertions they are controlled by the Chinese military or are part of any Chinese effort to gain a foothold in the Americas.

The Clinton administration has said it has found no basis for suggestions by many Republican lawmakers and others that the firm has close links to Chinese military.

But Sumner and retired Adm. Thomas Moorer, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who has been campaigning for years against turnover of the canal, both said the company could control trans-ocean commerce and hinder U.S. military ships from crossing Panama.

Moorer repeated a fear that China could launch nuclear missiles against the United States from Panama.

Rep. Helen Chenoweth-Hage, R-Idaho, said in a statement to the subcommittee that she has introduced legislation to declare the treaty void.

``The American people are calling for action, for their protection, and we must respond,'' she said.

She said the treaty was illegal because different versions were signed by the two governments and former President Carter exceeded his constitutional authority in giving away American property and abrogating an earlier treaty.

-------- china

Prueher To Be Sworn In As New US Ambassador To China

Inside China Today Wednesday, Dec 8 at Prague 08:41 am, N.Y. 02:41 am
http://www.insidechina.com/news.php3?id=115337

WASHINGTON, Dec 3, 1999 -- (Agence France Presse) Retired admiral Joseph Prueher was to be sworn in as the new US ambassador to China on Thursday, a State Department official said.

Prueher, former commander of US naval forces in the Pacific, enters his post as frayed Sino-US relations enter a new phase, boosted by China's landmark trade deal with the United States paving the way for its accession into the World Trade Organization.

Prueher, 56, has pledged to chart a middle course between engaging China and maintaining an unswerving commitment to human rights and Taiwan's security.

As leader of the US naval fleet in the Pacific until he retired last March, Prueher oversaw the dispatch of two US aircraft carrier groups to the Taiwan Strait in March 1996 when China held ballistic missile tests in the region.

US-China relations suffered a series of setbacks this year, from US congressional charges that Beijing stole US nuclear secrets, to a sharp division over the Kosovo campaign, and NATO's bombing of China's embassy in Belgrade.

The ex-navy officer now will have to steer US policy through policy mine fields like US access to Chinese markets following Beijing's entry to the WTO, the fate of Tibet and Taiwan, and human rights abuses in China. ((c) 1999 Agence France Presse

---

China Builds 2nd Missile Base Near Taiwan-Newspaper

By Reuters New York Times December 8, 1999 Filed at 5:13 p.m. ET
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-china-m.html

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency report said China is building a second short-range missile base near Taiwan that would allow it to target the island's main military bases, the Washington Times reported on Wednesday.

The latest Chinese missile site discovered by U.S. intelligence was at Xianyou, about 135 miles from Taiwan, and is nearly ready to house a force of short-range missiles, the newspaper said.

President Clinton, asked whether in light of the second missile base he was concerned about America's ability to defend Taiwan, replied: ``China is modernizing its military in a lot of ways, but our policy on China is crystal clear.''

``We believe there is one China, we think it has to be resolved through cross-strait dialogues, and we oppose and would view with grave concern any kind of violent action. And that hasn't changed.''

China considers Taiwan a rebel province and has threatened to invade if the island declares independence. Taiwan's Vice President Lien Chan on Wednesday said the island must develop long-range surface-to-surface missiles capable of surviving an attack by communist China.

``There's been a lot of build-up of tension on both sides that I think is unnecessary and counterproductive,'' Clinton said at a news conference.

``If you look at the Taiwanese investment in China, it's obvious that eventually they're going to get this worked out because they're too interconnected by ties of family and increasingly by ties of the economy,'' he said. ``And the politics of neither place should lead either side into doing something rash. And I hope that this will not happen.''

The Washington Times also first reported last month that U.S. spy satellites had photographed construction of another Chinese missile base in October.

On Wednesday the newspaper said intelligence officials clarified that the location of the first base was at Yongan about 220 miles from Taiwan, not Yangang as it had previously reported.

The Defense Intelligence Agency in a report in November to Pentagon officials said the two Chinese missile bases were being readied for hundreds of advanced Chinese missiles known as the CSS-7 Mod 2, the newspaper said.

The report concluded the new missile bases would allow China ``to target all of Taiwan's major military bases,'' an unnamed Pentagon official who had seen the classified report told the newspaper.

When the Washington Times reported in November on the previous sighting of missile base construction, China dismissed that report as having ``ulterior motives.''

A U.S. official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said, ''We are aware that the Chinese in recent months have continued to demonstrate to Taiwan their ability to employ ballistic missiles and we continue to urge both sides not to do anything to destabilize the situation in the region.''

---

China targets Taiwan with 2nd missile base

Washington Times 12/8/99 By Bill Gertz
http://208.246.212.80/world/news1-19991208.htm
Write Author: http://208.246.212.80/images/writeauthor.gif

Can now hit all military posts on the island, Pentagon says

The Defense Intelligence Agency has discovered a second Chinese short-range missile base under construction near Taiwan that will significantly increase the threat against the island, The Washington Times has learned.

Disclosure of the first missile base by The Times on Nov. 23 prompted an angry exchange between Taiwan and China.

Taiwanese Defense Minister Tang Fei said the missiles at Yongan, 220 miles from the island, "are apparently aimed at us." In Beijing, a government spokesman defended the missile buildup as defensive and said reports about it had "ulterior motives."

The newest base, Xianyou, is nearly complete. It will contain a "brigade-size" force of short-range missiles. The Xianyou missile complex is closer to the Chinese coast than the Yongan site and only 135 miles from Taiwan.

In a report last month to Pentagon officials, the DIA said the two missile bases are being readied for deployment of hundreds of advanced Chinese missiles known as the CSS-7 Mod 2.

U.S. intelligence officials clarified the location of the first missile base as Yongan, not Yangang, as initially reported by The Times.

The Pentagon estimates each missile base will have a brigade of 16 truck launchers and 97 CSS-7 mobile missiles with a range of 300 miles. The intelligence report said the Chinese are building tunnels to store the missiles.

The report concludes that the new missile bases will allow China "to target all of Taiwan's major military bases," said a Pentagon official who has seen the classified report.

"These locations put most of Taiwan within range of CSS-7 missiles," said the official. The DIA estimates the Chinese have deployed 40 CSS-7s and are working toward deployment of 500 short-range missiles by 2005.

"They will be able to take Taiwan with little or no warning," said another defense official. The report is based on satellite photographs and other sensitive intelligence. The layout of the new bases is similar to one at Leping, where China has a brigade of older, CSS-6 short-range mobile missiles.

Leping, about 362 miles from Taiwan's capital of Taipei, was described as the "brigade headquarters" for all People's Liberation Army missile units near Taiwan.

Leping-based missile units fired the missiles that landed north and south of Taiwan during large-scale military exercises in 1996.

The Chinese missile buildup near Taiwan is the result of war-fighting plans of the People's Liberation Army and is not connected to Taiwan's plans to deploy missile defenses, the officials said.

"Chinese missiles will be able to overwhelm any planned Taiwan missile-defense system in the not-too-distant future," said one official.

A Pentagon official said the missile buildup is "destabilizing. . . . It increases the chances Beijing will use force and it decreases the chance that Beijing will compromise politically in future talks with Taiwan."

Pentagon officials also fear the buildup will prompt Taiwan to change its defensive posture to an offensive missile force of its own, including the prospect that the technologically advanced nation will decide to develop nuclear, chemical or biological weapons to counter the Chinese threat.

Taiwan abandoned any drive for nuclear arms several years ago at U.S. urging, according to U.S. officials.

William Triplett, author of "Red Dragon Rising," a new book on China, said the missile buildup comes at a time when the Clinton administration is "dragging its feet" with regard to allowing the sale of advanced missile-warning radar to Taiwan.

"The missile buildup is destabilizing and is very likely to drive the Taiwanese into matching it with their own home-grown nuclear forces," Mr. Triplett said in an interview.

The CSS-7 Mod 2s the DIA says will be deployed at the new bases are longer-range versions of missiles also known as M-11s. The CSS-6s deployed on mobile launchers at Leping are also known as M-9s.

The new CSS-7 was first shown in public during the Oct. 1 military parade in Beijing marking the Chinese Communist Party's 50th anniversary.

The advanced CSS-7s are expected to carry several types of warheads, including high-explosive, cluster bombs and fuel-air explosives.

The missiles also can be equipped with small nuclear warheads, including the small Chinese nuclear warhead that the CIA believes was built with technology gathered by Chinese spies on the U.S. W-88 warhead.

Tensions between China and Taiwan have been high since last summer, when Taiwanese President Lee Teng-hui announced that talks with the mainland should be based on "state-to-state" relations.

The remarks were viewed by Beijing as a step toward independence. China regards Taiwan as a province and has threatened to use force to retake the island, which became the base for nationalist forces after China's civil war in the 1940s.

A spokeswoman for the DIA said the agency had nothing to say about the Chinese missile threat beyond what Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen said in a February report to Congress.

The report said that China's growing short-range missile force is a potent weapon that can be used either for combat or as a strategic weapon to influence relations with Taiwan.

By 2005, the Chinese will have fielded two types of short-range ballistic missiles and a new type of land-attack cruise missile, the report said.

---

Facing China Missiles, Taiwan VP Wants Deterrent

New York Times December 8, 1999 Filed at 8:22 a.m. ET By Reuters
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-taiwan-.html

TAIPEI (Reuters) - Amid reports that China is massing missiles just across the Taiwan strait, Taiwan's vice president -- and presidential hopeful -- urged the military on Wednesday to bolster its deterrent and second-strike missile forces.

In a statement sure to anger bitter rival Beijing and possibly Washington as well, Vice President Lien Chan said the anti-communist island must develop long-range surface-to-surface missiles capable of surviving a mainland attack.

``To ensure the Chinese Communists don't dare invade Taiwan, we must establish a credible deterrent military force and bolster our second-strike capability,'' Lien told a security forum.

``First we must strengthen our naval and air power, and employ highly mobile naval and air power and the latent strike power of long-range surface-to-surface missiles to forge a foundation for a tactical strike force,'' Lien said.

``TAIWAN NEEDS ITS OWN MISSILE DEFENSES''

Lien, who is running a faltering campaign for a March presidential election, said that while Taiwan hoped to shelter under a proposed U.S.-Japanese ``theater missile defense,'' it saw a need to develop its own antimissile defenses.

The defense ministry quickly issued a statement saying Taiwan had not yet developed such missiles, but this did not mean it could not do so. Analysts say such missiles and nuclear weapons know-how are both within Taiwan's technical reach.

Defense Minister Tang Fei was non-committal, saying Lien's call merited study but anti-proliferation treaties made independent missile development difficult.

A wealthy industrial democracy unrecognized by the world's powers and claimed but not ruled by Beijing, Taiwan has long relied on ambiguous U.S. assurances of military support in the face of mainland Chinese threats.

Warming Sino-U.S. ties have prompted Taipei to harden its political line toward the mainland.

In July, President Lee Teng-hui said talks with Beijing must be held on a basis of political parity between equal states. This enraged Beijing, but also irked Washington, which has urged nuclear power China and well-armed Taiwan to avoid inflammatory statements.

Some Taiwan media said Lien's words were bound to exacerbate Taipei-Beijing frictions.

``DO IT, BUT DON'T SAY IT''

Analysts were surprised by Lien's willingness to go public with Taiwan's strategy for countering China's missile buildup, saying the policy has been to develop weapons quietly to avoid appearing provocative.

``The (defense) ministry policy has been, 'Do it but don't say it','' said Taipei defense analyst Andrew Yang. ``This is a response to recent reports about the mainland's arms buildup and clearly will be a factor in the presidential election.''

U.S. officials, citing intelligence reports, have confirmed in recent weeks that China was building missile bases along its southeastern coast within striking distance of Taiwan, which lies 100 miles (160 km) offshore.

Beijing's standing threat to take Taiwan by force if it pursues independence from China has become a central issue in the campaign for the March 18 election.

Lien's presidential rivals have won support with calls for warmer ties with Beijing. Lien, who has taken up Lee's more hawkish tone, is a distant third in opinion polls.

Lien's Nationalist Party, facing its worst challenge in decades, has countered with a barrage of warnings about the dangers of trusting Beijing.

The Nationalists ruled all of China between 1911 and 1949, when their Republic of China government was toppled by communist forces and fled into exile on Taiwan.

---

Taiwan Discusses Missile Development

By The Associated Press New York Times December 8, 1999 By Christopher Bodeen
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/i/AP-Taiwan-Defense.html
http://wire.ap.org/APnews/center_story.html?FRONTID=ASIA&STORYID=APIS717A23O0
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/19991208/aponline131850_000.htm

TAIPEI, Taiwan -- Taiwan needs long-range missiles that can discourage an attack on the island, the vice president said Wednesday in a rare call for a weapon capable of hitting China.

Taiwan has said the weapons it buys from the United States and other nations would be used to protect the island, not to strike the Chinese mainland.

But Vice President Lien Chan's endorsement of a long-range missile was one of the most high-profile calls yet for a missile that could reach China.

"To make a foe afraid to attack Taiwan, we definitely must develop a reliable deterrent force, and strengthen our second strike capability," Lien said in a speech to a conference on defense.

"That includes developing the potential force of a long-range, surface-to-surface missile," said Lien, the ruling Nationalist Party's candidate to succeed President Lee Teng-hui in March elections.

China is the only country that has threatened Taiwan with force, and reportedly has been building up its batteries of missiles targeting the island.

The sides split amid civil war in 1949, and Beijing continues to view the island as a renegade province to be reunified with the mainland by force if necessary.

Taiwanese Defense Minister Tang Fei declined to comment directly on Lien's statement, saying the military would "immediately look into the matter."

But he told lawmakers that the military had no budget for such a project, and said Taiwan would find it difficult to develop a long-range missile without help from outside.

Also on Wednesday, the military said Washington was close to selling Taiwan advanced air-to-air missiles, which the island has wanted to buy for several years.

Defense officials were optimistic Washington would permit the sale because the United States recently agreed to sell Taiwan software to guide the missiles, a defense ministry spokesman said.

Taiwan bought 150 F-16s from the United States in 1992, but Washington up to now has rejected Taiwan's requests for the AIM-120, possibly out of concern over angering China.

The supersonic AIM-120 is a medium-range, air-to-air missile that has been standard on the U.S. Air Force's F-16s since the early 1990s.

The $386,000 missiles have active radar that allows them zero in on enemy planes without the pilot's help.

Washington cut diplomatic relations with Taiwan in 1979 to recognize Beijing. But U.S. law requires Washington to sell Taiwan defensive weapons and treat all threats to the island with concern.

---

Dalai Lama Urges China Awareness

By SHAUN BENTON Associated Press Writer DECEMBER 08, 18:07 EST
http://wire.ap.org/APnews/center_story.html?FRONTID=AFRICA&STORYID=APIS717E95G0

CAPE TOWN, South Africa (AP) - Tibet's exiled leader, the Dalai Lama, predicted the end of totalitarian rule in China, and said Wednesday he could accept countries trading with China as long as they continued to raise human rights issues.

Speaking in an interview with The Associated Press, the Dalai Lama was responding to the U.S. proposal for China to enter into the World Trade Organization.

He applauded the U.S. government and Congress for raising human rights issues with Beijing.

``I do feel there are many countries that have good relations with China and raise the issue of human rights from time to time. I think that's the correct way,'' he said. ``Appeasement (of human rights violations) is actually immoral.''

Chinese troops occupied Tibet in 1950, claiming it needed to be liberated from feudalism. After a violent Tibetan uprising in 1959, the Dalai Lama fled into exile in India, from where he continues to fight for Tibetan autonomy as a political and spiritual leader.

The Dalai Lama is attending the World Parliament of Religions conference in Cape Town, where he visited the impoverished township of Guguletu on Wednesday.

Wearing his maroon and orange robes, he examined the vegetable garden of resident Beauty Sibisi, and gave her a ceremonial white silk scarf. He also urged a senior citizen to fight for his pension rights.

``Change, transformation, (does) not come from sky but from human action,'' he said.

In the interview, the leader predicted that China's regime would collapse, not from internal pressure from activists, but from its inherent problems.

``My view is that a huge country like China, with its totalitarian systems, in the long run can't work,'' he said. ``I think there is some kind of doubt (among China's bureaucrats and leaders) whether the system of the last 50-years is a good one.''

Although he said the majority of Chinese were ``in ignorance'' about the fight for Tibetan autonomy by exiled leaders like himself, he said he was still optimistic about the limited gains achieved.

The Dalai Lama said China's hardline attitude towards Tibet was largely based on the fear that autonomy for any part of the region would have consequences for other Chinese territories.

Earlier Wednesday, the Dalai Lama urged religious leaders to use action, rather than prayer, to assist in resolving conflicts and wars.

``Go there. Study the situation, and make a contribution,'' he said.

Tibetan activists in South Africa charged that President Thabo Mbeki refused a request for a one-on-one meeting from the Dalai Lama because of pressure from China.

Mbeki agreed to meet him Thursday as one of a group of religious leaders at the conference.

But Mbeki's spokesman said the Dalai Lama would not attend because he had prior engagements. Mbeki gave the same reason for refusing a personal meeting.

------- Japan

Japan To Put Soldiers on Y2K Alert

By YURI KAGEYAMA Associated Press Writer DECEMBER 08, 22:02 EST
http://wire.ap.org/APnews/center_story.html?FRONTID=ASIA&STORYID=APIS717HNEG0

TOKYO (AP) - Japan will ready 96,000 soldiers and beef up police patrols on New Year's Eve in case disaster hits with possible millennium-related computer failures, the Defense Agency said Wednesday.

In addition to placing the soldiers on alert, the government required the top 160 military officers be on duty, reserved about 130 military aircraft, and put its chemical warfare unit on standby, a defense agency official said on condition of anonymity.

The Y2K bug affects computers and chips that can't differentiate between 1900 and 2000 because they read years by the last two digits. If not corrected, the systems could go haywire, blacking out towns, disrupting phone lines, halting trains, and even cutting life support systems.

Japanese Prime Minister Keizo Obuchi has promised there would be no major Y2K disruptions. Still, he advised people to stock up on food, water and other necessities as a cautionary measure.

Even without the Y2K threat, New Year's Eve and New Year's Day are traditional holidays for the Japanese and so are busy days for the authorities and civilians.

Tens of thousands of people visit shrines to pray for the new year, and concerts and other events are staged nationwide.

Tokyo police will more than double its number of officers on duty, from 10,000 to 24,000.

Police in Osaka, Japan's second largest urban area with a population of 8.8 million, will also be increased to 12,000, including 5,000 to be on-call at home in case serious problems strike. Kyodo News said that those numbers were 50 percent more than last year.

The government said Y2K preparations have moved smoothly on both the public and private levels. State officials said Japan was more Y2K ready than the United States, but GartnerGroup, a U.S. agency that monitors Y2K readiness, said Japan was less ready.

---

Japan To Cancel Key Rocket Program

DECEMBER 08, 23:31 EST
http://wire.ap.org/APnews/center_story.html?FRONTID=ASIA&STORYID=APIS717J10G0

TOKYO (AP) - Japan announced Thursday that it will halt development of the troubled H-2 rocket - considered the key to Japan's space program - after two failed launches this year.

Japanese media prominently reported the decision of the Science and Technology Agency, with the nationally circulated Sankei newspaper calling it a huge setback to Japan's space program, which is competing with Europe and the United States for a share of the commercial satellite-launching market.

Japan is aiming to become a world leader in aerospace technology, but has been plagued over the past few years by bureaucratic wrangling, cost overruns and technical difficulties - including with the H-2.

The agency has decided that the National Space Development Agency of Japan, or NASDA, should concentrate instead on developing the next generation of rockets - called the H-2A - in the wake of the November failure of an H-2 to put a satellite into orbit, science agency spokesman Toru Nakahara said Thursday.

Another H-2 rocket failed to get its payload into orbit last February, although there had been five successful launches before that.

Last month the domestically made H-2 was deliberately exploded after engine trouble developed and NASDA officials feared the rocket might veer out of control.

The space agency had almost completed construction of the last H-2 rocket, at a cost of about $155 million, Nakahara said.

The science agency, however, has decided to focus on developing the H-2A because of the prohibitive expense of fixing the defects in the last H-2, he said. Though the H-2 and H-2A engines are similar, the H-2A costs less to manufacture.

The initial launch of the H-2A, originally planned for February 2000, has been postponed to around February 2001.

In the new plan, a satellite which was supposed to be sent into orbit by an H-2 rocket next year will be carried into space by an H-2A in fiscal 2002.

-------- korea

Cold War Deadlock Continues in Korea

By The Associated Press New York Times December 8, 1999 Filed at 8:45 a.m. EDT
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/i/AP-Koreas-Diplomacy-Bloom.html
http://wire.ap.org/APnews/center_story.html?FRONTID=ASIA&STORYID=APIS71761V80

PANMUNJOM, Korea (AP) -- On the border between the rival Koreas, a U.S. soldier intoned with nonchalance, rather than bravado: ``We stand face to face with our enemy at all times.''

Pvt. Leonard Taylor of Oakland, Calif., had played the role of tour guide for months, and a recent audience of tourists, among busloads who visit the demilitarized zone daily, loved the show: North Korean guards peering at them through binoculars, South Korean military police glaring back through sunglasses.

The participants in a Cold War deadlock that blossomed when Harry Truman was in the White House seem frozen in place. The two Koreas have yet to sign a permanent peace treaty. But behind the lines on the Korean peninsula, diplomacy and goodwill gestures are flourishing.

While North Korean media still describe President Clinton as the leader of a neo-imperialist nation, his half-brother Roger was the marquee name at a weekend concert in Pyongyang, the North's capital.

Basketball players from North Korea plan a pair of friendly matches against teams from South Korea's largest conglomerate, Hyundai,later this month in Seoul, with North Korean acrobats tendering half-time amusement. Plans are also under way for a car rally next year from the South to the North.

Such initiatives are hardly a novelty, and it's too soon to say whether aloof North Korea genuinely seeks better ties or is merely angling for political leverage and economic rewards. But this time some see more than a glimmer of progress.

``There's a general increase in activity that I think we have to view as pretty positive,'' said Jeffrey Jones, president of the Seoul-based American Chamber of Commerce.

The chamber has asked North Korea for approval to dispatch a trade mission. Such a trip would capitalize on Washington's decision in September to lift some U.S. sanctions against North Korea. In exchange, Pyongyang agreed to halt missile programs as long as bilateral talks continued.

Few U.S. executives dream of swift profits in any venture in North Korea, which is impoverished, suffers from food shortages and lacks modern infrastructure. But doing business there would help open North Korea to outside influence and ease the stalemate that has lingered since the 1950-53 Korean War.

That's exactly what the totalitarian government in Pyongyang frets about. It is desperate enough to take handouts from the rich South, but accuses South Korean President Kim Dae-jung of trying to engage the North in order to undermine it.

``Rapprochement with South Korea means weakening of the North Korean control system,'' said Hur Moon-young of the Korea Research Institute for National Unification, a state-run center in Seoul.

On another diplomatic front, Japan plans to start talks soon with North Korea on normalizing relations in the wake of a visit to Pyongyang last week by Japanese legislators.

Only a few months ago, the region was jittery over reports that the North Korean military would test a missile with more reach than the one it fired over Japan last year. Japan angrily suspended food aid after the surprise launch.

Any progress with Pyongyang will be gradual. For half a century, communist negotiators have stalled and harangued counterparts at the border truce village Panmunjom and elsewhere. Their system survived the downfall nearly a decade ago of a major sponsor, the Soviet Union.

The outside world chips away any way it can: South Korea, co-host with Japan of the 2002 World Cup soccer tournament, offered to let the North hold two games. Citing political tension, North Korea said it would be unrealistic.

Some overtures verge on the fanciful. A South Korean communications company says it has approval from both nations to hold a rally in which cars would race in the South, board a ship and resume racing in the North.

Organizer Chun Jung-joon said he originally hoped the cars could zoom across the border at Panmunjom. But that turned out to be too difficult, given the mines, tank traps and firepower in the area.

-------- russia

Russian Nuke Chief: Ready for Y2K

DECEMBER 08, 12:31 EST
http://wire.ap.org/APnews/center_story.html?FRONTID=EUROPE&STORYID=APIS7179BQO0
Anchorage Daily News December 8, 1999 12:30 p.m. EST Associated Press
http://www.nando.net/24hour/adn/technology/story/0,1976,500139944-500164987-500597405-0,00.html
http://www2.nando.net/noframes/story/0,2107,500139944-500164988-500597405-0,00.html
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/i/AP-Russia-Y2K-Missile.html

MOSCOW (AP) - The Russian military reiterated Wednesday that the nation's nuclear forces are ready for the year 2000 and immune to any computer glitches.

Strategic Missile Forces chief Col. Gen. Vladimir Yakovlev said Wednesday that the Y2K bug has been solved and ruled out any emergencies like unsanctioned launches. He didn't elaborate, and a duty officer at the forces' headquarters refused to give further details.

Russia has been slower to address the Y2K bug than many other countries because of the government's money crunch. The problem could arise if computers misread the year 2000 as 1900, causing them to shut down or produce erroneous information.

Yakovlev recently invited a group of Russian reporters to the strategic forces main command center in a bunker near Moscow to dispel fears and demonstrate readiness for Y2K.

The military has acknowledged they are facing a severe funding shortage, but insisted that nuclear weapons are under firm control.

Yakovlev also said Wednesday that the strategic forces this month will receive 10 more new Topol-M strategic missiles in addition to the first batch of such missiles deployed last December.

---

Russia, US Discuss Weapons Control

DECEMBER 08, 08:03 EST
http://wire.ap.org/APnews/center_story.html?FRONTID=EUROPE&STORYID=APIS7175DV00

MOSCOW (AP) - Russia is doing all it can to prevent the proliferation of weapons and wants more constructive cooperation from Washington on the issue, Russia's security chief told his U.S. counterpart, a news report said Wednesday.

``There can be no doubt that Russia is exerting maximum effort in observing its commitments in this sphere,'' Security Council Secretary Sergei Ivanov told U.S. National Security Adviser Sandy Berger in a Tuesday phone call, according to the Interfax news agency.

The United States has accused Russia of not doing enough to prevent weapons technology from leaking to countries such as Iran and Syria. It has also urged Russia's parliament to ratify the START II nuclear arms reduction treaty, which was signed by both countries in 1993, and ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1996.

Ivanov said criticism from the United States isn't helping ties, already chilled by Russia's military campaign in breakaway Chechnya, NATO's air campaign in Kosovo earlier this year and U.S. desires to modify a missile defense treaty.

``Our dialogue would be more beneficial if used to promptly identify and punish those who breach export control rules, instead of escalating tension in overall bilateral relations,'' Ivanov told Berger, according to Interfax.

The United States this spring imposed sanctions on several Russian companies believed to have sold anti-tank missiles to Syria, which Washington accuses of funding terrorists. Russia insists that its cooperation with Syria does not break export control agreements and called the sanctions groundless.

---

Russia, Belarus Sign Pact

By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV Associated Press Writer DECEMBER 08, 08:38 EST
http://wire.ap.org/APnews/center_story.html?FRONTID=EUROPE&STORYID=APIS7175UOO0

MOSCOW (AP) - Russian President Boris Yeltsin and Belarusian leader Alexander Lukashenko signed a mostly symbolic union agreement today that draws the former Soviet republics closer together but stops short of creating a single state.

The authoritarian Belarusian president has strongly pushed for a full merger, but today's agreement merely establishes a council of officials from both nations to coordinate policy. A weaker body of officials already exists under a different name.

The agreement also proposes the eventual merger of the two countries' currencies, but does not set any time frame.

Lukashenko harshly criticized the draft agreement when it was published in October, saying it would barely change the status quo, but later toned down his objections.

During the signing ceremony at the Kremlin today, Lukashenko again made it clear that the agreement falls well short of his expectations.

``This is not the last agreement we will sign with Boris Nikolayevich,'' he said with a smile, looking at Yeltsin. ``We shall still sign the treaty which the people of Russia and Belarus expect from us - the treaty on a unified state.''

Yeltsin then read a prepared text, hailing the agreement as a breakthrough.

``The union state is based on the sovereignty and independence of member nations and isn't directed against anyone, even (President) Clinton,'' he said.

The remark reflected the current tensions in Russian relations with the United States. Clinton strongly criticized Russia's military action in breakaway Chechnya earlier this week.

Later in his remarks, Yeltsin lost his place in the text he was holding in his hands, and he slowly sorted through his papers as the crowd remained silent for several awkward seconds.

``Is that the end?'' Yeltsin asked, turning to Lukashenko.

The Russian president, who was delivering his speech standing, nearly lost his balance and Lukashenko put up a hand to support him. Kremlin protocol chief Vladimir Shevchenko then rushed up to the president to help him find his place in the speech, and Yeltsin finished his sentence.

The agreement was initially scheduled to be signed Nov. 26, but the signing was postponed when Yeltsin fell ill with what doctors said was acute bronchitis and later turned out to be a bout of pneumonia. Yeltsin was discharged from the hospital Monday and was set to leave for a two-day trip to China later today.

Moscow has moved cautiously on Lukashenko's idea of creating a single state, fearing that the Soviet-style Belarusian economy would be a heavy burden for Russia, which is struggling with its own economic problems.

Many Russian politicians are also concerned by Lukashenko's unpredictability and his ambition to become leader of the unified state.

The Russian parliament's lower house, the State Duma, will meet Monday to ratify the treaty, lawmakers announced today.

--------

Russia May Vote on Nuclear Pact

Associated Press Wednesday, Dec. 8, 1999; 9:20 a.m. EST By Vladimir Isachenkovv
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/19991208/aponline092036_000.htm

MOSCOW -- After balking for years at ratifying the START II nuclear arms reduction agreement with the United States, Russian lawmakers said today they may consider it next week.

Leaders in the lower house, the State Duma, discussed today whether to vote on START II before Dec. 19 parliamentary elections. They put off their decision until Monday, when the house is scheduled to hold a special session to ratify a union treaty with Belarus.

President Boris Yeltsin's government has long urged the Duma to ratify the 1993 treaty, which would halve the U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals to between 3,000 and 3,500 warheads each. The treaty was passed by the U.S. Senate in 1996, but Communists and other hard-liners who control the Duma have stalled, saying START II would weaken Russia's security.

Debate on START II was put off in response to U.S. and British airstrikes on Iraq last December, and again in March when NATO began its air war on Yugoslavia. Since then, chances for its passage have appeared increasingly dim, with charges of money-laundering and Russia's military action in breakaway Chechnya further worsening Russian-American relations.

Russia is also against U.S. desires to modify the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Washington wants to amend the ABM to build defenses against possible limited missile attacks, but Russia views the plan as a threat to its own security.

Some lawmakers said the U.S. desire to change the ABM treaty and the two countries' disagreement over Chechnya could actually help START II's passage.

"Americans want to walk out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and are putting pressure on Russia over Chechnya," said Vladimir Ryzhkov, faction leader of the centrist Our Home is Russia. "Russia needs arguments to show that we are fulfilling our obligations while Americans rudely violate theirs."

Lawmakers ranging from the liberal Yabloko to the ultranationalist Liberal Democratic Party said they support ratification.

START II's passage would clear the way for a proposed START III treaty, which could reduce the sides' nuclear arsenals to as few as 2,000 warheads each. But Moscow says that further nuclear weapons cuts will be possible only if the United States backs down on ABM.

Communist leader Gennady Zyuganov said today that his faction continues to oppose ratifying START II.

The Communists are the largest faction in parliament, but lack an outright majority. Still, if the Communists can muster the support of all of their allies, they would probably be able to sink the ratification vote.

A large number of lawmakers are undecided on the issue and the Communists have given in to the Kremlin's wishes several times, making the outcome of a vote difficult to predict.

Yeltsin's envoy to the lower house, Alexander Kotenkov, said the treaty would only be put to vote if the Kremlin is sure of ratification. "We can't allow the rejection of START II," he said.

Ryzhkov told reporters that the agenda-setting Duma Council will meet early Monday before the full Duma session to decide whether to put START II to a vote.

--

Russians May Discuss Arms Reduction

New York Times December 8, 1999 Filed at 4:29 p.m. EDT By The Associated Press
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/i/AP-Russia-US-START-II.html

MOSCOW (AP) -- Russian lawmakers may consider ratifying the long-delayed START II nuclear arms reduction agreement next week, members of parliament said Wednesday.

Hard-line lawmakers have long balked at discussing the U.S.-Russian treaty. But leaders in the lower house, the State Duma, talked Wednesday about whether to vote on START II before Dec. 19 parliamentary elections.

They put off their decision until Monday, when the house is scheduled to hold a special session to ratify a union treaty with Belarus.

The 1993 START II treaty would halve the U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals to between 3,000 and 3,500 warheads each. The U.S. Senate passed it in 1996. President Boris Yeltsin's government has long urged the Duma to ratify it as well, but Communists and other hard-liners who control the house have delayed, saying it would weaken Russia's security.

Debate on the treaty was put off in response to U.S. and British airstrikes on Iraq last December, and again in March when NATO began its air war on Yugoslavia. Since then, chances for its passage have appeared increasingly dim, with charges of money-laundering and Russia's military action in breakaway Chechnya further worsening Russian-American relations.

Another emerging problem is the U.S. desire to modify the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Washington wants to amend the ABM to build defenses against possible limited missile attacks. Russia views the plan as a threat to its own security.

But some lawmakers said the shaky relations could actually boost the chance of START II's passage.

``Americans want to walk out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and are putting pressure on Russia over Chechnya,'' said Vladimir Ryzhkov, faction leader of the centrist Our Home is Russia party. ``Russia needs arguments to show that we are fulfilling our obligations while Americans rudely violate theirs.''

Ryzhkov told reporters the agenda-setting Duma Council will meet early Monday before the full Duma session to decide whether to put START II to a vote.

Passage would clear the way for a proposed START III treaty, which could reduce the sides' nuclear arsenals to as few as 2,000 warheads each. But Moscow says further nuclear weapons cuts will be possible only if the United States backs down on ABM.

Lawmakers ranging from the liberal Yabloko party to the ultranationalist Liberal Democratic Party said they support ratification. But Communist leader Gennady Zyuganov said Wednesday that his faction continues to oppose it.

The Communists are the largest group in parliament. If they can muster the support of all their allies, they probably would be able to sink the ratification vote. But a large number of lawmakers are undecided on the issue and the Communists have given in to the Kremlin's wishes several times, making the outcome of a vote difficult to predict.

Yeltsin's envoy to the lower house, Alexander Kotenkov, said the treaty would be put to vote only if the Kremlin is sure of ratification.

``We can't allow the rejection of START II,'' he said.

-------- sweden

Swedes Want New Referendum on Nuclear Power

New York Times December 8, 1999 Filed at 4:30 a.m. ET By Reuters http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-sweden-.html

STOCKHOLM (Reuters) - A majority of Swedes want a new referendum on nuclear power, according to an opinion poll on Wednesday taken after the first of Sweden's 12 nuclear reactors was closed.

The poll by Demoskop, published in daily business newspaper FinansTidningen, found 52 percent of Swedes wanted a new vote on whether Sweden should have nuclear power. The last referendum was held in 1980.

A total of 40 percent of the 1,002 respondents interviewed between November 30 and December 6 were against a vote while the rest did not know.

The interviewees were not asked their opinions on whether Sweden should have nuclear energy.

On November 30, one of two reactors at Barseback in southern Sweden, owned by power group Sydkraft AB, was shut down in line with a government decision to start phasing out nuclear power. The reactor was 24 years old.

The closure of Barseback's second reactor is set for 2001 but there are no specific plans to shut any of the Sweden's other 10 reactors.

The shutdowns date back to a 1980 referendum in which Swedes voted to get rid of nuclear power, fearing it might cause an environmental disaster and instead switch to safer sources like hydropower.

Nuclear energy now meets almost half Sweden's electricity needs and the closure of nuclear reactors has meet with stiff opposition from the country's business community.

Recent opinion polls showed a vast majority of Swedes supported continued power production at reactors less than 40 years old. No plant in Sweden is older than 27 years.

-------- us nuc weapons facilies

Commerical Reactor To Sell Tritium

New York Times December 8, 1999 Filed at 6:27 p.m. EDT By The Associated Press
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/a/AP-TVA-Nuclear-Weapons.html
http://wire.ap.org/APnews/center_story.html?FRONTID=NATIONAL&STORYID=APIS7178GSG0

KNOXVILLE, Tenn. (AP) -- The Tennessee Valley Authority approved a plan Wednesday to produce nuclear weapons material in a commercial reactor for the first time in U.S. history, breaching a longstanding wall between civilian and military nuclear power.

The TVA board voted 3-0 to allow the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant near Spring City, 55 miles southwest of Knoxville, to be used to produce tritium as early as 2003, while continuing to make electricity for TVA.

The agreement between TVA and the Energy Department angered peace activists, who said using a civilian reactor to make tritium runs counter to U.S. efforts to get other countries to reduce nuclear weapons.

``They're watching what we do, not listening to what we say,'' said Ralph Hutchison of the Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance.

Although the U.S. government has urged other countries to avoid such dual military-civilian use of their nuclear reactors, Russia and Canada do so, said Energy Department spokesman Matthew Donoghue.

TVA officials pointed to a 1998 interagency report to Congress that concluded no international laws or agreements would prohibit the production of tritium, a hydrogen isotope that enhances the explosive power nuclear warheads.

The report also concluded that ``it was even more manageable as a result of TVA doing it because we are a federally owned facility,'' said TVA vice president Jack Bailey.

Last year, the House approved legislation that would have blocked the use of a commercial reactor to make tritium, but the measure failed in the Senate.

TVA, the nation's largest public power producer, was picked by the Energy Department a year ago to be the government's new source for tritium and had worked on the contract since.

Under the agreement, which DOE is expected to sign in the next few weeks, TVA would be paid $25 million over the next three years to prepare for tritium production and obtain Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing.

The deal extends through the life of Watts Bar, which went on line in 1996 and has an operating license until 2035.

It is estimated that TVA would produce 1 1/2 to 3 kilograms of tritium a year, depending on needs. The Energy Department would pay TVA about $9.9 million a year for the work.

A half-dozen opponents spoke against the deal. They feared that tritium would pollute the Tennessee River, that the deal holds untold costs for TVA ratepayers and that it would encourage an international arms race.

``I'm asking you in the name of God to say no to this madness,'' said Erik Johnson, a Presbyterian minister from Maryville.

Glenn McCullough, a TVA director, defended the move.

``The people in the administration and the Department of Energy and the Pentagon have determined they are strategic to the defense of the nation, and on that issue I yield to their judgment,'' he said.

The Energy Department hasn't produced any new tritium since it closed its production reactors at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina in 1988. It has been recycling tritium out of retired weapons since then.

---

Beryllium Workers Get New Standards

New York Times December 8, 1999 Filed at 4:27 p.m. EDT By The Associated Press
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/w/AP-Nuclear-Exposure.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Energy Department on Wednesday revised a half-century-old standard for nuclear workers' exposure to beryllium - which can cause chronic lung disease - and directed its contractors to screen for early detection of the illness.

The government estimates 1,634 workers at 14 facilities in the nuclear weapons complex may be exposed to beryllium, a chemical element used as a strengthening alloy in atomic weapons -- 616 of them at the Y-12 plant in Oak Ridge, Tenn., and 300 at the Pantex plant in Amarillo, Texas.

Other top sites for potential worker exposure, according to DOE estimates: Rocky Flats in Colorado, with 228; Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, 200; and the Mound plant in Ohio, 69.

A medical screening now underway of current and former nuclear workers has turned up 146 cases of chronic beryllium disease, said Rick Jones, director of DOE's Office of Worker Protection Programs and Hazards Management.

``We are getting chronic beryllium disease in our workforce,'' Jones told reporters.

The illness, which results from inhaling particles of the metal, is a frequently disabling, sometimes fatal disease. Workers exposed to the dust also can develop a less serious beryllium sensitization, causing their immune system to become allergic to beryllium in the body.

There is no firm number of how many former nuclear workers were exposed to beryllium, Jones said, although earlier estimates by DOE and other sources have pegged the figure at 20,000 to 26,000 people over the past half century. Medical experts stress that only a small percentage, however, would develop beryllium-related illnesses.

Acknowledging for the first time that thousands of workers were made sick while making nuclear weapons, the government in July announced a plan to compensate many of them for medical care and lost wages. That plan, estimated at $13 million a year over a decade, requires congressional approval.

Wednesday, the Energy Department published a final rule, two years in the making, that establishes what Energy Secretary Bill Richardson termed ``the toughest and most comprehensive protections in the world to prevent future cases of this terrible disease.''

The program, estimated to cost $31.5 million annually, requires the contractors who operate DOE's plants to put in place stricter controls to minimize beryllium exposure and provide for early disease detection. Full compliance must occur within two years.

The new rule requires worker protection measures such as respirators at 0.2 micrograms of beryllium per cubic meter of air. Currently, workers can be exposed to levels 10 times higher.

DOE began looking at a reduced exposure level after studies suggested the 2 microgram level was too high. ``It appears, as we now have evidence, that we're getting workers with ill health effects for exposures below the established permissible exposure level,'' Jones said.

---

Energy Dept. Will Cut Standard for Its Workers' Exposure to a Metal Tied to Lung Disease

New York Times December 8, 1999 By MATTHEW L. WALD
http://www.nytimes.com/99/12/08/news/national/science/hth-lung-disease.html

WASHINGTON -- The standard set by government nuclear bomb makers 50 years ago for exposure to beryllium, a metal once used almost exclusively in nuclear weapons but now common in golf clubs and cars, has made scores of workers sick with a chronic lung disease, and the Energy Department will announce a rule on Wednesday sharply cutting the exposure for workers in its plants.

Because the new standard will apply only to government plants, workers in civilian factories will still fall under the old, higher level. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration alerted workers in September that its current standard, borrowed from the nuclear weapons industry in 1971, "now appears to be too high to prevent chronic beryllium disease," an auto-immune disorder resulting from inhaling particles of the metal. But the agency has not changed its standard. The action by the Energy Department puts it in the unusual role of being stricter than its civilian counterparts in health and safety regulations.

The Energy Secretary, Bill Richardson, said, "We know some of our workers are getting sick from beryllium, and we now have in place the toughest and most comprehensive protections in the world to prevent future cases of this terrible disease."

Beryllium has found a variety of specialty uses in electronics and other fields, because it is light, stiff and transparent to X-rays, and conducts heat well. It is not a hazard to users of products like golf clubs, said Dr. Milton D. Rossman, a pulmonary specialist at the University of Pennsylvania, unless the golfer decides "to sand them down."

Beryllium is a unique case in the annals of nuclear weapons manufacture because it is the only substance that the government has acknowledged caused injury and death at levels allowed under its regulations. The Energy Department has used little beryllium recently because it has built only a few nuclear weapons, but the decontamination of old bomb plants is expected to increase the potential for beryllium exposure.

C. Rick Jones, director of the Office of Worker Protection Programs and Hazards Management in the department, said, "There is a whole new work force that potentially is going to be exposed during this cleanup activity."

Dr. David Michaels, the assistant secretary for environmental safety and health, said, "We think this is a long way toward eliminating chronic berylium disease."

But among people susceptible to chronic beryllium disease, Dr. Michaels and other experts said, even brief exposures to small quantities may be sufficient to cause the disease.

The disease can cause shortness of breath, chest pain, fevers, night sweats and other symptoms, and can be debilitating or fatal.

The old standard, set by the Atomic Energy Commission in 1949, was adopted in 1971 by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration for civilian plants, but among weapons workers has caused at least 146 people to develop a disease, according to the Energy Department. Hundreds more show a condition that is likely to progress into the disease, according to the new regulation, which will be published in the Federal Register on Wednesday. The Clinton administration recently proposed legislation that would compensate people who worked for companies that supplied the government with beryllium.

The new rule requires worker protection measures, like respirators, at 0.2 of a microgram per cubic meter of air, while the 50-year-old standard set worker exposure levels at 10 times as much.

The new rule is unusual because it states explicitly that the government simply does not know what level, if any, is safe. The strategy to minimize exposure mimics the regulatory scheme for radiation, in which the government sets ceilings but also demands that exposures be kept as low as reasonably achievable.

Even the old standard limited exposures to small quantities. In its warning, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration pointed out that two micrograms per cubic meter was equivalent to "a marble-sized piece of material that is pulverized and dispersed" into an area 1 mile by 1 mile by 6 feet.

At the major American maker of beryllium, Brush Wellman Inc., of Cleveland, Marc Kolanz, the director of environmental health and safety, said action levels should be set specific to each place where beryllium was used, because in a laboratory, for example, the 0.2 microgram level was probably too high. He said his company already tried to minimize exposures even below the standard.

---

Decision Nears on the Fate of Ex-Los Alamos Scientist

New York Times December 8, 1999 By JAMES RISEN and DAVID JOHNSTON
http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/asia/120899los-alamos.html

WASHINGTON -- The Federal authorities have intensified their deliberations about whether to prosecute a nuclear weapons scientist at the Los Alamos National Laboratory on charges of mishandling highly classified atomic data, government officials said on Tuesday.

A decision on whether to charge the scientist, Wen Ho Lee, is expected within days, the officials said, after a crucial meeting held on Saturday at the White House and attended by the administration's top security, law enforcement and energy officials.

The participants concluded after a lengthy intelligence review that should Attorney General Janet Reno decide to prosecute, the secrets that would probably be divulged at a criminal trial would not irreparably damage national security.

Among those present in addition to Ms. Reno were Samuel L. Berger, President Clinton's national security adviser; Energy Secretary Bill Richardson; Louis J. Freeh, the director of the F.B.I.; George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence, and John Kelly, the top federal prosecutor in Albuquerque, who has jurisdiction in the case.

Law-enforcement officials and Kelly have recommended going ahead with a case against Lee, said the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity. Richardson, who supports bringing a prosecution, indicated that he was prepared to exercise his statutory authority to declassify atomic secrets likely to be needed as evidence in the trial, the officials said. But they added that it was Ms. Reno who must decide whether to seek an indictment and that she had not given prosecutors final approval.

Lee, his lawyers and his supporters have repeatedly said that he has done nothing wrong and that no one has ever been criminally charged for similar conduct, for example, transferring classified information into a nonclassified computer. Mark Holscher, Lee's lawyer in Los Angeles, did not return telephone calls today.

In the past, Holscher and Lee's other supporters have said that Lee is a loyal American who has been unfairly singled out for investigation because of his Chinese ancestry. They say Lee is being made a scapegoat by law-enforcement and energy officials who have been under fire by Republicans in Congress for security lapses at the country's weapons laboratories. In a television interview in August, Lee also said he was innocent.

The highly unusual White House meeting reflects the acute political sensitivities and high stakes involved in a case that has become a battleground for the administration and Republican critics who have said that Chinese intelligence had used scientists to steal information from the weapons laboratories that was used to vastly speed the pace of Beijing's nuclear weapons program.

As expected, if he is charged, Lee will not be accused of espionage, the officials said, which would require prosecutors to show that information was not only stolen but passed to a foreign power. Prosecutors are now weighing whether to charge Lee with a lesser crime of mishandling and failing to adequately safeguard classified information.

The recent surge of activity in the case comes just before the expiration of the term of a federal grand jury in Albuquerque that has been hearing evidence. The grand jurors were to be dismissed this month, but their terms have been extended until early January.

Lee, who worked in the nuclear weapons design area of Los Alamos, was fired in March for security violations. By that time, he had been under investigation for nearly three years in connection with the government's inquiry into the suspected theft of United States nuclear secrets by China. United States investigators believe that design information related to the most advanced nuclear warhead in the nation's arsenal, the W-88, was obtained by China, in part through espionage. The W-88 warhead was designed at Los Alamos.

After Lee was fired, investigators found evidence that he had transferred vast amounts of secret nuclear data from the classified system at Los Alamos into an unclassified system. In a televised interview, Lee acknowledged that he transferred the data, but said he did so to protect the material from being lost in computer crashes.

Since the investigation into Lee became public, a furious debate has erupted over whether the inquiry was properly handled by the Energy Department and the F.B.I. Subsequently, F.B.I. officials said that the initial inquiry into the evidence of Chinese atomic espionage was flawed, and other current and former government officials argued that investigators had focused prematurely on Lee without first determining how widely accessible the information on the W-88 warhead had been at the time officials concluded the Chinese obtained it. Asian-American groups rallied to Lee's cause, saying he was the victim of racial stereotyping.

In September, Ms. Reno and Freeh ordered federal agents to go back to square one and broaden their investigation into the evidence of China's theft of W-88 secrets, moving beyond Los Alamos to look at other labs and defense contractors that may have had access to the data.

But even as that broader inquiry into evidence of Chinese espionage is continuing, the government has been moving forward in its investigation of Lee over accusations of unauthorized computer transfers of nuclear secrets.

In addition to the unauthorized transfers of nuclear data into an unclassified computer system at Los Alamos, government investigators now believe that Lee also copied the nuclear secrets onto computer tapes and took those tapes out of the lab, officials said. The F.B.I. cannot account for those missing computer tapes, officials said. Officials have no evidence that the tapes have been handed over to any other unauthorized individuals, however.

The discovery that the computer tapes are missing appears to have convinced government officials that the evidence against Lee may be more serious than initially believed. Stephen Younger, associate laboratory director for nuclear weapons, who oversees the division where Lee worked, has completed a highly classified analysis of Lee's computer activities showing that the potential damage to national security could be extensive, officials said.

If he is charged in the computer downloading case, Lee's lawyers appear likely to respond by saying that he is the victim of selective prosecution for relatively common practices. The former C.I.A. director John Deutch, for example, who was investigated by the intelligence agency's inspector general for improperly handling classified information on his computer, had his security clearance stripped this year, but was not charged with a crime.

But Los Alamos officials have said that they disagree with Lee's assertions that his computer activities were routine.

John Browne, the director of Los Alamos, said in an interview in August: "We have no evidence that anyone has ever done anything like this before at Los Alamos, and we have looked. I have no doubt that he violated Los Alamos security regulations, and I have no doubt that he deserved to be terminated. We have fired people for much less."

--------

Pentagon Studies F-22 Alternatives

By DAVID PACE Associated Press Writer DECEMBER 08, 02:19 EST
http://wire.ap.org/APnews/center_story.html?FRONTID=NATIONAL&STORYID=APIS7170CP80

WASHINGTON (AP) - With Congress having delayed production and cut funding for the F-22, the Pentagon now is studying alternatives to the Air Force's prized $62 billion stealth fighter program.

George Schneiter, director of Strategic and Tactical Systems for the Defense Department, told a House panel Tuesday that the study was triggered by last summer's surprise House Appropriations Committee vote to cut all $1.8 billion in production funds the Air Force wanted to build the first six planes.

``It was asked for as part of a `What if?' drill, which we do quite often in the department,'' he said. ``We have great hope the F-22 program will be carried out within the cost estimates. But one has to look at eventualities if that should not come about.''

A House-Senate conference committee eventually restored all but $500 million of the money cut by the House. But Congress banned production until certain performance tests are met and set aside $300 million in ``termination liability'' for Lockheed Martin, the prime contractor, should the program be canceled.

Schneiter said top acquisition officials for both the Defense Department and the Air Force will review the study of F-22 alternatives next week. He said preliminary results suggest that the F-22's revolutionary capabilities will be lost if the program is canceled.

The House appropriations panel that initially cut the F-22 funding suggested using the money instead to build more F-15 and F-16 fighters, the Air Force planes the F-22 eventually is scheduled to replace. Schneiter said that option is one of the alternatives being considered.

``We're looking at such alternatives but the analysis that I've looked at thus far indicates very strongly that we do need the F-22,'' he said. ``The F-15 will never be able to be improved anywhere near the capability of the F-22.''

Schneiter testified before the House government reform subcommittee on national security, veterans affairs and international relations at an oversight hearing on the costs of the F-22 program.

Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., chairman of the panel, complained that repeated Air Force revisions in the program's costs and testing schedule has made it difficult for Congress to establish benchmarks by which to measure the program.

Air Force officials insisted that the plane will be developed within the spending limits imposed by Congress in 1998. Darleen Druyun, the Air Force's acquisition and management chief, said cost saving initiatives already implemented will offset the $667 million in development cost overruns projected last spring.

But the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, questioned whether the Air Force can complete development within the $18.9 billion congressional spending cap.

``Sufficient cost reductions have not been implemented'' to ensure that development costs fall under the cap, the GAO said in a statement to the subcommittee.

-------- US Politics

McCain Calls for Overhaul of National Security Policy

New York Times December 8, 1999 By ALISON MITCHELL
http://www.nytimes.com/library/politics/camp/120899wh-gop-mccain.html

Senator John McCain called Tuesday for the United States to adjust its national security policy to the post-cold-war era by rebuilding its military to meet the new threats posed by rogue states, terrorists and ethnic conflicts.

In a speech setting out his military policy, McCain, the Arizona senator who is seeking the Republican presidential nomination, outlined steps that he said were necessary to meet the security challenges of the new millennium.

His proposals included a pay increase for the military, deployment of a national missile defense system and elimination of outmoded weapons systems.

"Today, my friends, we must face a harsh and compelling reality," McCain said last night after receiving an annual freedom award at the U.S.S. Intrepid Sea-Air-Space Museum in Manhattan. "In strategy, personnel and procurement -- the total package that defines America's ability to defend itself -- the United States does not have the modern force and defense posture we must have to meet the threats to America's interests and values in the 21st century."

As a young naval aviator, McCain served on the Intrepid.

In a sharp criticism of the Clinton administration's military policy, McCain also said: "It's time to end the disingenuous practice of stating that we have a two-war strategy when we are paying for only a one-war military. Either we must change our strategy -- and accept the risks -- or we must properly fund and structure our military."

McCain, who was a prisoner of war in North Vietnam for five and a half years and was in the Navy for 22 years, set out proposals to increase military morale and to reshape the nation's armed forces for challenges that he said often required lighter, more flexible special forces instead of a conventional military geared toward war in Central Europe.

He called for a 3 percent-a-year pay increase for military personnel across three years and the elimination of federal taxes on military personnel based overseas. Aides said the raise would cost $4.3 billion over three years, while the tax proposal would cost $800 million a year.

McCain also said he could identify ways to save $20 billion in Pentagon spending through steps like eliminating pork barrel spending, closing unneeded bases, privatizing some support and maintenance functions and eliminating "Buy America" restrictions. In New Hampshire, where he previewed some of his remarks before a Rotary Club, McCain listed the C-130 aircraft, the B-2 bomber and the Seawolf submarine as examples of weapons systems that were no longer necessary.

The senator's aides said savings across all these areas would come close to offsetting McCain's military spending proposals.

The address on national security policy was the first of several speeches McCain plans over the next few weeks on health care, the environment and Social Security. Polls show the senator running neck and neck with Gov. George W. Bush of Texas in the first primary state, New Hampshire.

The senator has been using his gripping personal story and his expertise in foreign policy to set himself apart from Bush. But his military policy was not strikingly different from Bush's own call in September for the nation to adapt to new security challenges in the aftermath of the cold war.

McCain said the threats to the nation's strategic interests had evolved since the cold war, although he still cited as potential threats the political and economic chaos in Russia and China's growing military and economic might.

He said the United States faced national security challenges from nationalist and ethnic conflicts, from the possibility of attacks on vital links like computer grids, from the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in rogue states and from terrorism.

By the coming decade, he said, the United States could face "a fundamentally new strategic situation: a rogue state such as Iraq or North Korea, with the ability, in time of crisis to use nuclear blackmail against an American president." He called for a policy of "rogue state rollback," not simply to contain such governments but to drive them from power by helping opposition groups.

McCain said a system to shield against ballistic missiles was an "indispensable defense" against rogue states. As president, he said, he would try to negotiate a pact with Russia to alter the 1972 ABM treaty with the Soviet Union to allow such a missile defense shield. But if Russia does not agree, he said, "I will withdraw from a treaty that has become a relic of the cold war if it cannot be made relevant to our national security needs."

He said, "Our cold war pledge to remain defenseless against missile attack is the single greatest incentive for rogue statue proliferation."

Bush has made a similar pledge to break out of the treaty if Russia does not agree to make changes. And the Clinton administration, in softer terms, has raised the possibility.

McCain said the Pentagon needed to reassess the goals and mission of each of the nation's military services for a time when the nation's forces needed to be smaller, more automated and easier to deploy. Re-evaluating readiness will be a waste if it is intended only to hide a lack of political will to provide a superpower defense for a superpower's commitments, he said.

"We should never ask how much defense we can afford, my friends," he said.

Blaming both President Clinton and the Republican-controlled Congress, McCain issued a scathing critique of current military readiness. He said that during the war in Kosovo last spring, the Army was "unable to deploy its premier Apache helicopter forces in time to play a vital role." He also noted that the the Air Force's inventory of air-launched cruise missiles fell to 70 from the 1,000 level the Pentagon says it needs to handle two major theater wars.

And he said reductions in the United States' carrier fleet "could have resulted in a calamity in the Pacific" earlier this year when deployments in Kosovo and the Persian Gulf left "no carrier battle groups in East Asia's waters, where events in the Straits of Taiwan and on the Korean Peninsula could have become world threatening crises."

---

Defense Speech Remarks of Senator John McCain

New York Times December 8, 1999
http://www.nytimes.com/library/politics/camp/120899wh-gop-mccain-text.html

Intrepid Freedom Award New York City, December 8, 1999

Thank you for that kind introduction. I am honored to accept the Intrepid Freedom Award. You have included me in the ranks of people whom I have always and will always consider my superiors. I am humbled by the honor, but determined to remain worthy of the high standards it represents in whatever service I am privileged to give America.

We are all especially grateful today for the opportunity to honor the memory of Zachary Fisher, a remarkable American, who devoted his life in service to the welfare of those who have bravely answered the call of our country. And special thanks to Tony Fisher for carrying on the work of the foundation with such heart and dedication.

The attendance here tonight of the Joint Chiefs is perhaps the most eloquent tribute to Zack and his dear wife, Elizabeth, and the goodness and generosity of their family. God Bless you.

I would also like to welcome my good friend Mayor Giuliani and all of the distinguished guests gathered here today. Thank you for your devotion to our armed forces.

This is a special place for me to talk about the future of our military. I remember well my days serving on the USS Intrepid in the early 1960s. I loved flying off carriers, but there were occasional setbacks -- like the time I knocked down power lines while flying a bit too low over southern Spain, cutting off the electricity to a great many Spanish homes and creating a minor international incident. Not the Navy's greatest moment, nor mine for that matter.

But to all of us here the Intrepid is much more than a personal remembrance. It is a symbol of the service and sacrifice of so many Americans, and a reminder of the awesome responsibility we have as stewards of the greatest military in the world. The tradition of valor that she symbolizes is, and always will be, a compass--as known and welcoming to me as was this great ship itself, when long ago she was the home I searched for through the dark night skies above the Atlantic Ocean.

My friends, some nations might share our love of personal liberty and others might share our dedication to the ordered progress of democracy. But, America remains the world's lone superpower with profound responsibilities that attend that most fortunate and hard-earned distinction.

The world is still home to many tyrants, dictators, haters and aggressors who are hostile to the interests of the United States and the rights of Man. Now more than ever, on the eve of a new millenium, the future of our country and the world depends upon the strength and will of America.

Let it not be construed as the ramblings of a partisan, but as a conviction influenced by patriotism, when I express my grave concern about the state of America's defenses. America has the strongest, best trained, best-led military force in the world. But those who have pledged their lives to our defense look to their civilian leaders for the guidance and the means to meet the security challenges of a new era. And we have failed them.

Our Military Today

Our military today is struggling in virtually every category that measures preparedness. There are 12,000 enlisted personnel - proud, young men and women - whose low pay has left them with no choice but to accept food stamps to feed their families. Others have taken second jobs to make ends meet. Substandard housing for military personnel is now commonplace.

Reductions in the number of military personnel, and the demands of excessive deployments are overburdening our servicemen and women to the breaking point. Time away from home and loved ones has increased while military pay relative to private sector compensation has decreased. And quality health care for veterans and for active military personnel has become just another broken promise.

More and more, we are asking our men and women in uniform to surpass our highest expectations of their service while we forget our solemn promises to them, one after another. That is a stain upon the nation's honor that should shame us all.

My friends, less than a month ago, the Pentagon revealed that not a single Army division was rated fully mission-ready, and that two of its 10 divisions were rated unprepared for war.

During the campaign in and around Kosovo last spring, the Army was unable to deploy its premier Apache helicopter forces in time to play a vital role in that conflict. The Air Force's inventory of air-launched cruise missiles fell to 70 from the 1,000-level the Pentagon says it needs to handle two major theater wars.

The Marine Corps saves money on spare parts by refitting light trucks and Humvees, in order to afford small arms ammunition for forward-deployed Marines. The Navy is struggling to maintain a fleet of 300 ships, down from over 500 in the early 1990's. But, the fiscal year 2000 budget will not support even 200 ships.

Today's ill-considered reduction in the carrier fleet could have resulted in a calamity in the Pacific earlier this year. While one carrier battle group brought its power to bear in Kosovo, and another patrolled the Persian Gulf, there were no carrier battle groups in East Asia's waters where events in the Straits of Taiwan and on the Korean Peninsula could have become world-threatening crises.

The fault lies not with those who serve, nor with their uniformed leadership. It rests with political leaders, on both sides of the aisle and at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, who ask the military to do too much with too little, and who misdirect scarce defense dollars to their political priorities, rather than to vital defense needs.

The Next President's Challenges

I have spoken before about the unique "unipolar moment" in world affairs for the United States, and the necessity to extend this period of American preeminence for as long as we possibly can. In a remarkably changed world, and on the eve of the next American century, our core strategic interests, like our founding ideals, remain constant: protecting our homeland and hemisphere from external threats; preventing the domination of Europe by a single power; strengthening our alliances; securing access to energy resources; and sustaining stability in the Pacific Rim.

Four evolving threats

With the end of the Cold War the threats to our strategic interests have evolved or, at least, their ranking as priority threats has been reordered.

In addition to the potential threats posed by continued political and economic chaos in Russia, and China's growing economic and military strength, there are other immediate threats to our national security that the next administration must face. Recently, I described these four threats in detail.

First, violent expressions of nationalist and ethnic rivalries;

Second, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to rogue states and potential adversaries;

Third, information warfare such as an attack on our private sector's computer grids that cause critical failures in vital services that we take for granted. If we do not more effectively guard our communications, including the Internet--our powerful economic engine; utilities, transportation, financial systems, and other essential services, tiny fiber optic threads might carry viruses as incapacitating as an armed attack.

Fourth, and directly connected to cyber-warfare and proliferation terrorism.

There is a common identity to many of these threats. It should surprise no one that the most viciously anti-democratic regimes - the rogue states - are the chief proliferators; the major exporters of terrorism; the main instigators of regional and ethnic conflicts. From the Persian Gulf to the Korean Peninsula to the Balkans, rogue states are the main threat to peace and freedom, and they require a strong, comprehensive policy response - a policy of "rogue state rollback."

We must use both public and private diplomacy, targeted economic measures, and military assistance to aid forces seeking freedom from rogue regimes.

But we must be prepared to back up these measures with American military force when the continued existence of such rogue states threatens America's interests and values. And, most importantly, state sponsors of terrorism must know not the specifics of our response, but the certainty that it will be swift and sure.

Ballistic Missile Defense

I have opposed Cold War weapons systems that have no necessary use. And I will oppose a Cold War arms control treaty that constrains a necessary defense against today's clear and present danger.

It's time we tell our friends and adversaries alike, that ballistic missile defense is now a national priority, not just another Pentagon program.

In a world that is becoming more unpredictable and dangerous, the indispensable defense against rogue states and terrorists, and even against larger powers who might become reckless in their ambitions is ballistic missile defense.

The North Koreans, last year, tested a multi-stage ballistic missile capable of delivering nuclear weapons against US forces and our allies throughout East Asia. They are working on a longer-range missile that could threaten the continental United States.

Iran and Iraq are developing their own ballistic missiles, with Iran getting technical help from Russia. Thus, by the end of the coming decade, the United States could face a fundamentally new strategic situation: a rogue state, such as Iraq or North Korea, with the ability, in time of crisis, to use nuclear blackmail against an American president.

We must move ahead with the several promising options for theater missile defense now under development, including the improved Patriot on land and the Navy Area Defense System at sea; and to develop programs that will provide for broader regional coverage, such as the Navy's proposed Theater Wide system. We need an ability to project a missile defense shield to the world's most dangerous hot spots whether they be in the Taiwan straits; or off the Korean peninsula; or elsewhere like the Middle East where the security of friends and regional stability could be threatened.

Most importantly, of course, we must defend the United States itself from ballistic missile attack. The current administration has put together a plan for a small-scale national missile defense system and has said that a deployment decision will be made by this summer. But I worry that the administration might find an excuse to delay deployment. Moreover, we must make sure that a missile defense is flexible so that the existing proposal for relying on ground-based interceptors can be upgraded over time with new technologies, such as space-based and boost-phase defenses, as necessary.

An effective deployment of national missile defenses would constitute a violation of the 1972 ABM Treaty. Seizing on this, Russia and others, most notably China, have started to complain about the deployment of American missile defense.

We should sit down with Russia and see whether the ABM Treaty can be altered to permit both of our countries to respond to ballistic missile threats. But I want to be candid with you--if these talks fail, I will do what is right for the security of millions of Americans and for global strategic stability. I will withdraw from a treaty that has become a relic of the Cold War if it cannot be made relevant to our current security needs. Our Cold War pledge to remain defenseless against missile attack is the single greatest incentive for rogue state proliferation. In effect, we are threatening ourselves.

One Goal

Today, my friends, we must face a harsh and compelling reality: in strategy, personnel and procurement*the total package that defines America's ability to defend itself --the United States does not have the modern force and defense posture we must have to meet the threats to America's interests and values in the 21st Century.

It is time to end the disingenuous practice of stating that we have a two-war strategy when we are paying for only a one-war military. Either we must change our strategy*and accept the risks-or we must sufficiently fund and structure our military.

I believe the American public wants the simple truth*tell us the strategy to ensure our security, tell us what it will cost and how you'll pay for it.

Restoring Credibility

First, we must restore our national credibility abroad. Credibility is a strategic asset. The world's only superpower must never give its word insincerely. We should never make idle threats. When we do it ensures that the price we ultimately pay in blood and treasure to defend our security is greater than if we had kept our word from the beginning.

Restoring the Bonds of Trust

Second, we must also restore our credibility and bonds of trust with those who we ask to take up arms in our nation's defense.

The deployment of troops must never become a substitute for a coherent foreign policy, and the use of force should always be our last resort, not our first.

We must never ask our troops to risk their lives for purposes not directly related to our vital national interests and values. We must not send them on missions for which we have no measure of success nor into conflicts we are not prepared to win.

Defense budgets must respect those who serve and their families, and fulfill our national duty to assure they are properly trained, equipped and compensated for the sacrifices we ask of them.

The defense budget passed by Congress this year, like every other in recent memory, was a disgrace, crammed with over $6 billion of wasteful spending unrequested by the military.

Every dollar misspent on unneeded Seawolf submarines and B-2 bombers is one less dollar needed to make certain that no military family need ever resort to foodstamps again.

Every dollar wasted on unrequested military construction is one less dollar for the training necessary to prepare the military to defend America and our allies.

And every dollar stolen to keep open unnecessary defense installations to spare politicians an issue that might cloud their next election is one less dollar for the modern equipment needed to win wars and save lives.

That's wrong. That's wrong. Heroes deserve better service from us than that.

Modernizing weapons systems is vitally important, but personnel issues must come first. It is the training, the preparedness and morale of American's in uniform that is the stout heart of our national defense. If I am the next President, I will end the days of a foodstamp Army once and for all.

We must eliminate the gap between military pay and comparable civilian pay by raising military wages an additional 3% each year for three years, and by eliminating federal income taxes for military personnel who are deployed overseas. Because their pledge to risk their lives to defend the rest of us far exceeds the burdens imposed on the most heavily taxed civilians.

It is time not only that we meet our obligations to those who wear the uniform, but to their family members as well -- each of whom makes an enormous sacrifice for freedom. The well-being of military families is not only our moral duty, it is a vital element of military readiness. If family needs are not well cared for on the home front, our troops will not be well prepared on battlefield.

Restructuring our forces

The third challenge we face is to structure and deploy our forces to effectively respond to the threats of the 21st century. New threats require innovative and forward thinking approaches to utilizing lighter, more flexible, and rapidly deployable forces. We need to support and accelerate technological improvements that help make our forces smaller, more automated, and easier to deploy. Terrorism, proliferation in rogue states and ethnic conflict often call more for highly capable special forces than for a conventional military geared toward war on the plains of central Europe.

As has been all too common in the past, our military planning focuses on maintaining the force structure that proved effective in winning the last war, while too little attention has been given to the changing and uncertain nature of future conflicts.

We cannot afford to allow embedded biases in the Pentagon or political influences to resist innovative and forward-thinking approaches to force planning. We should honestly reassess the roles and missions of each of the military services, including the Guard and Reserve components. And we should eliminate forces and weapons systems that have no place in the modern, post-Cold War world.

We should reevaluate the readiness requirements of our military forces based on two conditions: the likelihood that forces will be called upon to respond to a military crisis, and the timeframe in which those forces would be deployed. Forces could then be categorized in readiness tiers premised on the degree of day-to-day readiness at which they should be maintained.

Forward-deployed and crisis response forces would be maintained at the highest level of readiness. Follow-on forces necessary to mount a large-scale offensive in a theater of operations to halt an escalating crisis would be maintained at the second highest level of readiness. Conflict resolution forces that deploy late in the conflict to ensure that we have the force superiority to prevail would be maintained at the lowest level of readiness. Finally, we must be prepared to eliminate units for which there is either no identified requirement under our national military strategy, or which cannot be deployed to a theater of operations until the crisis has passed.

It is important to differentiate this proposed tiering of readiness requirements from the current fluctuations in unit readiness caused by training or operational deployments. This is an ordered and logical proposal. It is not intended to compensate for insufficient funding for training and operations.

Reevaluating readiness will prove an utter waste of time if it is intended only to hide a lack of political will to provide a superpower defense for a superpower's commitments. We should never ask how much defense we can afford, my friends. We must honestly answer how much defense we need and have the courage to find the money to pay for it.

Modernizing our Forces

For too long, we have neglected modernization - failing to deploy the weapons and systems needed to maintain our technological superiority and a decisive edge on the battlefield.

Where have we gone wrong? Today, the Air Force is operating bombers that are older than the pilots that fly them. We have Marines flying 30-year old assault helicopters. Many of the Army's howitzers are 35 years old, and the Navy's amphibious assault command ships average more than 30 years of age. The older this equipment gets, the more expensive it is to maintain, the harder it is to keep operating.

For the past 10 years we have been living "off the shelf"*using up the assets procured by previous administrations. We must begin immediately to buy the equipment on which our future security depends.

Funding Defense

Fully funding our defense requires that we aggressively eliminate wasteful defense spending. I have identified nearly 20 billion dollars that could be saved by taking such steps as eliminating excess infrastructure, privatizing support and maintenance functions, lifting unnecessary "Buy America" restrictions, and forcefully and publicly opposing Congress' pork barrel raid on the defense budget.

Given our global commitments and strategy, we need to increase defense spending. Today we spend barely 3% of our gross domestic product on defense. My friends, the last time we spent so little on defense was 1940*the year before Pearl Harbor. But we won't really know how much we need to spend until we rid defense budgets of wasteful spending that contributes much to political cynicism, but nothing to the nation's defense.

Our defense budget must be driven by our security needs, not vice versa. We must spend whatever it takes -not one penny more nor one penny less. For too long we have asked our armed services to do much more with much less. It's time to give them enough.

The Lesson of Pearl Harbor

I have not observed until now that this date, December 7, commemorates the infamous event, Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, that taught America - we hope for the last time - the perils of military unpreparedness. But as the distance between that world-changing calamity and our current security grows, more and more Americans derive their sense of security from a poor understanding of history and of the clear and present dangers of modern threats.

Far better for Americans to feel secure in the care of the wonderful young men and women who have made our security their life's work and not take comfort from our ignorance.

But, as I hope I have helped explain, neither we nor our brave armed forces are well served by pretending that without immediate and comprehensive attention to the weaknesses in America's defenses that even the most courageous, the most skilled military in the world can keep us perfectly safe, much less pre-eminent in world affairs.

So, let me close by recalling again that sad day when courage and sacrifice alone defended against an attack we were unprepared to face. That we were defeated by our enemy for a moment surely does not diminish the nobility of the sacrifices made by Americans that day for the sake of duty, honor and country. Neither does forgetting them--nor forgetting the reasons for which they sacrificed--obscure the lantern of courage and faith they shone. But it does risk, sadly, dimming the illumination of America's honor today. And I pledge myself to join all of you in fighting against the false complacency that is our greatest threat. Let us always start our defense by remembering the lessons taught to us by those who proved in the ultimate selfless act to have valued the life of their country, the lives of their children - our lives - more than their own.

I have heard that hot oil still boils in the hold of the U.S.S. Arizona. If so, it is a living testament to the destruction of December 7, 1941. But it is an eternal warning that freedom is never purchased on the cheap and those of us who are honored to help lead this great and bravely defended nation must see clearly our most important duty: to provide for the common defense with all the necessary resources at our disposal, so that others*the best men and women in America--will not be forced to provide for it with their lives.

---

McCain Outlines Military Priorities

New York Post December 8, 1999 Filed at 4:28 a.m. EDT By The Associated Press
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/p/AP-McCain.html

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) -- A military veteran on a mission of reform, Republican presidential contender John McCain says at least $20 billion in the Pentagon budget should be redirected away from ``political priorities ... to vital defense needs.''

In campaign speeches Tuesday designed to flesh out a national security policy, McCain listed cancellation of the B2 bomber and other defense systems; a new round of base closings; elimination of certain ``Buy America'' restrictions; and a greater role for private industry as ways to achieve savings.

The money -- and perhaps more -- would be spent on deployment of a missile defense system to protect against attacks; better pay for the troops and other changes McCain said are needed to make sure that American remains ``the greatest force for good on earth.''

McCain has risen sharply in the polls in New Hampshire, where the first primary of 2000 will be held on Feb. 1, and aides said the speech would be followed in the next few weeks by addresses on Medicare, Social Security and the environment as the nominating season heats up.

On Tuesday, the 58th anniversary of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, McCain first outlined his defense program in a speech a few blocks from the state Capitol, then a dinner at the USS Intrepid Sea Air Space Museum in New York.

A former Navy aviator who was a prisoner of war in Vietnam, McCain is aiming his presidential campaign at independent voters as well as Republicans. In his remarks during the day, he criticized political leaders ``on both sides of the aisle and at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue who ask the military to do too much with too little, and who misdirect scarce defense dollars to their political priorities, rather than to vital defense needs.''

He criticized an ``ill-considered reduction in the carrier fleet'' could have resulted in calamity earlier in the year.

``While one carrier battle group brought its power to bear in Kosovo, and another patrolled the Persian Gulf, there were no carrier battle groups in East Asia's waters where events in the Straits of Taiwan and on the Korean Peninsula could have become world-threatening crises,'' he said.

The Arizona senator also re-enforced his earlier call for a policy of ``rogue state rollback in which our goal is not simply to contain rogue regimes (such as North Korea and Iraq) but to drive them from power.''

Asked after his New Hampshire remarks for specifics on unneeded weapons system, McCain listed the C130 aircraft; the B2 bomber; and the Seawolf submarine as examples. Aides said total savings from so-called ``pork barrel'' defense spending could total $5 billion to $6 billion a year.

He also said he favors creation of a new base closing commission, to identify and eliminate military facilities that are no longer needed. Aides said those changes could eventually produce savings of between $4 billion and $7 billion a year.

On military pay, he called for increases of three percent a year beginning next year, on top of the 4.8 percent recently approved by Congress and President Clinton. Aides said the cost would be $4.3 billion over three years.

In addition, McCain favors exempting military personnel overseas from the federal income tax, aides said. They listed the cost to the government of $800 million a year.

The senator wants to remove ``Buy America'' provisions that prevent the Pentagon from making certain purchases from international suppliers doing business in friendly countries, a step that aides said could save $5 billion.

A plan to allow private industry to bid for certain support and maintenance would produce another $2 billion in savings, they said. Should more money be needed to meet defense needs, McCain is prepared to go back to the Pentagon budget to find it, they added.

On the subject of missile defense, McCain said deployment would violate the 1972 ABM treaty signed with the former Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War.

``We should sit down with Russia and see whether the ABM treaty can be altered to permit both of our countries to respond to ballistic missile threats,'' he said.

But if not, ``I will do what's right from for the security of millions of Americans and for global strategic stability. I will withdraw from a treaty that has become a relic of the Cold War if it cannot be made relevant to our current security needs,'' he said.

--------

White House Preparing Gun Lawsuit

By ANNE GEARAN Associated Press Writer DECEMBER 08, 11:16 EST
http://wire.ap.org/APnews/center_story.html?FRONTID=NATIONAL&STORYID=APIS71788JG0

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Clinton administration hopes the threat of a new, national lawsuit will persuade gun makers to negotiate with cities that accuse them of negligently allowing guns to fall into the hands of criminals.

The White House is helping prepare a class-action suit against gun makers, alleging that guns and how they are marketed have contributed to violence in public housing projects, administration officials said Tuesday.

White House spokesman Joe Lockhart said today that the lawsuit is not imminent. But the hope is the suit will heighten pressure on gun manufacturers to respond in a meaningful way to 28 states and cities that are seeking to recover the cost of gun violence.

``It is our hope that the negotiations going on now reach fruition. We don't need protracted litigation,'' Lockhart said. ``That's part of what the discussions going on now are looking at, to try to catalyze some fundamental reform in the way gun makers do business, as far as production and marketing.''

The National Rifle Association, however, condemned the threatened lawsuit as ``a frightening holiday greeting from Bill Clinton and Al Gore.''

``No lawful industry is safe. Who will they sue next? Automobile makers? The distiller industry? Manufacturers of baseball bats and kitchen knives?'' said James J. Baker, executive director of NRA's Institute for Legislative Action. ``The vast majority of Americans know that we should hold violent criminals directly responsible for their crimes.''

The lawsuit by some or all of the nation's 3,100 local housing authorities would be patterned on suits filed against the industry by 29 cities and counties, the officials said.

Those suits claim that gun manufacturers have sold defective products or marketed them in ways that increase the likelihood that they will be used to commit crimes.

``When only 1 percent of the dealers are selling over 50 percent of the guns used in crimes ... obviously something is wrong and we should be taking action against that 1 percent,'' Andrew Cuomo, secretary of housing and urban development, said today on ABC's ``Good Morning America.''

``There are many safety features ... that could be manufactured with guns and could make a significant difference, could save lives. We have safety caps on a battle of aspirin; it makes no sense not to have safety devices on guns,'' Cuomo said.

``The administration intends to work aggressively to ... try to work to reach a settlement with the industry,'' White House domestic policy adviser Bruce Reed said. ``If settlement is not possible, then the public housing authorities are prepared to go forward with their suit.''

A negotiated agreement would allow the administration and gun control advocates to claim a victory at a time when Congress has rejected writing into law new firearms restrictions sought by President Clinton.

Administration officials said the White House and the Department of Housing and Urban Development were helping prepare the suit even though the actual plaintiff would be independent local authorities that run federal housing programs.

The White House and HUD want gun makers to agree to a code of conduct that includes cracking down on disreputable gun dealers and making safer guns. The administration also wants gun makers to agree to end practices such as marketing guns that are impervious to fingerprints.

HUD officials would not detail any previous outreach to gun makers but said new talks were planned.

The gun makers have acknowledged the talks, but objected to the characterization of the meetings as ``negotiations.''

Among the companies reportedly involved in the discussions with Spitzer have been Smith and Wesson, Sturm, Ruger and Co., Colt's Manufacturing, O.F. Mossberg and sons, Taurus, Glock and Beretta.

Messages left at Colt's offices in West Hartford, Conn., were not returned Tuesday night.

New York officials have threatened to sue the manufacturers unless they agree to a similar code of conduct governing the sale and distribution of their products.

Some gun makers have declared bankruptcy in the wake of the suits by local governments, and others have scaled back their product lines and decreased advertising, according to a countersuit.

The suits have had mixed success in the courts. A judge dismissed Cincinnati's suit in October, but another judge allowed Atlanta's suit to proceed and ordered the industry to open its files.

Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Bellevue, Wash.-based Second Amendment Foundation, said if the housing authorities sue, his group likely would file another countersuit on behalf of gun makers.

Gottlieb claimed that the administration was encouraging suits against the gun industry in hopes of bankrupting gun companies.

The idea, he said, was ``file as many suits as possible. The industry can't fight hundreds of lawsuits - it would bankrupt them.''

-------- us nuc facilities

Utility Declares Millstone Plant Ready for 2000

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS New York Times December 8, 1999
http://www.nytimes.com/99/12/08/news/national/regional/ct-plant-y2k.html

WATERFORD, Conn. -- Northeast Utilities officials have told Senator Christopher J. Dodd that the Millstone nuclear power complex is ready and will have no safety problems related to Year 2000 computer concerns.

Dodd had wanted to know why a major emergency drill planned for 1999 had been delayed until 2000 and why drills that had been held had not included consideration of the Year 2000 problem.

Dodd, a Democrat, is vice chairman of the Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem. The utility responded on Monday to his concerns.

Michael G. Morris, the chairman, president and chief executive of Northeast Utilities, wrote that Millstone and the Seabrook nuclear power station in New Hampshire were acknowledged as ready for the change to 2000 by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Oct. 1.

The Northeast Utilities system, including the Millstone and Seabrook plants, took part in two nationwide Year 2000 drills -- one on April 9 and the other on Sept. 9 -- that were organized by the North American Electric Reliability Council, Morris said in the letter to Dodd.

The United States Department of Energy gave the council the job of assessing the readiness of the nation's power grid.

Dodd said the utility's participation in the drills had eased his concerns, but he also cautioned, "When it comes to nuclear power, we don't have any room for error."

Millstone officials did not conduct drills that specifically involved possible Year 2000 problems because they did not need to, Morris wrote.

"We carefully evaluated the range of possible scenarios," he wrote, "and determined that both our operating and emergency procedures already encompass the potential challenges that our plant operators could face."

-------- us nuc weapons facilities

10 workers injured in accident at Tenn. nuclear weapons plant

Nando TimesnDecember 8, 1999 7:57 p.m. EST
http://www2.nando.net/noframes/story/0,2107,500139929-500164969-500599739-1,00.html

OAK RIDGE, Tenn. (December 8, 1999 7:57 p.m. EST http://www.nandotimes.com) - Ten workers were injured Wednesday in a chemical explosion at a nuclear weapons plant while cleaning an area that has been shuttered since 1993.

Three workers were hospitalized for burns or smoke inhalation from the explosion at the Y-12 plant. The others were treated and released.

The building where the explosion occurred houses a portion of the plant's enriched uranium operation, which was shut down for five days in November because of safety problems. But the explosion was in a different section of the building and no nuclear materials were affected, officials said.

The workers were removing an old crucible used in casting nuclear weapons parts. The explosion occurred when they were attempting to mop up a sodium hydroxide alloy that had spilled.

The alloy might have reacted with moisture, but the exact cause of the explosion was unclear, said David Page, a spokesman for the Energy Department.

Y-12, created as part of the top-secret Manhattan Project in World War II to build the first atomic bomb, today makes warhead components for the MX missile system and is the primary uranium storage site for the nation's nuclear arsenal.

The entire 5,300-employee plant was shuttered in 1994 for safety deficiencies. DOE and managing contractor Lockheed Martin have been slowly restarting the plant, section by section.

-------- iraq

Saddam's Weapons Program Questioned

By TOM RAUM Associated Press Writer DECEMBER 08, 01:34 EST
http://wire.ap.org/APnews/center_story.html?FRONTID=MIDEAST&STORYID=APIS716VNS80

WASHINGTON (AP) - Almost a year has passed since Operation Desert Fox and more than a year since U.N. weapons inspectors left Iraq. As the United Nations struggles to frame a new policy toward Baghdad, many in the West fear Saddam Hussein has used the pause to rebuild his weapons program.

Defense Secretary William Cohen is among those with such fears.

``I think they are determined to rebuild their military,'' Cohen told reporters Tuesday. It's even possible that Saddam has been acquiring weapons-grade nuclear materials, Cohen allowed. ``I'm saying we don't know,'' Cohen said.

Meanwhile, a bipartisan group of lawmakers is trying to pressure the Clinton administration to do more to carry out the spirit of the year-old Iraq Liberation Act, which earmarked $97 million in U.S. assistance to Iraqi opposition groups seeking to overthrow Saddam.

To date, only a fraction of that amount has been spent - mostly for office equipment and training classes in Florida on democracy.

The administration contends the $97 million does not cover arms but only indirect assistance and ``nonlethal'' training.

But slipped into the huge government operations spending bill that President Clinton signed last month was another $10 million - this time in direct money - to ``support efforts to bring about political transition in Iraq.''

Of this, $2 million was designated for efforts to prosecute Saddam and his lieutenants for war crimes.

Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., chairman of the Foreign Relations subcommittee on Near Eastern and South Asian affairs, said the $10 million appropriation was intended to force the administration to support anti-Saddam activities inside Iraq instead of buying ``file cabinets and fax machines.''

``The administration is doing a very slow roll on this. I think they're generally figuring this one is going to go to the next president,'' said Brownback.

The notion that Saddam's reign may outlast yet another U.S. president has already become an issue on the presidential campaign trail.

In last week's Republican debate in Manchester, N.H., front-running candidate George W. Bush appeared at first to suggest that he would ``take out'' Saddam, perhaps finishing the job his father began when the military coalition he organized drove Iraqi forces from Kuwait.

``If I found in any way, shape or form that he was developing weapons of mass destruction, I'd take 'em out. I'm surprised he's still there,'' Bush said.

But asked to elaborate on what he would ``take out,'' Bush said, ``weapons of mass destruction.''

Official U.S. policy, dating from a 1976 executive order signed by President Ford, makes assassination of a foreign leader illegal.

Nevertheless, both Presidents Bush and Clinton signed orders authorizing covert activities to topple Saddam, according to congressional and intelligence sources, but none came to fruition.

U.N. arms inspectors left Iraq in November 1998 after the chief inspector, Richard Butler, said Iraq had failed to cooperate with efforts to seek out weapons banned under the agreement that ended the Gulf War. Operation Desert Fox, four days of U.S. and British airstrikes against targets in Iraq, followed in mid-December.

After the campaign ended, Iraq said the commission's job in Iraq ``is over'' and ruled out its return so long as Butler headed it.

Iraqi leaders recently said they would allow inspectors back, but only after sanctions in place since August 1990 are abolished.

The U.N. Security Council is struggling now to forge a new comprehensive policy on Iraq that would allow the inspectors to return, but its members remain divided. It agreed to a series of short extensions of the oil-for-food program, which allows Iraq to bypass sanctions and sell oil to buy food and humanitarian goods. The most recent extension expires Saturday.

Iraq opposes the short-term extensions as ``political mockery.''

Sen. Bob Kerrey, D-Neb., a sponsor of the Iraq Liberation Act, told a gathering in New York of the Iraqi National Congress, the leading opposition group, that the United States is spending $2 billion a year to contain Saddam. ``It simply isn't working, and it is unsatisfying to the American people,'' he said.

Still, administration officials note that opposition groups are fragmented, many feuding among themselves.

State Department spokesman James Foley suggested this week that U.S. intelligence agencies aren't totally in the dark as to recent developments in Iraq regarding weapons of mass destruction.

``We maintain robust national capabilities to monitor as best we can what Saddam Hussein may be up to in this area,'' Foley said.

Still, he said, ``It remains our view that having inspectors on the ground is the best insurance.''

---

Questions Remain About Iraq Weapons

December 8, 1999 Filed at 2:27 p.m. EDT New York Times By The Associated Press
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/i/AP-Confronting-Saddam.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- More than a year after U.N. arms inspectors left Iraq, the issue of whether Saddam Hussein has used the time to rebuild his weapons program is vexing U.S. policy makers and stirring debate on the campaign trail.

``Until you have inspectors on the ground to certify that they have not tried to reconstitute it, no one can tell you one way or the other,'' said Defense Secretary William Cohen, among those sounding the alarm as the U.N. Security Council struggles with framing a new policy for Iraq.

Meanwhile, members of Congress want the administration to do more to support opposition groups, contending it has spent only a fraction of the $97 million Congress set aside a year ago to fund the Iraq Liberation Act -- and most of that has gone for office equipment and classes on democracy.

Slipped into the huge government operations spending bill that President Clinton signed last month was another $10 million -- this time in direct money -- to ``support efforts to bring about political transition in Iraq.'' Of this, $2 million was designated for efforts to prosecute Saddam and his lieutenants for war crimes.

Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee on Near Eastern and South Asian affairs, said the $10 million appropriation was intended to force the administration to support anti-Saddam activities inside Iraq instead of buying more ``file cabinets and fax machines.''

``The administration is doing a very slow roll on this,'' said Brownback. ``I think they're generally figuring this one is going to go to the next president.''

Sen. Bob Kerrey, D-Neb., a sponsor of the Iraq Liberation Act, told a recent gathering in New York of the Iraqi National Congress, the leading opposition group, that the United States is spending $2 billion a year in military efforts to contain Saddam. ``It simply isn't working, and it is unsatisfying to the American people,'' he said.

Administration officials argue that the opposition groups are fragmented, spending a lot of time feuding with each other.

U.N. arms inspectors left Iraq in November 1998 after the chief inspector, Richard Butler, said Iraq had failed to cooperate with efforts to seek out weapons banned under the agreement that ended the Gulf War. Operation Desert Fox, four days of U.S. and British airstrikes against targets in Iraq, followed in mid-December 1998.

The United States continues to enforce no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq.

In a speech Wednesday in Tampa, Fla., Cohen cited ``over 200,000 sorties, all without the loss of a single aircraft,'' since the patrols began seven years ago. He called it ``another astonishing record.''

Cohen was in Tampa for a meeting with Gen. Anthony Zinni, who is in charge of U.S. forces in the Gulf.

Iraqi leaders say they would only allow inspectors back if sanctions are abolished.

The Security Council is struggling to forge a new policy that would allow the inspectors to return, but its members remain divided on the sanctions. It agreed to a series of short extensions of the oil-for-food program, which lets Iraq to bypass sanctions and sell oil to buy food and humanitarian goods.

The latest extension expires Saturday. Iraq opposes the short-term extensions as ``political mockery.''

The issue has been raised on the presidential campaign trail as Saddam appears likely to outlast yet another U.S. president.

``If I found in any way, shape or form that he was developing weapons of mass destruction, I'd take 'em out. I'm surprised he's still there,'' Texas Gov. George W. Bush said at last week's GOP debate in Manchester, N.H.

Asked whether he meant he would ``take out'' Saddam personally, perhaps seeking to finish the job begun by his father, Bush said he only meant the weapons.

State Department spokesman James Foley said U.S. intelligence agencies ``maintain robust national capabilities to monitor as best we can what Saddam Hussein may be up to in this area.''

But Cohen told a Pentagon news conference Tuesday that without detailed intelligence, ``you are left in the realm of speculation.''

Iraq might even be trying to obtain weapons-grade nuclear materials, Cohen said. Earlier evidence suggested Iraq was paying more attention to chemical and biological weaponry.

``It's all the more imperative that we have inspectors on the ground, '' Cohen said.

---

New Arms Inspection Plan Could End Sanctions Against Iraq

By BARBARA CROSSETTE New York Times December 8, 1999

UNITED NATIONS -- A new arms inspection plan that could lead to the suspension of nine years of sanctions against Iraq sometime next year may go to the Security Council for debate on Wednesday, Western diplomats said Tuesday. British and American envoys, augmented by State Department officials, spent Tuesday trying to build a consensus that would avoid a Russian veto.

Diplomats said that on Wednesday the foreign ministers of key Security Council countries, including Secretary Of State Madeleine Albright and Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov of Russia, would discuss the proposals by telephone.

While a formal vote by the 15-member council may not take place until the weekend, there is a sense among council members that the next day or two will be crucial to future policy on Iraq. At stake are not only the creation of a new arms-monitoring body and the laying out of a rough timetable pointing to relief from the crippling international embargo if Iraq complies with inspectors, but also the future of the "oil-for-food" program.

The economic sanctions were imposed after Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait, and are to remain in place until Iraq demonstrates it has eliminated its weapons of mass destruction. The oil-for-food program is intended to soften the effects of the embargo on ordinary Iraqis by permitting Iraq to sell controlled amounts of oil in order to purchase needed civilian goods.

The program has been given two short extensions, prompting Iraq to stop exporting oil for the last three weeks in protest. The next deadline is Saturday, and diplomats say that the program is likely to be extended for the full six months. If there is agreement on the arms inspection plan this week, the oil-sales plan would be phased into the overall Iraq surveillance program. Under that program the oil-sales agreement would be enhanced in several ways, primarily by removing the limit on sales, although supervision of the money earned would continue.

Western diplomats say that significant differences remain on several points between the Russians on one hand and the British and Americans on the other, primarily over how to judge whether Iraq is in compliance with inspectors. On that judgment rests the trigger that would lift sanctions for renewable periods of 100 days.

Several council members said that it is important to have Russian support for the plan to demonstrate to Iraq that the council is firmly committed to resuming arms inspections. In a trend that has been developing since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, diplomats find themselves trying to factor in Russian domestic political pressures as well as Moscow's long ties to Iraq as they search for consensus.

Tuesday, Thomas Pickering, the American undersecretary of state, came to New York to speak with Sergey Lavrov, the chief Russian representative on the council, who returned on Monday from Moscow. In Moscow, Lavrov took part in four days of talks with Tariq Aziz, Iraq's deputy prime minister, who urged the Russians to oppose the arms inspections, Aziz said Tuesday in a speech in Baghdad. He did not say much about the Russian response, but he did repeat Iraq's strong opposition to the new plan and again demanded the immediate and unconditional lifting of sanctions.

Some diplomats thought that Lavrov had toughened his position somewhat Tuesday after the talks with Aziz and consultations with Russian colleagues, but others speculated that the Russian envoy's harder line in talks may have been a bargaining tool as discussions enter their final hours.

The Iraq negotiations are being conducted for the United States by Peter Burleigh, a Middle East and Asia expert who is about to depart as deputy chief representative here. Richard Holbrooke, the chief American representative, is on an extended tour of Africa.

There is a sense among diplomats that the Americans regard this as the final push on Iraq, nearly a year after British and American bombing raids to punish Iraq for its failure to cooperate with Unscom, the first arms inspection team. If the new resolution creating Unscom's successor passes, the United States and other members will be seen to have acted decisively after months of dithering. Iraq will resist new inspections, but that confrontation will open a new phase in its relations with the United Nations.

If the resolution creating the new body, the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, is vetoed, however, sanctions against President Saddam Hussein's government will remain in place indefinitely -- which many in Washington would welcome. The only question then becomes whether the embargo would begin to erode as nations tired of an inconclusive policy and eager to strike business deals would begin to break the rules and deal openly with Iraq. That problem, however, would no longer belong to the Clinton administration but to its successor.


--- [Older stories] ---

------ bulgaria

Top weapons broker defends arms control policy

March 26, 1999 Washington Times International Advertising Department
(202) 636-3035 (202) 635-0103 fax e-mail: natlad@wt.infi.net
http://www.washtimes.com/internatlads/finland/17.html

As usual, the plush offices of Delta-G are buzzing. But today is a special day for the company, and while the business is in full gear, the spirit of celebration is palpable. The company, Bulgaria's only government-licensed broker for both conventional arms and nuclear metals, has had both licenses renewed by the Bulgarian government, a testament to its diligent adherence to Bulgaria's strict weapons export control laws.

Encouraged by the news, the owner of Delta-G, Nikolay Gigov, is ready for his first interview with an American journalist. His message is clear: "Bulgaria is not making any shady weapons deals," he explains. "These media reports that we are breaking embargoes probably are being planted by our competitors. They absolutely are not true, and they are hurting the image of my country."

For a wealthy man in a very dangerous business, Gigov, 37, is unusually mellow and unassuming. A former consultant to one of Bulgaria's early democratic governments, his sense of nationalism runs deep. And as a former professional soccer player, and the current owner of a professional soccer team, he is a popular name in Sofia. His love of art-another interesting dimension of his persona-is manifest in the collection of impressionist paintings from Bulgaria's most famous artists that lines his office walls.

In his calm way, he explains that all his sales undergo rigorous review by a council of deputy ministers, and still are not approved until Bulgaria's minister of industry and prime minister personally approve the deal. After the detailed explanation, he reiterates that reports about Bulgaria breaking weapons embargoes have been planted by competitors, who he believe wish to block Bulgaria from joining NATO and the European Union. "With this process in place, there absolutely is no way anything illegal can happen."

More than business

After giving up his soccer career at age 27, Gigov says he began a construction business, largely centered around military plants. He then began an exporting business, and in the last few years focused on the weapons trade. All the while, his athlete side drove his will in business. "Sports taught me to be a winner, to never quit trying," he says.

With each success building on the last, Gigov's reputation for business acumen grew. Now, Delta-G's staff directory reads like a Who's Who of former government officials, including Bulgaria's former highest ranking military official, the equivalent of the United States' joint chief of staff.

"Mr. Gigov has a talent for business, but equally important is that he is a man of his word," says Solomon Passy, president of the Atlantic Club of Bulgaria. "He doesn't need to sign contracts, just a handshake. And he is on good terms with all governments, because they know he is a man of great integrity."

Passy says another striking thing about Gigov is his generosity and concern for Bulgaria. He recalls one time when the Atlantic Club, at which such western VIP's as U.S. Secretary of Defense William Cohen frequently speak, was in a bind. Difficulties with travel arrangements for NATO's Deputy Sec. Gen. Sergio Balanzino jeopardized his address to address the Atlantic Club.

After Passy explained the dilemma to Gigov, Gigov personally paid for a chartered plane to fly Balanzino roundtrip from Brussels to Sofia. "He knew how important this event was for us, and for Bulgaria's NATO aspirations. He cares about his country," Passy says.

When Rep. Danny Davis (D-Il.), who recently spoke before the Atlantic club in Sofia, met Gigov, he was intrigued by Gigov's level of "commonality and hospitality." He also sensed Gigov's love of his country, and felt that he very much embodied the entrepreneurial spirit overtaking Bulgaria.

"He's what you would call a regular guy," Davis says. "He's not isolated up there on the mountain, but he's a part of what is going on in his country, and his community. And when you're doing that, you're doing the work of the master."

As for Gigov's future, he says he will maintain his core business, though it is getting more and more competitive. He is considering a construction business venture in Virginia, and might consider investing in one of Bulgaria's weapons plants if it complemented his weapons trade. But these days, Gigov says, he is not driven by money. He wants to see his country join NATO and the European Union, in hopes of a better future for Bulgaria.

"I can be as rich as I am, but if people around me are poor, this is bad. I am a Bulgarian."

-------- finland

Finland considers new nuclear power plant

The Washington Times April 23 1999 International Advertising Department at (202) 636-3035 (202) 635-0103 fax e-mail: natlad@wt.infi.net
http://www.washtimes.com/internatlads/finland/17.html

Finland needs its electricity. A cold, harsh climate, long distances and industrial production concentrated in energy-intensive industries like forestry, heavy metal and chemical processing have translated into one of Europe's highest electricity demands, despite high efficiency and conservation measures. Without any domestic oil or gas resources, its hydro potential largely protected on environmental grounds, imported energy accounts for about two thirds of national consumption. Meanwhile, its four nuclear plants satisfy a quarter of the country's electricity needs.

Though Americans, Swedes and Germans are resistant to nuclear power, the Finns are edging toward approval of the controversial energy source. Opposition to a proposed fifth generator is subsiding, since it provides a way to meet increasing energy demand while making the 8-percent reduction in emissions called for by the Kyoto Treaty. <P>Public support is gaining momentum. A survey carried out in February found support for nuclear power at 37 percent. And although the report found Finns against a fifth unit still outnumber those in favor, the gap is narrowing.

Anders Palmgren, Corporate Executive Vice President of Fortum's Energy Division, is happy with the results. Fortum, through its subsidiary IVO Power Engineering and its nuclear division, now owns and operates the Loviisa nuclear power plant. With a 27-percent share in Teollisuuden Voima, which owns and operates the Olkiluoto plant, it has also declared itself a possible contractor should a fifth plant be approved.

Palmgren is impressed with nuclear power's ratings. "People should never be that positive about something they don't necessarily understand," he said. "The fact that we have slightly more people in favor of nuclear energy is as good a situation as we can get."

Finland has been internationally recognized for its nuclear program's safety and productivity. It makes the world's top ten year after year in terms of capacity factors with short refueling outages. A spokesman for the World Association of Nuclear Operators said many of their members recognize the program's long-term success, and have visited Finland to discover its secrets.

Dhiaa Jamil, maintenance manager at Duke's McGuire nuclear station, visited one of Finland's plants last year and came away impressed. "What stood out was their long term view," Jamil said. "When we visited they had only just finished a ten year modernization and were already planning a new one."

The success of Finland's nuclear program "is illustrated by the fact we are actively looking at building a new plant in 2008," Palmgren said. "This may seem odd to some people, but we intend to do it."

Part of the program's high level of public acceptance may be due to planned handling of waste. The latest poll - in September 1998 - showed 50 percent of Finns support deep geological disposal for spent fuel and 60 percent of the inhabitants of municipalities where nuclear plants were located accepted disposal in their community. With a final repository for low and intermediate-level waste 110 meters underground at the Loviisa site, and a site due to be selected in 2000 for final disposal of spent nuclear fuel, public concerns are being addressed.

Finland's first Russian-bought nuclear plant started operating in early 1970 's - part of a policy of active trade with the Soviets. Though solidly constructed, it lacked the proper regulatory and safety elements.

But Palmgren argues the process of upgrading the plant - combining the Russian primary circuit design and reactor control system with Western advances in technology, creating what has come to be referred to as an "Eastinghouse" - was invaluable. "If we would have gotten a plant from Westinghouse we would have taken it off a train and asked which button to push. Instead we have the know-how in house to do our own tests, repairs and upgrades."

Unlike the Americans, Finns chose nuclear scientists such as Palmgren, a nuclear engineer and chairman of the Finnish Nuclear Society, as managers instead of former chiefs of coal- or gas-fired plants. Palmgren believes scientific thinking and the resulting technological development was key in the program's success. Today, IVO is participating with Westinghouse to ensure a new generation of nuclear engineers is well trained and motivated.

Former Minister of Trade and Industry Antti Kalliomäki knows energy demand will only increase over the next few years. The question is how to satisfy it. One contender is the fast-growing field of cogeneration (the combined generation of electricity and heat); good on improving energy efficiency and reducing greenhouse gases. Finland is considered a pioneer, with 80 percent of district heating cogenerated and industry use widespread.

Room for expansion, however, is limited. Natural gas - dependent on Russian reserves - and wood-based fuels are favorites, but Kalliomäki said "no mode of electricity generation will be excluded as a possibility. Nuclear is on one part of the package we are looking at."

With Finland's industries subject to a revolutionary "green energy tax" based on the carbon content of fuel, and the Kyoto Treaty targets of reducing emissions to 1990 levels breathing down all European industries'necks, Finland's debate on nuclear energy has to be both economic and political.

It remains to be seen which way the renewed parliamentary debate will go, but Tellervo Kylä Harakka, Director for Environment and Sustainable Development at the Confederation of Finnish Industry and Employers, said her members believe a new plant would satisfy everyone's demands. Indeed, she said," it may be the only way."