------- Index of Articles

NUCLEAR
Rio Tinto casts doubt over Jabiluka's future
Success with unique nuclear fuel continues
Rio Tinto casts doubt over Jabiluka's future
Bush Draws Wary Support for Reopening N Korea Deal
Bush firm with China on arms deal with Taiwan
Downer firm on missile defence support
Reagan saw the future of defense
Penny-Wise
Russian deputies to vote on nuclear waste imports
Ties Strained Before Spy Scandal
Sailor accused of sabotaging nuclear sub faces court-martial
Chao Wants Program Moved to Justice Dept.
Cheney - Energy panel to look at nuclear power
U.S. No Threat to China, Bush Assures Official

MILITARY
CHINA WARNS: 'FLAME OF WAR' POSSIBLE
New drug to stem heroin death tide
Who won?
Launch Vehicles
Does Mir demise mean Cold War in space?
U.N. chief Annan seeks second term
Rumsfeld Outlines Defense Overhaul
Choosing commanders

OTHER
Jury indicts man over toxic waste
Moyers angers group
Bush rolls back water, mining, forestry rules
Disease in Europe: U.S. lucky so far
Big Mac attack
Assessing the summit
Corporations pay for easy access
Tax Cuts, Yes; Tacos, No
Russia Expels U.S. Diplomats in Retaliation
Bush Backs Expulsion of 50 Russians
Ties Strained Before Spy Scandal
Russia and Its Spies
Castro, Former Adversaries Meet at Bay of Pigs Forum
Spy vs. spy
Bush considers expulsions exchange closed
Moscow threatens retaliation over ousters
A cold front from Moscow returns
Freeh beefs up FBI's security

ACTIVISTS
Rapid Action Network Alert
Greenpeace International founder dies in car crash
Zapatistas to appear before Mexican Congress
NGOS LAMBASTE WORLD BANK FOR IGNORING DAM GUIDELINES


-------- NUCLEAR

-------- australia

Rio Tinto casts doubt over Jabiluka's future

Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Fri, 23 Mar 2001
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newslink/weekly/newsnat-23mar2001-71.htm

The future of the Jabiluka uranium mine in the Northern Territory is in doubt after comments from the mining company Rio Tinto.

The company says it is unlikely to fund the development of the mine, surrounded by Kakadu National Park.

Rio Tinto is the major shareholder in Energy Resources of Australia (ERA), which owns Jabiluka.

Rio's chief executive told a Sydney lunch it would be hard for Rio to support the development of Jabiluka in the short-term, given the opposition to the mine, and the low price for uranium.

ERA says it is still committed to project, and is in no rush, with a decade of operations still to go at its nearby Ranger mine.

But the Greens Senator, Bob Brown, says it is the death of the controversial project.

"It's going to be very difficult for ERA to recover from this position, pour the necessary millions into proceeding with the mine or to find a buyer at a time when the world uranium market is so bleak," he said.

-------- india / pakistan

Success with unique nuclear fuel continues

The Hindu
Friday, March 23, 2001
By R. Prasad
http://www.indiaserver.com/thehindu/2001/03/23/stories/0223000t.htm

CHENNAI, MARCH 22. The Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research (IGCAR) at Kalpakkam has been permitted to reach a burn-up of 75,000 MW day per tonne from the present level of 64,000 MW day per tonne. `Burn-up' is the cumulative amount of energy that can be extracted from a unit of fuel. Dr. S. B. Bhoje who took over as Director of IGCAR recently is, however, confident of touching the magic figure of one lakh MW day per tonne burn-up. ``We should be able to reach this by the end of June 2001. It is surely a reachable target and we must be proud of achieving it,'' he said.

Dr. Bhoje has every reason to be proud as the fuel used (a mixture of plutonium carbide and uranium carbide) was developed indigenously and is a unique mixture used for the first time in the world.

The success of a fast-breeder technology is measured by the burn-up limit that can be reached. It has special significance as a higher burn-up brings down the cost of power generation, reduces fuel fabrication and reprocessing cost, cuts reactor down time and handling time, and most importantly, reduces the amount of radioactive waste generated.

The quest for a higher burn-up limit is far from over at IGCAR. Not all the 33 sub-assemblies (each sub-assembly contains fuel in the form of pins-clad plus fuel) will be removed once the one-lakh MW day per tonne target is reached. Two to three sub-assemblies are expected to be removed only after the burn-up touches nearly 1.2 lakh MW day per tonne limit. Reaching higher burn-up targets is not impossible and efforts are already on. Two major factors that can restrict the burn-up limit in a fast-breeder technology are the difficulty in fuel handling and clad (stainless steel material that contains the fuel) failure. Continuous bombardment by neutrons can affect the physical life of steel used in both the sub-assembly and the clad. Swelling and welding of adjacent sub-assemblies and tilting of the sub-assembly due to neutron bombardment make fuel handling difficult. Similarly, neutron bombardment can lead to fuel leak due to clad rupture.

These constraints can be overcome and higher burn-ups reached by using a different kind of steel. The improved steel expands only after prolonged exposure to neutron exposure. ``We can reach a burn-up of 1.5 lakh MW day per tonne by using a different alloy of steel (D-9) developed by Nuclear Fuel Complex, Hyderabad,'' said Dr. Bhoje. Simultaneous replacement of the new alloy for the clad as well as the sub-assembly is expected by mid-2002.

Work is under way to develop `ferritic steel' that can increase the burn-up limit many fold. Ferritic steel has the capacity to retain its original shape even after prolonged exposure to neutron bombardment. ``IGCAR has already provided NFC the specifications to develop the alloy. And this steel will be used for the sub-assembly only while we will continue using D-9 alloy for the cladding,'' Dr. Bhoje said.

Using D-9 alloy for the cladding becomes imperative as the fuel inside also swells. Hence, some amount of clad swelling is essential to accommodate the swelling fuel. ``We intend matching the swelling of the fuel and the cladding using D-9 alloy,'' Dr. Bhoje said. Russia, which used ferritic steel, was able to take the burn-up to 3.3 lakh MW day per tonne - a world record for a fast-breeder nuclear technology.

The development of ferritic steel will prove to be the pinnacle of success to be achieved by Indian scientists to indigenously develop second-generation nuclear power technology. Optimism abounds as countdown for the construction of the first prototype 500 MW fast breeder at Kalpakkam is expected to begin by the end of this year.

-------- korea

Korea Might Have Nuke Bomb Skills

Excite News
March 23, 2001
http://news.excite.com/news/ap/010323/12/int-nkorea-nuclear

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - North Korea is believed to be capable of making one or two nuclear bombs and may have about 3,000 nuclear experts trained in Russia and China, a South Korean government think tank said Friday.

The Education Center of Unification said in a report that communist North Korea is believed to be able to make bombs with plutonium extracted from its Soviet-designed reactors.

"Verification on whether the North has fully given up its suspected nuclear weapons program should be pushed," said the center, which is part of the government's Unification Ministry.

North Korea began training nuclear specialists in the Soviet Union and China in the 1960s, and their number is now believed to reach 3,000, the report said.

Under a 1994 deal with the United States, North Korea suspended its suspected nuclear weapons program. But some experts say there should be a system to verify the freeze.

In return for the suspension, a consortium led by the United States, Japan and South Korea is building two light-water reactors in North Korea worth $4.6 billion.

The Korean Peninsula was divided into the communist North and pro-Western South in 1945. Their 1950-53 Korean War ended in an armistice, and the two sides are technically still at war.

Inter-Korean relations improved significantly following a historic summit of their leaders in June.

---

Bush Draws Wary Support for Reopening N Korea Deal

Excite News
March 23, 2001
By Carol Giacomo, Diplomatic Correspondent
http://news.excite.com/news/r/010323/16/politics-korea-usa

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The American negotiator of a landmark U.S.-North Korea nuclear deal said on Friday that President George W. Bush's administration was right to consider possible changes in the seven-year-old accord.

But, with other experts, Robert Gallucci said the accord should not be scuttled and warned the new administration that delaying engagement with Pyongyang could trigger a "dangerous spiral" of new North Korean missile tests and adverse U.S. reactions.

Some analysts say that tampering with the 1994 Agreed Framework -- under which North Korea froze its nuclear program in return for $5 billion worth of new nuclear power reactors and heavy fuel oil -- portends more risk than reward.

But Gallucci, a former State Department official who is now dean of the Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service, said it was a "good idea" to explore possible changes in the deal with North Korea.

"The benefits could be substantial to all," he told a news conference sponsored by the Arms Control Association, a non-profit group.

Gallucci stressed, however, that the United States would have to first consult closely with allies South Korea and Japan, who are funding most of the project's costs.

And, he said the United States should make clear to the North Koreans that it is not seeking to abandon the accord but rather to look at substitute technologies.

Spurgeon Keeney, the association president, was much more wary, warning that reopening negotiations could be "disastrous" if the United States ended up losing the signed nuclear agreement as well as progress on missile talks.

CAUTIOUS APPROACH

Secretary of State Colin Powell, speaking separately, reiterated the cautious approach of the Bush administration, which has declined to pick up the dialogue with Pyongyang where President Clinton left off and said it is reviewing all aspects, including whether to renegotiate the 1994 deal.

Powell said in a speech to the National Newspaper Association that Washington would work with its allies South Korea and Japan to engage with Pyongyang "from the standpoint of being very, very cautious and careful."

"In due course, after we have completed our policy reviews, and made sure we understand the nature of his (President Kim Jong-il) actions, and made sure that we have a solid policy position to engage the North Koreans, we will engage in due course at a time of our choosing, and we're not in any particular hurry," Powell said.

"But we will be engaged. We're not afraid. We just want to make sure that we understand the nature of the regime, what they're trying to do, and that we have our policies clearly defined within the administration," he added.

Under the 1994 deal, negotiated in a crisis atmosphere after the United States discovered Pyongyang had enough plutonium to make five nuclear weapons, North Korea was to receive two light-water nuclear reactors for power generation.

Although nuclear powered, the technology would not have been as capable for nuclear weapons development as the facilities Pyongyang was giving up.

Gallucci said it would have been better from the start to give Pyongyang fossil-fuel technology in part because of safety concerns. But the North Koreans would not have agreed.

FOSSILE FUEL OR NUCLEAR?

With the project taking longer than expected and the advent of a new U.S. administration, there is fresh debate over the technology.

One idea involves providing North Korea -- its economy devastated and desperate for basic services -- with one light-water reactor and one coal-generated reactor, which could come on line sooner.

Another possibility is hooking North Korea directly into the electric system of South Korea, which also might provide a quicker solution to the North's energy needs. However, the North's power grid would need massive work, experts say.

There is some expectation among analysts that Bush eventually will pick up on negotiations to halt Pyongyang's development and foreign sales of long-range missiles, on which Clinton had made progress.

But White House officials said the policy review is "indefinite" and would take "months."

Morton Halperin, who held senior White House and State Department positions under Clinton, said "the risk here is very simple" because North Korea has long demonstrated that it thinks the way to get U.S. attention is by doing something "provocative" like launching a missile test.

He feared if Bush does not soon engage Pyongyang, "at some point the North Koreans will decide the only way to get the attention of the administration is to fire another missile."

-------- missile defense

Bush firm with China on arms deal with Taiwan

USA Today
03/23/2001 - Updated 06:34 PM ET
By Bill Nichols, USA TODAY
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washdc/2001-03-22-china-usat.htm

WASHINGTON - President Bush signaled a tougher line toward China on Thursday, as he told Chinese Vice Premier Qian Quichen that the United States has the right to sell arms to Taiwan whether Beijing likes it or not, White House officials said.

That message, echoed by Secretary of State Colin Powell at a dinner with Qian on Wednesday night, raises the prospect of a major rift between Washington and Beijing over a decision Bush must make next month on whether to sell sophisticated weaponry to Taiwan.

Aides said Bush told Qian in their hour-long White House meeting that "I'm going to look you in the eye and tell you that we can have good relations with China."

The president's description of what he termed a "firm" but "respectful" policy toward China is the latest example of a Bush foreign policy that seems to hark back to the realpolitik of the Cold War era.

In addition to Wednesday's expulsions of 50 Russian diplomats suspected of spying, Bush has halted missile control talks with North Korea, de-emphasized U.S. participation in the Middle East peace process and renewed U.S. efforts to topple Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Bush's actions toward Russia reflect his approach to foreign policy: "The president is going to continue to pursue areas of cooperation. But the president also is going to be a realist in the conduct of his foreign policy."

Qian timed his visit to warn Bush against selling Taiwan four missile destroyers equipped with the Aegis radar system. Chinese officials say the Aegis technology would give Taiwan a small-scale missile-defense system - and a military edge over the mainland.

White House aides said Bush's message was that the United States will sell arms to Taiwan based on the island's security needs, a 1982 treaty with China that governs U.S. arms sales to Taiwan and the stability of the Pacific region.

Taiwan has been outside Beijing's control since the 1949 revolution that brought Communists to power in China. Beijing considers the island a renegade province and has threatened a forcible reunification. The United States has long recognized Beijing's claim that Taiwan is part of China. But under the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act, the United States has pledged to sell Taiwan defensive weapons.

Administration officials described Qian's visit as constructive and cordial, but they also said they made clear to the Chinese delegation that Beijing's opposition to the Aegis sale are not a factor and would be allowed under existing U.S.-China treaties.

Qian was told, however, that no decision has been made on the sale. A White House official who attended the meeting quoted Bush as telling the vice premier, "Nothing we do is a threat to you, and I want you to tell that to your leadership."

For all the administration's tough talk, there are signs that Bush is exploring a compromise.

The outlines of the deal: Bush would put off actually selling the Aegis-equipped ships for at least a year and would tell China that during that time the United States will monitor China's ongoing defense buildup and its deployment of missiles aimed at Taiwan.

The president also raised concerns about China's human rights record. Before the meeting began, Bush told reporters that though the U.S.-China relationship will move forward, "it would certainly be a lot easier to move forward in a constructive way when the people with whom we conduct our affairs honor religious freedom within their borders."

Aides said Bush also asked Qian for answers concerning the recent detention of a U.S.-based scholar. Gao Zhan, a sociologist at American University in Washington, D.C., has been detained in China for more than a month for allegedly "damaging state security." Her husband and their 5-year-old son, who is a U.S. citizen, were also held and then released.

"We think it is particularly outrageous that the young boy, the son, was held away from his parents, away from family members for an extended period of time and we were not notified in a timely manner that is required and expected," Powell told reporters.

---

Downer firm on missile defence support

The Age
Friday 23 March 2001
By GAY ALCORN
http://www.theage.com.au/news/2001/03/23/FFXN1IRBLKC.html

Foreign Minister Alexander Downer has given the government's strongest endorsement yet of America's controversial missile defence shield, boasting that opponents were now coming around to Australia's viewpoint.

Mr Downer, in Washington for two days of meetings with top cabinet members and business leaders, said he had discussed missile defence with Vice-President Dick Cheney and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and had emphasised Australia's concerns about the proliferation of missiles.

"A missile defence system is not going to kill anyone, missiles will. That's why we're very understanding of their (America's) position," he said.

Australia has given important backing to US plans for missile defence at a time when most allies have grave concerns that it could destabilise the world's strategic balance.

But Mr Downer said that the "the international environment on this issue is changing quite rapidly".

"We're seeing a greater level of understanding now among NATO countries - the UK, Germany, Italy. We just happened to have that position a bit earlier. I'm glad to see many of the NATO countries now sharing our concerns."

President George W. Bush is adamant that a missile defence shield that could shoot down missiles launched deliberately or accidentally from "rogue states" like Iraq and North Korea will proceed "as soon as possible". The administration is presenting missile defence as inevitable and stressing to allies that it supports a shield that would protect them as well as American states.

That approach has dampened some of the criticism. In visits to Washington recently, British Prime Minster Tony Blair and South Korean President Kim Dae Jung, while remaining sceptical of the plan, signed virtually identical statements saying they understood the threat of long-range missiles and believed defence was part of the strategy against them.

But most European nations, Canada and, especially, China and Russia remain vehemently opposed, saying a shield would upset global stability and cause an arms race, particularly with China.

Chinese Vice-Premier Qian Qichen holds talks with President Bush today and has already said that if Washington goes ahead with the sale of advanced destroyers to Taiwan, it would raise the potential for a "military solution". China is vociferously opposed to the sale because it believes the Aegis destroyers could be used for missile defence and neutralise its own nuclear deterrent.

But Mr Downer played down what some analysts have called a marked cooling of the American-Chinese relationship under the new Republican administration.

He said nobody had raised the role Pine Gap would play in America's missile defence shield. Pine Gap would detect missile launches in the same way as it had for 30 years, he said.

Mr Downer sees Secretary of State Colin Powell and US trade representative Robert Zoellick today, when the government's push for a bilateral free trade agreement will be the top agenda item.

On another issue, Mr Downer said that Zimbabwe's hostile response to the Commonwealth's proposal to send a team to investigate government abuses was a mistake.

---

Reagan saw the future of defense

Washington Times
March 23, 2001
Vito Fossella
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/ed-column-2001323184859.htm

Eighteen years ago today, President Ronald Reagan set in motion a series of events that, in large part, led to the fall of communism and the end of the Cold War. On March 23, 1983, President Reagan outlined his Strategic Defense Initiative as the most effective and only way to protect our nation against a ballistic missile attack.

Highly classified CIA documents released earlier this month confirm that President Reagan's declaration sent shivers down the spines of the communist leaders in the Soviet Union, who recognized once and for all that they could no longer compete against so powerful a nation and so determined a president.

President Reagan conceived the idea of a missile defense system after concluding that for all the warships and aircraft in the American fleet, our nation was defenseless against deadly long-range missiles. To truly protect ourselves, he reasoned, America needed more than a strong offense. It needed an impenetrable defense.

Today, the Cold War is over, but the awesome threat posed by rogue nations armed with weapons of mass destruction is possibly greater than at any time over the past half-century. Indeed, in the 18 years since Mr. Reagan outlined his goal of a missile defense system, our nation still remains startlingly vulnerable to attack.

Congress last year reaffirmed Ronald Reagan's objective to develop a missile defense system in a resolution that was as plainspoken and straightforward as the president himself. President George W. Bush has vowed to make missile defense among his top national security priorities.

He has good reason to. While continued threats from communist China, Iran and Russia are of grave concern, new ones from old enemies like Saddam Hussein, now apparently armed with two fully operational nuclear bombs, spell continued dangers for years to come.

Indeed, the depth of the threat to America posed by rogue nations and terrorist organizations was detailed in 1998 when a commission headed by now-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said the United States will be subject to a no-warning missile attack within five years.

Russia continues to invest enormous sums of money in a weapons modernization program, including developing a new class of strategic submarines, land-based systems and submarine-launched ballistic missiles. China, meanwhile, makes no secret of its intention to add to its already huge stockpile of arms.

An even greater threat may be posed by North Korea, which could have the technological capability by 2005 to obliterate virtually any American city with a nuclear missile. At present, its No Dong missile is capable of striking Japan, South Korea and U.S. military bases - while its Taepo Dong 2, now under development, will be able to reach Alaska and Hawaii.

Syria and Libya, meanwhile, continue to trade extensively with China and Russia in an effort to develop their own systems. Iran, however, may pose the greatest threat of them all. According to the Rumsfeld Commission, Iran is on the verge of producing a long-range ballistic missile that would be capable of striking cities as far away as Philadelphia, and St. Paul, Minn.

Those who oppose developing a missile defense system often claim it represents an act of aggression on the part of the United States. They fail to realize that its fundamental purpose is to protect the United States, much like a bullet proof vest shields a police officer from an incoming bullet.

The debate over deploying a missile defense system bears striking resemblance to a similar debate in England nearly 70 years ago. During a time of relative stability, English leaders almost failed to heed the warnings of Winston Churchill, who called for utilizing the newest technologies to protect his people from attack, especially in light of Germany's aggressive effort to rebuild the Luftwaffe and develop weapons of mass destruction. At the time, some called Churchill's plan science fiction. Today, we call it radar.

With sophisticated weapons of mass destruction and long-range ballistic missiles in the hands of avowed enemies of the United States, we have a responsibility to uphold that most solemn duty enshrined in the first sentence of the United States Constitution - "to provide for the common defense." To meet this never-ending challenge in the 21st century, we must develop and deploy a missile defense system.

Rep. Vito Fossella is a New York Republican.

--------

Editorial: Penny-Wise

Evansville Courier & Press
01/03/23
http://www.courierpress.com/cgi-bin/view.cgi?200103/23+edpenny032301_news.html+20010323

The Bush administration is making a grave mistake by cutting funds from a program designed to dismantle and safeguard Russian nuclear and chemical weapons.

The Clinton administration had proposed a 50 percent increase, to $1.2 billion, and a bipartisan, blue-ribbon commission had recommended spending even more, $30 billion over 10 years.

Instead, Bush plans to cut the $872 million annual program by almost 10 percent, apparently not out of any strategic consideration but to save money. The decision may be penny-wise.

The program helps Russia dismantle, store and secure its nuclear arms and helps pay for the conversion of weapons-grade plutonium to peaceful uses and the destruction of chemical weapons. The idea is to stop Russia's widely dispersed and poorly guarded nuclear and chemical arsenals from being stolen or sold off on the black market.

While Bush might be understandably skeptical of initiatives bequeathed him by the Clinton administration, the nonproliferation program has impeccable Republican origins. It is the brainchild of Indiana Sen. Richard Lugar, one of the party's pre-eminent foreign-policy experts.

Bush should restore and, if possible, increase funding to the program. It may not fit the conventional definition of defense spending, but that is in fact what it is.

-------- russia

Russian deputies to vote on nuclear waste imports

Planet Ark
RUSSIA: March 23, 2001
REUTERS
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=10231

MOSCOW - Liberal deputies on Wednesday branded moves to import foreign nuclear waste to Russia for treatment as the "crime of the century," on the eve of a key parliamentary vote.

Storing and reprocessing nuclear waste from other states could earn Russia some $20 billion over 20 years say supporters of the plan, who nevertheless expect the measure to win fewer than the 320 votes won during an initial vote last December.

The bill, at the second reading stage, needs 226 votes to pass to a third reading.

The liberal Yabloko bloc and Union of Right Wing Forces (SPS) in the State Duma, the lower house of parliament, say the law will turn Russia into the world's nuclear dustbin even though its own nuclear waste storage facilities are crumbling.

"The crime of the century is being carried out. These laws contradict the opinion of many in the country," said SPS deputy Vera Lekareva.

"The atom bomb will be placed not only beneath the current generation, but beneath those yet to be born."

Sergei Apatenko, of the pro-Kremlin Unity party, challenged the first reading in Russia's Supreme Court, arguing that an environmental impact study should have been completed before the bill was given initial approval.

SPS deputy Yuli Ryabkov said the measure would mean "the death of Russia," adding: "The country should know the names of those who vote in favour of this bill. The country should know who its scoundrels and criminals are, those who would bring it to nuclear catastrophe."

Supporters say the bill is a "green" measure which will help Russia's environment by providing desperately-needed cash to fund the disposal of its own stockpiles.

"There will be firm control over the profits of this system," said Robert Migmatulin, a deputy with the centrist Russia's Regions bloc in the Duma who supports the plan.

"Every year the income and expenses of the reprocessing of nuclear material will be carefully examined," he said. Under one amendment due for debate, a quarter of the profits will go to the regions handling the imported nuclear waste.

The Communist Party, the biggest Duma faction, is to decide how to vote yesterday morning. In December, the group allowed its members a free vote.

Most members of the Unity bloc and the centrist People's Deputies and Russia's Regions groups are expected to back the bill, which would allow countries like Switzerland, Germany, China and Japan to export their waste to Russia.

--------

Ties Strained Before Spy Scandal

Washington Post
Friday, March 23, 2001; Page A14
By Susan B. Glasser Washington Post Foreign Service
http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/nation/specials/nationalsecurity/nationalmissiledefense/A43716-2001Mar22.html

MOSCOW, March 22 -- The diplomatic confrontation between the United States and Russia that erupted this week demonstrates just how much the two countries have parted ways in recent months, ushering in a renewed era of testy, suspicious and arms-length relations, according to politicians and analysts here.

While it may be premature and inflammatory to call this a second "Cold War," that was the imagery invoked today by Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov and just about every member of parliament who found his way to a television camera.

And they made clear that the finger-pointing was about much more than the U.S. decision to expel 50 Russian diplomats. Indeed, even before the latest rupture, tensions have flared in the two months since President Bush was inaugurated over issues from U.S. missile defense plans and proposed NATO enlargement to Russian arms deals with Iran and its human rights record at home.

To many Russian political leaders, the spy scandal will be more easily overcome than the prospect of revived nuclear tensions between the two Cold War rivals.

"I don't think it's good for a new administration to start with a cold attitude toward Russia," said Viktor Pokhmelkin, a leader of the liberal Union of Right Forces in Russia's parliament.

Like many others here, Pokhmelkin argued in an interview that the espionage tit for tat is really just a pretext for a Bush administration bent on abandoning the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and starting a new nuclear confrontation. "The main purpose is escalation of the arms race," he said. Dmitri Rogozin, who chairs the international affairs committee in the State Duma, agreed: "They are trying to pressure us on national missile defense issues."

Regardless of Bush's intentions, their comments are a reflection of how much relations have soured since the heady days after the breakup of the Soviet Union, when Russia vowed to create a Western-style free-market democracy and the United States clamored to help.

With the election of former KGB spy Vladimir Putin as Russia's president a year ago, it was already long since clear that the former enemies had not succeeded in becoming allies.

Early on, Putin signaled a new distance from the United States, traveling from Western Europe to North Korea to rally opposition to missile defense and arguing at every turn against a "unipolar" world in which the United States is the only superpower. Putin's government won a conviction against alleged U.S. spy Edmund Pope, making him the first American found guilty of espionage charges here since U-2 pilot Francis Gary Powers in 1960; Putin later pardoned the American.

Even so, Russian political analysts and Kremlin insiders just a few months ago were welcoming the return of a Republican to the American White House, believing that a Bush presidency would offer them a respite from the idealistic but often intrusive lectures from President Bill Clinton about how to build a post-Communist democracy.

But the Kremlin's hopes quickly turned to recriminations when various members of the new Bush team started speaking out.

Twice already, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has called Russia a "proliferator" of nuclear arms. CIA Director George J. Tenet infuriated Russians by calling them a threat in congressional testimony. Even the lectures on democracy have not subsided, with Secretary of State Colin L. Powell urging Putin's government to halt its campaign against Russia's only independent television network.

Last week, Russian National Security Council chief Sergei Ivanov returned from Washington empty-handed, having failed to secure an early meeting between Putin and Bush.

Russians across the political spectrum are now arguing that, taken together, those events add up to a Bush administration bent on demonizing and isolating Russia at a time when Putin has just begun trying to reassert Russia's influence in international affairs.

"It's another example of someone trying to hit our heads very painfully," said Alexander Gurov, a committee chairman in the Duma, or lower house, and a former top official in the Soviet Interior Ministry. Bush "wants to show off and show his attitude, his patriotism and how strong and firm he is."

"I think President Bush wants to say to the new president of Russia, 'You should know your own place,' " said Viktor Ilyukin, a Communist member of the Duma. Russia may be "weak now," he said, "but at the same time we are still a great power and we would like the United States to respect us."

But even with the supercharged rhetoric, Russian politicians continued to express hope that Bush and Putin are both pragmatic politicians who will pull back from a confrontation that Russia can ill afford and the United States can hardly want.

"We are far away from the Cold War," Ilyukin said. "It didn't bring anything good or positive to anyone." Added Gurov: "Some people are already beginning to describe this as the beginning of a new Cold War. I don't think so. This will lead us nowhere."

In the end, the Cold War rhetoric may be scary enough to stop a new Cold War in reality.

"For a few days or weeks, we're going to be engaged in a shouting match," said Sergei Rogov, head of the Institute for USA-Canada Studies. "But I hope both sides will cool it down and [not] allow it to get out of hand."

Correspondent Peter Baker in Moscow contributed to this report.

-------- u.s. nuc weapons

Sailor accused of sabotaging nuclear sub faces court-martial

Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Friday, March 23, 2001
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://seattlep-i.nwsource.com/local/sab23ww.shtml

BREMERTON, Wash. -- A sailor has been ordered to face a court-martial on accusations he sabotaged and stole equipment from a Trident nuclear missile submarine.

Missile Technician 2nd Class Ernesto G. Cimmino, 23, of Scotia, N.Y., was charged with sabotage, larceny, conspiracy, obstruction of justice and illegal drug use, among other offenses this week.

Cimmino is accused of damaging more than 100 cables aboard the USS Alaska with the intent of harming national defense. The nuclear missile submarine was at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard here last year for repairs and improvements.

The cables damaged operated the submarine's missile systems, internal communications, ventilation, lighting and the torpedo room.

Cimmino will be tried at a general court-martial, the most serious level of military trial.

He remains in custody at the brig inside Naval Submarine Base Bangor on Washington's Hood Canal.

If convicted of all charges, Cimmino could face 82 years in prison, a dishonorable discharge, reduction in rank and forfeiture of pay.

A preliminary hearing could take place next week. No date has been set for the court-martial, Navy officials said.

Cimmino also is accused of stealing a missile emergency alarm, prescription and nonprescription drugs, a camera, cutting tools and his commanding officer's stateroom nameplate.

Other charges include lying to Navy investigators and using methamphetamine, LSD and cocaine.

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

Chao Wants Program Moved to Justice Dept.

Washington Post
Friday, March 23, 2001; Page A23
By Ben White Washington Post Staff Writer
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A45755-2001Mar22?language=printer

Labor Secretary Elaine L. Chao has asked the White House to shift the responsibility for a new program to compensate sick nuclear workers from her agency to the Justice Department, eliciting a bipartisan round of criticism from lawmakers who say such a move could badly delay disbursement of the funds.

In her March 9 letter to the White House, Chao said the Labor Department does not have the infrastructure to administer the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program, passed by Congress last year with an initial appropriation of $60.4 million. She argued that Justice should run it because the department already makes payments to uranium miners and people who live downwind from nuclear test sites.

But members from both parties argued this week they intended Labor to run the program because it has administered similar workers' compensation programs for nearly a century, including the Longshore and Harbor Workers Act and the Coal Miners Black Lung Disease Act.

"I think the inevitable result will be that victims will have a significant delay in receiving compensation," said Rep. Ted Strickland (D-Ohio), whose district includes many people who could be aided by the program. "And some of these people, quite frankly, are in the process of dying."

On Wednesday he sent to the White House a letter signed by eight other members, both Republicans and Democrats, asking that Labor run the program. Republican Sens. Mike DeWine and George Voinovich of Ohio also sent a letter to the White House protesting Chao's attempt to shift responsibility to Justice.

Congress passed the program, intended to assist Cold War-era workers suffering from cancer and other diseases, without specifying which department should run it. But Strickland said yesterday that members had made clear their intentions. The Clinton administration gave Labor jurisdiction over the program in an executive order issued in December.

Under the program, workers deemed to have illnesses related to exposure to nuclear weapons material at Energy Department and privately owned facilities would receive payments of $150,000 and full medical coverage for life. The initial appropriation was $60.4 million, but the program could cost almost $2 billion. The payments are supposed to start going out July 31.

A spokesman said yesterday that Voinovich spoke with Chao on the phone Wednesday. The spokesman said members of their staffs would try to iron out their differences within the next few days.

Labor Department spokesman Stuart Roy said there is room for negotiation but added that nothing has swayed Chao from her belief that Justice should run the program.

"It seems fairly straightforward that this is a program that ought to be administered by the Department of Justice," Roy said.

Roy said the Labor Department has no capacity for making complicated judgments regarding workers' claims that exposure to nuclear material caused their illnesses.

In her letter to White House budget director Mitchell E. Daniels Jr., Chao cautioned that several issues still must be resolved surrounding "dose reconstruction" -- the process of determining who is entitled to payments under the program.

"Whichever organization is given primary responsibility for claims processing," Chao wrote, "the design of the dose reconstruction process will be critical to ensuring that the program is administrable and that it avoids a morass of litigation, uncertainty, and frustration."

The White House declined to comment on the dispute.

-------- us nuc politics

Cheney - Energy panel to look at nuclear power

Planet Ark
USA: March 23, 2001
Story by Randall Mikkelsen
REUTERS
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=10219

WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney said on Wednesday his energy policy team was considering the future of U.S. nuclear power and that new nuclear plants could reduce greenhouse gases better than a "seriously flawed" Kyoto global warming treaty.

"If you want to do something about carbon dioxide emissions, then you ought to build nuclear power plants. They don't emit any carbon dioxide. They don't emit greenhouse gases," Cheney said on MSNBC's "Hardball" program.

The 1997 Kyoto treaty seeks to limit industrial nations' emissions of "greenhouse gases," including carbon dioxide which is produced by burning fossil fuels in power plants and vehicles. Such gases help retain the earth's heat and are thought to contribute to global warming.

Cheney said the Bush administration opposes the treaty because it treats nations unequally in limiting emissions.

President George W. Bush in January put Cheney in charge of a Cabinet-level task force to develop a long-term strategy to increase U.S. energy security. Its recommendations were expected in about six weeks, Cheney said.

"A chapter in the report will deal with the nuclear questions and whether or not we want to go forward, but no decisions have been made yet," he said.

A senior aide to Cheney said the task force had not yet begun to study the nuclear issue. She said Cheney's remarks were intended as a comment on the greenhouse gas issue and not as a signal the panel would recommend new nuclear plants.

But asked whether the panel would study the possibility of building new plants, she said, "they're not going to ignore nuclear generation."

No permits to build U.S. nuclear plants have been granted since 1975, although nuclear power provides about 20 percent of U.S. electricity, Cheney said.

The 1979 Three Mile Island nuclear accident, a near meltdown of a Pennsylvania power plant that spread low-level radiation over an area near the plant, put a long-term chill on the industry.

GLOBAL WARMING TREATY "FLAWED"

Cheney drew a contrast between nuclear power and the Kyoto treaty, saying the agreement was "seriously flawed" because it did not place restrictions on developing nations such as China and India.

The treaty was signed by the United States under former President Bill Clinton, but not submitted to the U.S. Senate for ratification.

"We do not support the approach of the Kyoto treaty," Cheney said. "If you're really serious about greenhouse gases, one of the solutions to that problem is to go back, and let's take another another look at nuclear power, use that to generate electricity without having any adverse consequences."

Forms of electricity generation such as coal-or oil-fired plants emit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

Bush last week retreated from a campaign promise to require power plants to limit emissions of carbon dioxide. The European Union responded with concern that the act signaled a U.S. retreat from efforts to fight global warming.

Cheney said that Bush made clear U.S. opposition to the Kyoto treaty in his decision last week on carbon dioxide.

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Bush did not include increasing nuclear power in his energy platform during his campaign. But he indicated Bush had not ruled it out.

"His charge to them (Cheney's committee) was to look broadly and to look long term," Fleischer said. "We'll take a look at the recommendations in their totality."

----

U.S. No Threat to China, Bush Assures Official

Washington Post
Friday, March 23, 2001; Page A20
By Mike Allen and Steven Mufson Washington Post Staff Writers
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A45184-2001Mar22?language=printer

In his first meeting with a top Chinese official, President Bush yesterday bluntly expressed differences over human rights but also assured Vice Premier Qian Qichen that the United States seeks good relations and is not a threat to Beijing, a senior administration official said.

Bush made clear he was trying to set a cordial but straightforward tone in his administration's relationship with China, which is entering a period of tension as China boosts its defense spending and the United States considers selling destroyers to Taiwan.

"I will be firm, and I suspect he will be firm, in our opinions, but we will do so in a respectful way. It is in our nations' best interests that we have good relations with China," the president said in brief remarks to photographers at the start of the Oval Office meeting.

During the 55-minute session, Bush raised the issue of religious freedom and asked about Gao Zhan, a Chinese-born scholar at American University who has been detained by Beijing since Feb. 11, according to the senior administration official who briefed reporters on the condition of anonymity.

Gao's husband and 5-year-old son have been released, but China is still holding the 40-year-old researcher for allegedly "engaging in activities damaging state security." The U.S. official said Bush conveyed "extreme concern" about China's decision to detain the son separately from his parents for nearly a month.

Qian replied that the scholar may not have realized that she had broken Chinese law, the official said. "They're going to look into it and get back to us," the official said. "The president was firm about human rights."

Bush's father, who served as the chief U.S. diplomat in China in 1974-75, stressed engagement and trade with China during his presidency. Some advisers to the current administration have pushed for a tougher line, including greater military support for Taiwan, which is seeking to buy four destroyers equipped with sophisticated Aegis radar systems. China is vigorously opposing such sales, and Qian previously warned that U.S. sales of the destroyers would increase the chance China would turn to military means to reunify Taiwan and the mainland.

Arms sales to Taiwan came up during the Oval Office meeting, but no specific weapons were discussed, the official said.

The official said Bush told the vice premier that U.S. missile defenses would not "be a threat to China and that it's an area in which he thinks there is an opportunity for us to find common ground with China, because weapons of mass destruction and missiles can also be a threat to China."

"I'm confident that we have common ground," the official quoted Bush as saying. "I'm going to look you in the eye and tell you we can have good relations with China. I want to lay the foundation for 30 years from now, taking a long-term view."

"Nothing we do is a threat to you, and I want you to tell that to your leadership," Bush added, according to the official.

Qian "listened politely and carefully, and made no expression one way or the other," the official said, describing the session as "very constructive and cordial."

Qian also met with Secretary of State Colin L. Powell on Wednesday for private talks and a dinner at which the vice premier pressed his argument that selling advanced arms to Taiwan would violate a 1982 communique. In that communique, the United States pledged to limit arms sales to the self-governing island that China claims.

Powell told Qian that no decisions have been made and stressed that the Bush administration would be guided by the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act, which said the United States should provide Taiwan with the means to defend itself against possible attack from the mainland. Powell also urged Qian to pursue peaceful negotiations and increased contacts with Taiwan through travel and trade.

In Beijing, Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Sun Yuxi said yesterday that Gao had "openly confessed her crimes," but he declined to specify the charges against her. Sun told a news conference that Gao was in good health and that she remains under investigation. He repeated a previous statement that the political scientist is suspected of harming state security, but he did not elaborate.

Correspondent Philip P. Pan in Beijing contributed to this report.

-------- MILITARY

CHINA WARNS: 'FLAME OF WAR' POSSIBLE IF U.S. ARMS TAIWAN

Morrock News, Weekend, Mar. 23-25, 2001
Fri, 23 Mar 2001
http://morrock.com

Vice Premier Qian Quichen, China's top foreign policy officer, warned Friday that if the U.S. sells more weapons to Taiwan, "the flame of war" could result.

Qian's remarks came at a Washington luncheon sponsored by the U.S.-China Business Council.

He denied U.S. claims that China is building up its own military for a possible attack on Taiwan and that Taiwan therefore needs U.S. arms to defend itself.

China's policy is "defensive," Quian said, estimating that his country spends just 5 percent of what the U.S. spends on the military, and has reduced its forces by 1.5 million in the past decade.

President Bush is to announce next month whether the U.S. will sell Taiwan the weapons it has requested, including diesel submarines, submarine-hunting aircraft, and a sophisticated ship-based anti-missile system.

-------- drug war

New drug to stem heroin death tide

Australian News Network
23mar01
By JOHN KERIN
http://news.com.au/newspulse/pulseframe/0,4711,1829240^421,00.html

A REVOLUTIONARY heroin addiction treatment will be made widely available to users in a bid to curb an expected wave of overdose deaths.

The heroin craving blocker buprenorphine, which is regarded as a vastly superior substitute to methadone, has been approved by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee to meet an expected new wave of heroin overdose deaths following the present heroin drought.

It is expected to be made available cheaply on the country's subsidised drug scheme by mid-year.

The decision is the first by the committee since a furore was triggered over its independence by the appointment of an industry representative.

Buprenorphine has been used in clinical trials for some time but, from Monday, manufacturer Reckitt Bensicker will announce it will be made widely available for accredited GPs and treatment programs.

The average cost of the drug is about $8 a patient a day, but this will be reduced when it is placed on the scheme. A course of treatment lasts from weeks to months. Negotiations on price have yet to be finalised.

One of the country's leading drug research institutions, the University of NSW-based National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, last night called for an urgent boost to treatment funding to meet an anticipated wave of post-heroin drought overdose deaths. "We know there are at least 40,000 users in NSW and 100,000 nationally, and the dangers of a flood of heroin overdoses is very real," senior lecturer Kate Dolan said.

The National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre found in a survey of February drug use trends that the heroin drought was forcing users to take greater chances with lethal drug cocktails and exposing them to higher risk of infection.

While the report welcomes a drop in overdose deaths, it says "if heroin supplies return ... forced abstinence has been identified as a significant risk factor in overdose".

The Melbourne-based Turning Point Drug and Alcohol Centre's head of research, Alison Ritter, said last night that buprenorphine was "far superior to existing treatment with methadone".

A study by the centre last year found 86 per cent of addicts given buprenorphine completed a detoxification program, compared with 57per cent given the standard treatment. She said buprenorphine had fewer side-effects and, unlike methadone, blocked the effects of heroin. Its effects also lasted longer.

"It would be fantastic if we had this treatment available in time for the end of the heroin drought," Dr Ritter said.

"There is a huge risk of a spate of heroin overdose deaths because users will have reduced tolerance."

-------- iraq

Who won?

Washington Times
March 23, 2001
Inside the Beltway
John McCaslin
Political tidbits and other shenanigans from around the nation's capital.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/inbeltway.htm

Ironic as it is that the United States depends to a significant degree on importing oil from Iraq's Saddam Hussein, "we just seem to shrug our shoulders and say that is the way it is."

So says Sen. Frank H. Murkowski, Alaska Republican, who observes that as recently as 1998, the U.S. imported 5.1 million barrels of oil per day. Today, our country imports 8.6 million barrels, our foreign oil dependence rising from about 39 percent to 59 percent in two years.

"We fought a war in 1991. We lost 147 lives. We had 437 wounded, 23 taken prisoner. I don't want to even estimate the cost to the American taxpayer," says the senator.

"That was a war over oil. Make no mistake about it. It was to ensure that Saddam Hussein did not invade Kuwait and go on into Saudi Arabia and control the world's supply of oil. We fought that war. We won that war. But what are we doing today?

"We are importing 750,000 barrels of oil from Iraq, our good friend Saddam Hussein. Isn't that ironic?"

John McCaslin, a nationally syndicated columnist, can be reached at 202/636-3284 or by e-mail: mccasl@twtmail.com.

-------- space

Launch Vehicles

stp.msfc.nasa.gov
http://stp.msfc.nasa.gov/Adv_Concepts/launchveh.html
http://stp.msfc.nasa.gov/shuttle/shuttleindex.html

Space Shuttle Upgrades

NASA is currently evaluating and implementing a variety of upgrades to the Space Shuttle to make it a safer, cheaper, and more capable spacecraft. Large scale changes to the existing Space Shuttle are now under study and labeled as potential Phase IV upgrades: high value, high relative cost and risk compared to other upgrades.

Two-Stage-to-Orbit (TSTO)

The TSTO Launch Vehicle is a low cost reusable ETO transportation system for placing very heavy lift class payloads (80 metric tons or176 Klb) into LEO. Primary mission of the TSTO is to support the Human Exploration Missions. Other potential missions include: Space Solar Power, Space Based Laser, very large scientific payloads such as telescopes or platforms, or commercial space developments. Recurring cost goals of the TSTO are < $500/lb to orbit.

Mag-Lev Demonstrator

Mag-Lev demonstrator is an on-site demonstration of mag-lev launch assist with a 5 ft model of a reusable Bantam class launch vehicle. The Advanced Concepts Group provided structural analysis and design support for the model that will be used in the 50 ft track demonstration that provides 6 g acceleration and 6 g de-acceleration.

Microwave Lightcraft

The Microwave Lightcraft is an unconventional launch vehicle approach for delivering payload to orbit using power transmitted via microwaves. Microwaves are beamed from either a ground station or an orbiting solar power satellite to the Lightcraft which resembles a '"flying saucer". The energy received breaks air molecules into a plasma and a magnetohydrodynamic fanjet provides the lifting force. Only a small amount of propellant is required for circularization, attitude control and deorbit.

BMDO Space Based Laser (SBL) Launch Vehicle

BMDO contracted MSFC to support the Space Based Laser (SBL) Program. The tasks included: technically assessing SPL launch vehicle contractor's launch vehicle designs and monitoring their work; providing technology roadmaps for those designs; performing an operations analysis for the launch vehicle and SBL payload; and providing an in-house vehicle design that could perform the SBL mission and be synergistic with the NASA Exploration Program. The launch requirements were to place a 120 Klb into a 1300 km orbit, with a payload of 31 ft diameter and 104 ft in length.

Balloon-Assisted Reusable Rocket - BARR

BARR is a single-stage-to-orbit vehicle that uses a balloon for launch assist. It is reusable, does not require a traditional launch site, and was designed to satisfy the BANTAM performance and cost goals. Ignition occurs at 80,000 feet and payload volume is unconstrained.

Laser Lightcraft

The Laser Lightcraft system consists of two parts: an all-azimuth, launch-on-demand, 5 pound, multi-user spacecraft designed for research and commercial applications in the low earth orbit (LEO) environment; and a 2 megawatt (MW) pulsed, ground-based laser (GBL) which will provide the power to launch the spacecraft. The spacecraft could support missions in high resolution imaging, secure communications, global positioning, remote sensing, and near-earth space environment research.

During launch, the spacecraft initially operates in air-breathing mode and then transitions to rocket mode (i. e. utilizing onboard propellant) at approximately Mach 5 and an altitude of 30 kilometers. The spacecraft is first engaged by the GBL and lifted off the launch stand. It is then accelerated upward toward LEO. The first Lightcraft flight to LEO is planned for late 2004 and has an operations cost goal of $100 per pound to LEO. The Laser Lightcraft is a collaborative project between MSFC, the Army, the Air Force, and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.

Launch Vehicle Options for Support of Decadal Planning Presentation (Requires Adobe Acrobat)

http://stp.msfc.nasa.gov/Adv_Concepts/heds.pdf

---

Does Mir demise mean Cold War in space?

USA Today
03/23/2001 - Updated 04:22 AM ET
http://www.usatoday.com/news/comment/columnists/neuharth/2001-03-23-neuharth.htm

Just days before the 15-year-old space station Mir (which means "peace" in Russian) was scheduled to make its splashdown this morning in the Pacific, the Russians signaled what may be the start of Cold War II.

Two Russian astronauts who staged a one-day boycott of their scheduled training session at the Johnson Space Center in Houston on Monday were not just on a minor miff. It's a high-level debate over whether the Russians can bring American millionaire Dennis Tito along as a paying tourist ($20 million) on their April 30 trip to the international space station, Alpha.

NASA says no. But Russian President Vladimir Putin, criticized at home by many for the demise of Mir, seems to be saying, "we can bring whomever we wish and do whatever we want in our section of Alpha."

That bravado despite the fact that Russia has reneged on his payment pledges for Alpha. Comparisons:

• The U.S. has paid $15.7 billion so far.

• NASA refuses to reveal Russia's contributions. It's probably zero or less. In fact, two years ago we actually paid Russia $1.8 billion for hardware that it was supposed to supply free.

To put the tiff over tourist Tito in perspective, you must understand this space-race history:

Russia, or its parent, the USSR, was first with a man in space. Cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin, April 12, 1961. We won the race to the moon. Astronaut Neil Armstrong, July 20, 1969.

In the 1970s and '80s, the Soviets launched "permanent" space stations Salyut and then Mir. We settled for short-term space forays aboard shuttles.

Now, we are partners on Alpha. But the minority partner is trying to call the shots.

President Reagan hastened the end of the Cold War by telling the Soviets' Mikhail Gorbachev to "tear down this wall" in Berlin.

To avoid Cold War II, President Bush should tell President Putin that he cannot build a wall in space aboard what really is our Alpha.

FEEDBACK

Other views on space tourists

"It's hard to take NASA's concerns seriously; it has flown useless people for less-than-stellar motives." - Patricia Santy, author, Choosing the Right Stuff

"Creating station Alpha is a challenge, but worth the pain. Above all, it should be governed by absolute safety rules. We will overcome this obstacle. But let it be understood: Astronauts will fly only when it is safe." - Daniel Goldin, NASA administrator

-------- u.n.

U.N. chief Annan seeks second term

Washington Times
March 23, 2001
By Betsy Pisik THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washtimes.com/world/default-2001323213418.htm

NEW YORK - U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan formally announced his intention to seek a second term yesterday, saying he would be "deeply honored to accept" another five-year term if it is offered.

"There is a great deal still to be done to make the United Nations, this indispensable organization, into an effective instrument humanity needs in this new century to fulfill the hopes for peace, development and human rights," he told reporters.

The announcement, on the eve of a White House meeting with President Bush, had been widely expected from Mr. Annan, the most popular secretary-general in recent memory. Officials in Western and African capitals welcomed the news with relief.

"We think he has done an excellent job," said Secretary of State Colin Powell. "He's been a very, very effective secretary-general. And in due course we will announce our specific position with respect to supporting him or voting for him."

There may still be a challenge for the position from an Asian candidate. The Asian Group - comprising 30 nations from Jordan to Japan - argues the job should go to an Asian under the principle of geographic rotation. The last Asian to hold the top slot, U Thant of Burma, stepped down in 1971.

Although a half-dozen Asian figures have been mentioned, including U.N. ambassadors and sitting government officials, none has been formally proposed. With yesterday's announcement, another candidate seems increasingly unlikely.

"I think it's a perfectly reasonable tactic in straight political terms to try and claim the ground before anyone else muscles onto it," a European diplomat said yesterday. He doubted Asia could unify behind a single candidate.

The Asian nations are to meet Monday. The group is expected to offer informally not to field a candidate if they are assured of the position when Mr. Annan steps down.

Mr. Annan travels today to Washington, where he will meet with Mr. Bush, Mr. Powell and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.

Mr. Annan maintained careful and close ties with the Clinton administration, which tacitly backed him in 1992 as an alternative to former Egyptian Deputy Foreign Minister Boutros Boutros-Ghali.

Aside from an apparently constructive hourlong meeting between Mr. Annan and Mr. Powell last month, the Bush administration has had little to say about the organization or the secretary-general.

But over the past few years the Ghana-born diplomat has sometimes strained his relationship with American conservatives.

He flew to Baghdad in 1998 to try to ease an impasse over weapons inspections, and essentially allowed Iraq to declare "presidential sites" off-limits to international observers. Later that year, he announced new diplomatic efforts just as an American bombing campaign against Iraq was to begin.

And in 1999 he signed a secret agreement with Moammar Gadhafi that in effect protected the Libyan leader from prosecution over the 1989 destruction of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland.

The Security Council elected Mr. Annan on Dec. 17, 1996, after several heavily contested ballots.

-------- u.s.

Rumsfeld Outlines Defense Overhaul
Reorganization May Alter, Kill Weapons Systems

Washington Post
Friday, March 23, 2001; Page A01
By Thomas E. Ricks Washington Post Staff Writer
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A45850-2001Mar22?language=printer

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld signaled his intention to pursue dramatic reforms in the way the nation's armed forces are organized, outlining major changes in U.S. strategic thinking in a private meeting with President Bush, several senior government officials said yesterday.

Rumsfeld stopped short of making recommendations about weapons programs during his 90-minute meeting at the White House on Wednesday. But several people close to the Pentagon's review said it is leading to significant changes in the weapons the Defense Department buys and the way the military thinks about strategic challenges.

Most notably, the sources said, Rumsfeld's review is likely to call on the Navy to stop building huge aircraft carriers and start designing a new, smaller carrier that is less vulnerable to missiles. "The big loser is the carrier," said one person familiar with the review.

The review is also likely to push the Air Force toward spending more on long-range bombers and unmanned aircraft, and less on short-range fighters, sources said. One Pentagon official said he expects that Rumsfeld eventually will ask the Air Force to buy fewer F-22s -- new fighter planes whose cost-effectiveness has been questioned -- but start acquiring them sooner.

Pentagon officials say Rumsfeld's closely guarded study of military policy will guide the Bush administration as it seeks to fulfill the president's campaign pledge to improve the quality of the nation's armed forces. Though he put no additional money in his budget plan for military spending, Bush has made clear that once Rumsfeld's study is complete, the White House will support as big an increase in the defense budget as seems necessary.

Rumsfeld made no recommendations to Bush at their meeting, and so no approval was requested, said people there. But the president essentially endorsed Rumsfeld's approach, they said. "The president was complimentary, he appreciated the policy discussion, and gave an indication that the topics were indeed what he had in mind," a Pentagon official said.

"This was the first discussion with the president presenting his very preliminary looks at the work being done on the defense strategy," said Rear Adm. Craig Quigley, a senior Pentagon spokesman, when asked about the White House meeting. "No programmatic recommendations were made."

One reason that the Pentagon review has been closely held is that its conclusions about weapons programs are likely to touch off explosions in the military and on Capitol Hill. "There's a lot of fear up here about what they'll do, that they'll cut a lot of the weapons systems," said one Republican lawmaker. But, he added, "the respect for Rumsfeld is so strong, we're holding off."

After receiving the president's support, Rumsfeld met yesterday afternoon with the senior representatives of the armed services and gave them a similar briefing. The timing of that meeting was unusual because the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Army Gen. Henry H. Shelton, is traveling in South America this week and was not present.

Sources said Rumsfeld and Andrew W. Marshall, the Pentagon official running the strategic review, made the following points:

• The Pacific Ocean is the most likely theater of major U.S. military operations, as China becomes more powerful and Russia less so. This would require a reorientation of a defense policy that has been geared since the end of World War II to keeping the peace in Europe and deterring the Soviet Union.

• Operating in the Pacific will require an additional emphasis on "long-range power projection," which means greater attention to airlift capacity and other ways of sending troops and firepower across thousands of miles.

• The proliferation of missiles and other weapons of mass destruction could cause U.S. allies to limit access to overseas bases, requiring the U.S. military to be able to sustain itself while operating at long distances.

• Missile proliferation in the Third World also means that the U.S. military should place greater emphasis on acquiring planes, ships and vehicles that have "stealth," or radar-evading, capabilities.

• To achieve these goals, the armed services should cut spending on older weapons systems that they are likely to stop using within the next 10 years or so.

One Pentagon official said the review "basically does away" with long-standing doctrine that the U.S. military must be prepared to fight two major wars simultaneously. It is not clear, he said, whether the review will formally abandon the policy or simply ignore it.

One general who is tracking the review said he was struck by the degree to which the services have been excluded from the defense secretary's deliberations. He said that Rumsfeld was brusque in presenting his findings to senior service representatives yesterday. "It is clear that there is a very different management style at the top," he said.

A civilian official involved in the review said that the uniformed military is only beginning to recognize the extent of reform that Rumsfeld intends to seek at the Pentagon. "They want this to be collegial, and Rumsfeld is about change," this person said about the top brass.

---

Choosing commanders

Washington Times
March 23, 2001
Inside the Beltway
John McCaslin
Political tidbits and other shenanigans from around the nation's capital.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/inbeltway.htm

Hoping to prevent another presidential election fiasco like the one we witnessed in Florida, a retired Marine-turned-U.S.-senator is leading the charge for reform.

Sen. Pat Roberts, Kansas Republican and a key member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has introduced legislation giving states incentive for adopting uniform absentee ballots not only for military personnel, but overseas citizens.

"In the 2000 election, officials in strategic areas of the country, including Florida, failed to count thousands of military absentee ballots," he says.

Under his strategy, federal election officials will create a uniform military and overseas citizen ballot that is easily identifiable to state election officials. Grant funds would cover all expenses of implementing the new ballots on the state level.

-------- OTHER

-------- chemicals

Jury indicts man over toxic waste
Barberton resident accused of abandoning truck containing hazardous chemicals

ohio.com
Published Friday, March 23, 2001, in the Akron Beacon Journal.
http://www.ohio.com/best/docs/017549.htm

A Barberton man was indicted yesterday on four criminal charges, accused of abandoning a truck filled with hazardous chemicals in 1999.

Randall Morgan, 27, of West Third Street, was secretly indicted by a Summit County grand jury on charges of attempted illegal disposal of hazardous waste, illegal storage of hazardous waste, illegal transportation of hazardous waste and criminal endangering.

Morgan allegedly abandoned unmarked barrels filled with unspecified ignitable hazardous wastes in the back of a rental truck at a Summit County truck rental facility on Aug. 2, 1999, said Stephanie Beougher, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Betty Montgomery's office.

Beougher said she was unable to provide details on the location of the truck rental facility, the type or volume of the hazardous chemicals involved or the extent of the threat from the chemicals.

Summit County Prosecutor Sherri Bevan Walsh's office declined comment on the indictment, referring inquiries to the state.

The criminal case is being handled by special prosecutors Robert Cheugh and David Cox from Montgomery's office.

A warrant has been issued for Morgan's arrest, but he was not in custody late yesterday, officials said.

The three hazardous-waste charges are all unclassified felonies; criminal endangering is a first-degree misdemeanor.

---

Moyers angers group

Washington Times
March 23, 2001
Inside Politics
Greg Pierce News and political dispatches from around the nation.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/inpolitics.htm

A trade group of chemical producers accused Bill Moyers of "journalistic malpractice" yesterday for failing to interview its representatives before completing a documentary on the industry.

Mr. Moyers said he treated the industry fairly and was resisting attempts to discredit his work before it is shown, the Associated Press reports.

The growing storm concerns "Trade Secrets," a 90-minute investigation of the chemical industry that premieres on PBS stations Monday. The documentary outlines the industry's reported attempts to hide the dangers of its chemicals from employees and the public.

The American Chemistry Council has set up its own Web site to rebut the show and has complained about Mr. Moyers to Pat Mitchell, president of the Public Broadcasting System.

Mr. Moyers said his findings are based primarily on chemical-industry documents uncovered as part of a lawsuit filed by the widow of a former chemical worker from Louisiana who died of brain cancer at age 46.

Mr. Moyers invited chemical-industry representatives to take part in a 30-minute discussion, along with health and environmental experts, that will air immediately after the documentary. It will be taped on Monday about two hours after the industry representatives are allowed to view the program for the first time.

-------- environment

Bush rolls back water, mining, forestry rules

Planet Ark
USA: March 23, 2001
REUTERS
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=10223

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration has rolled back or delayed several key environmental actions taken during the final days of the Clinton presidency.

The following summarizes the measures ordered by President George W. Bush, a former Texas oilman:

MINING

On Wednesday, the Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management said it suspended a regulation to toughen environmental standards for gold, silver and uranium mining on public lands.

The rule, which went into effect on the final day of the Clinton presidency, forced mining companies in the West to post financial bonds guaranteeing that they would clean up water and environmental damage. It was the first broad revision of an 1872 mining law to add environmental protections.

The rule was enacted after four years of public comment, and followed many of the recommendations made in a 1999 National Academy of Sciences study.

WATER

On March 20, the Environmental Protection Agency said it would withdraw the pending arsenic standard for drinking water that was prepared during the final days of the Clinton administration.

The rule would have slashed the permissible level of arsenic in water from 50 parts per billion to 10 parts per billion. The current federal rule limiting the amount of arsenic in drinking water was based on 1942 data.

The EPA said it would seek "independent reviews" of the science behind the standard and the cost estimates for communities to implement the rule.

CARBON DIOXIDE

On March 13, Bush sent a letter to Republican senators saying he would not limit carbon dioxide emissions by electric power plants because it would force U.S. power prices higher.

Carbon dioxide is believed by many scientists to be a major contributor to global warming and climate change.

The letter marked a reversal of Bush's campaign promise to regulate power plant emissions of carbon dioxide. The president said carbon dioxide was not listed as a "pollutant" under the federal Clean Air Act and thus should not be subject to mandatory limits.

The Bush decision was criticized by EU and Canadian environmental ministers, who support a 1997 U.N. climate treaty to reduce greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. The pact has not been ratified by the U.S. Senate and is opposed by Bush.

FORESTS

The Bush administration has delayed a Clinton presidency rule to ban new roads in nearly 60 million acres of U.S. forest land, saying more time was needed to review the controversial plan.

The roadless plan, finalized during the last two weeks of the Clinton administration, is opposed by logging and oil companies. It was scheduled to go into effect on March 13, but the Bush administration delayed the effective date until May 12 to allow more time for review.

The state of Idaho and Boise Cascade Corp filed a federal lawsuit in Boise to try to block the ban on roads.

------

Disease in Europe: U.S. lucky so far

USA Today
Opinionline
03/23/2001 - Updated 07:45 PM ET
http://www.usatoday.com/news/comment/2001-03-23-opline.htm

What people are saying about U.S. reaction to disease outbreaks in Europe

The Courier-Journal, Louisville, in an editorial: "Millions of Americans today are able to afford visits to faraway places and purchases of foreign goods that once were within reach of only the very rich. But the agricultural catastrophe that has struck Europe is a grim reminder that the ease with which people and products cross national borders can bring risks, as well as benefits. Cattle, sheep and swine are being slaughtered and burned by the thousands ... in an effort to contain outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease. Meanwhile the USA and several other countries have banned importation of all livestock and meat from Europe, to guard against spread of the virus. ... So far, we seem to be lucky. And for all of the complaints about 'factory farms,' maybe we're doing some important things right on this side of the Atlantic."

The Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch in an editorial: The U.S. Department of Agriculture's ban "is prudent. ... Even a slight chance of opening the door to the agriculture nightmare in Britain and France argues for caution. ... The U.S. government's responsibility is to protect the nation's agriculture industry and consumers, which it has done."

Julie DelCour, editorial writer, in a column for the Tulsa World: "People are used to having a Big Mac attack but not a panic attack over their meat. So far, polls show that three-quarters of Americans surveyed said they weren't curtailing their meat-eating habits. Let's hope we can keep it that way. No one's quite ready to drive through a McDonald's and order two soybean patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame-seed bun. Mess with our eating habits and more than our stomachs will start to growl. Maybe those USDA firewalls will hold. If they don't, we could soon be hearing the jingle: 'Tofu, it's what's for dinner tonight.'"

Wes Hasden in a column for the Chattanooga (Tenn.) Times Free Press: "The U.S. Department of Agriculture's swift move to ban imports of livestock as well as raw meat from the European Union ... makes sense. The USDA was acting, as it should, in the best interests of the country. ... The new USDA regulations ... might seem draconian, but they are, in fact, sensible and must be vigorously enforced."

The State News, East Lansing, Mich., in an editorial: "Michigan State University should be complimented for canceling a Study Abroad trip to the United Kingdom and Ireland. ... Bringing the disease into the United States could be devastating and reverse decades of work it took to eradicate it. ... An outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in the country would also hurt (this agriculture-based) university."

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in an editorial: "The United States and Canada have wisely banned all European livestock, fresh meat and dairy products. Unfortunately, the European Commission has not ruled out retaliatory steps. ... The commission should understand that nobody's interests are served by not establishing such a ban. ... The United States is merely looking out for its own interests."

Peter A. Brandt and Samuel L. Jacobs in a column for the Los Angeles Times: "It would be easy to lose sight of the herd for the cows. Hoof-and-mouth disease poses ... virtually no threat to human health. And while the suffering and deaths of victims of mad cow disease should not be downplayed, it is important to remember the broader public-health context. To date, fewer than 90 people have died as a result of the human variant of mad cow disease. Meanwhile, millions suffer and die every year from heart disease, cancer and complications arising from obesity and hypertension - all conditions aggravated by eating meat and other high-fat foods. ... Given what is known about the deleterious health effects of meat consumption, we should kick the habit cold turkey."

---

Big Mac attack

Washington Times
March 23, 2001
Inside the Beltway
John McCaslin
Political tidbits and other shenanigans from around the nation's capital.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/inbeltway.htm

Why is Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell warning of catastrophic consequences if mad-cow and foot-and-mouth diseases cross our fences?

The cattle population of this country is rarely discussed, but in Mr. Campbell's state of Colorado alone there are 3.15 million head of cattle. Add to that the 12,000 beef producers in the state, and that explains his concern.

-------- imf / world bank / ftaa

Assessing the summit
Don't expect leaders to conclude trade deal, experts say

Montreal Gazette
Friday 23 March 2001
BASEM BOSHRA The Gazette
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/pages/010323/5054323.html

Political theatre or theatre of the absurd?

Next month's Summit of the Americas in Quebec City promises plenty of the former, but the thousands of protesters expected to descend on the summit could inadvertently provide much of the latter.

Because while much of the pre-summit hype and rhetoric has focused on the Free Trade Area of the Americas, a hemispheric trade pact the 34 countries in attendance are hoping to hammer out, experts say the conclusion of such an agreement during the three-day gathering is virtually impossible.

Protesters remain steadfast in their belief that - FTAA or not - their presence at the summit is essential to warn the world about the perils they see in the rise of corporate globalization.

But international trade specialists are split over the value of trying to shut down what could, in essence, turn out to be nothing more than a bunch of politicians clinking champagne glasses at receptions in swanky hotels.

"I can't control what misguided people want to spend their time doing," said Michael Hart, senior professor with the Centre for Trade Policy and Law at Ottawa's Carleton University. "I'm not going to do it, but there are thousands of people who think this is a great way to spend their time. I think it's well-meaning and idealistic on the part of some, absurd on the part of most."

Hart said the complexity of hammering out such a broad trade pact - which would cover all the countries in North, South and Central America, except Cuba - is going to take a lot more than a three-day summit to finalize.

"There's a very slim chance that anything constructive will come out of (the Quebec summit)," said Hart, who helped negotiate the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement and later the North American Free Trade Agreement.

"They're just not very far along," he said, adding that he seriously doubts that the FTAA will be in place by 2005, the initial deadline the participating countries have set for the pact's implementation.

One of the main gripes of the FTAA's opponents has been that the working document for the agreement hasn't been made available for public perusal.

But if they're looking for some kind of bombshell to bolster their cause, they're likely to be very disappointed, Hart said.

"The protesters think this (the working document) is a very important, secretive text. It's not important at all. All it is is a kind of compilation of (the countries') wish lists.

"It's 900 pages long and it doesn't tell you a thing. If you stripped out all the square brackets, it would probably be three pages long."

But not all free-trade experts share Hart's opinion that the demonstrations are a waste of time.

Anti-FTAA protesters, if they're able to conduct a "respectable, law-abiding" protest, could have a definitive effect on the future progress of the deal, said Larry Birns, director of the Washington-based Council on Hemispheric Affairs, a research group that specializes in economic and political developments in the U.S., Canada and Latin America.

"It's quite conceivable that they will be making history," Birns said. "This could be the poison pill for the free-trade advocates."

Past anti-corporate globalization skirmishes, such as the ones that disrupted the World Trade Organization meetings in Seattle in 1999 and the International Monetary Fund conference in Washington last year, have only served to bolster the protesters' cause, Birns explained.

"There has been a growing legitimacy of dissent on this issue," Birns said yesterday from his Washington office.

"So a big show at Quebec is going to only add to this sense of doubt and skepticism about the FTAA.

"It will also add to the general feeling that this is essentially a U.S. policy which is being superimposed on the rest of the region, with Canada tagging along because it is set to be the major beneficiary of free trade."

The Canadian government also must be wary of appearing intolerant of opposing viewpoints, Birns warned.

"If the government uses too much force, it's going to produce a very negative effect on public opinion," Birns said.

"If they're not careful, they could ignite the kind of fury we witnessed principally at the WTO meetings in Seattle."

Like his Canadian counterpart Hart, Birns said he fully expects the Quebec summit to be a dud.

"The Quebec meeting is going to be the most contentious of all of the trade meetings that have taken place since the summit was first announced," Birns predicted.

"It is going to produce deep fissures in the whole free-trade architecture."

Economic crises in Latin America, most notably in Argentina, and skepticism about the benefits of the FTAA from Brazil and most of the Caribbean nations, means the trade pact "is now open to serious challenges and questions," Birns said.

"What the Brazilians and others are saying is, 'Let's not rush. Let's not move too fast. Let's be sure each step we take is in the best interest of the entire hemisphere.' "

The FTAA was initiated formally at the inaugural Summit of the Americas in Miami in 1994, and "each conference has moved at a slower pace and with greater difficulties" since then, Birns said.

While International Trade Minister Pierre Pettigrew has repeatedly said the Quebec City summit will be the scene of major progress on the FTAA, Birns figures just the opposite is likely to happen.

"The Quebec meeting can't kill the FTAA," Birns said.

"But a meeting that doesn't follow the script the Canadian government wants it to follow could prove to be deeply injurious and, conceivably, even produce a mortal blow against the future prospects of the FTAA."

---

Corporations pay for easy access
Summit sponsorships are no bargain for Canadian taxpayers

Montreal Gazette
Friday 23 March 2001
LYLE STEWART Freelance
http://www.montrealgazette.com/editorial/pages/010323/5054515.html

There's no better way to illustrate just for whom we're holding the Summit of the Americas in Quebec City next month than the dollars-for-access controversy that erupted this week.

The Liberal braintrust in Ottawa is no doubt confused over how badly the corporate-sponsorship plan is backfiring, politically speaking. After all, their business-friendly strategy over the past seven years has been heartily praised by the same editorial pages now tut-tutting the unseemliness of it all.

Nonetheless, the impression I get from some media voices that are now shocked and appalled at this state of affairs is that they're actually disappointed the Liberals could provide such easy ammunition to the critics of the whole free-trade process. These critics, after all, have been saying exactly this for years: the corporate lobby pays for easy access to policy decision-makers, who in turn deliver the goods. And now they've been handed a graphic example of this on a silver platter.

The goods, in this case, are trade agreements that restrict democracy for the sole goal of pumping up corporate profits. That's why "free trade" itself is such a misnomer. After funding political parties, paying for their conferences and sponsoring their summits, corporations get gobs of government aid - either directly or indirectly - every step of the way.

Where I get well and truly perturbed is when we're told this is all for our own good.

As a taxpayer, I might be able to stomach the idea of funding jobs and research at Nortel, for instance, if Nortel had the slightest loyalty to the country that provided the largess. Instead, Nortel CEO John Roth is feted for being a business wizard and given a national podium to bawl about the brain drain and the need for lower taxes.

In plain terms, it's like the law student who depends on his wife to put him through school, then dumps her for his young, blond secretary. Taxpayers, in this instance, are the ex-wife. We helped Nortel become a world leader, and now that we expect something back as a society - that is, a tax return on those subsidies to help fight poverty, fund education or pay for health care - we're told to get lost.

Roth is the guy, remember, who complained he couldn't keep employees because of the brain drain, which he said was caused by higher taxes. He never mentioned Nortel paid a starting engineer little more than half what that graduate could earn in the United States. In this case, it's all the more egregious when we learn in a year that Roth dumps 10,000 employees at the first whiff of a downturn, he personally takes home $135 million in salary, stock options and bonuses. Ain't capitalism grand?

Government aid doesn't only come in direct subsidies, though. Instead, under trade bodies such as NAFTA or the World Trade Organization, multinationals can shift production to low-wage regions of the world with impunity. Because most of these places are not politically free, the workers in places like China, Indonesia or Mexico do not have the liberty to organize for better living or working conditions - thereby adding yet another subsidy to pad the bottom line.

We're also told this is for their own good - trade will bring with it the seeds of democratic reform and, eventually, a higher standard of living. It's more a religious belief, if it's to be believed at all, because there's been absolutely no evidence that this is so.

After seven years of NAFTA, Mexican workers still don't have the freedom to organize independent unions, despite the trappings of democracy they ostensibly enjoy. In China, meanwhile, the notion is farcical. International investment only reinforces the corrupt and brutal regime in power in the "workers' paradise." These are also subsidies to business, bought and paid for by the companies doing business there.

Indeed, if ever democratic change were really to take root in these places, multinationals have the easy freedom to pack up and move to a region where workers are better kept in place. This phenomenon is one of the main reasons we've seen stagnant or declining real wages for working-class and poor families in our own country, even as the wealthy make out like bandits. Keeping a cap on wage increases is far easier if the threat to shift production offshore is kept hanging over employees' heads.

Prime Minister Jean Chretien's only response to the summit-funding controversy has been to say that at least these corporations are relieving taxpayers of some of the financial burden involved in hosting such a gathering. As a tax-paying small-business person, I might almost be thankful - if I didn't already know that it will end up costing me far more in the end.

- Lyle Stewart is a Montreal writer. His E-mail is l.stewart4@sympatico.ca

-------- spying

Tax Cuts, Yes; Tacos, No

Slate - Today's Papers
By Seth Stevenson
Friday, March 23, 2001, at 1:50 a.m. PT

USA Today and the Washington Post lead with fallout over the expulsion of Russian diplomats suspected of spying. The New York Times leads with Republican senators' quest for a $60 billion tax cut, effective immediately, aimed at stimulating the economy. The Los Angeles Times leads with another school shooting, at another San Diego area high school. Five were injured in the suburb of El Cajon, none critically, and the 18 year-old student suspect was captured alive after a cop shot him in the face and buttocks.

The State Department ordered immediate expulsion of four Russian diplomats who, according to an anonymous Bush official, worked with FBI agent and accused spy Robert P. Hanssen. Forty-six more spook-y diplomats were asked to leave by July 1st. Russia vows an "adequate" response -- likely a mirror expulsion from Moscow of 50-odd U.S. diplomats. The NYT says these events "revived a cold war tone" and "signaled a marked departure" from President Clinton's "policies of engagement with Russia." USAT's lead says the number of Russian diplomat-spies here has risen 40% in the last five years, and is now at Cold War-era levels. The spies' focus has shifted from military to industrial secrets.

---

Russia Expels U.S. Diplomats in Retaliation
Four Will Leave Immediately, 46 Others to Be Out By July

Washington Post
Friday, March 23, 2001; 9:57 AM
By Susan B. Glasser Washington Post Foreign Service
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A48319-2001Mar23?language=printer

MOSCOW, March 23 - Russia today ordered four American diplomats to leave the country within days and will expel 46 more by this summer, striking back just a day after the United States initiated the first mass wave of diplomatic expulsions since the Cold War.

In a swift retort to the ouster of 50 of their own diplomats from Washington, the Russian Foreign Ministry this morning summoned the number-two official in the U.S. Embassy here, John Ordway, to receive the formal notification. In a statement, the Russians announced their "very firm protest against the unlawful activities of several official American representatives in Russia" and demanded that the four diplomats leave Russia "in the next few days" due to "activities incompatible with their status."

In Washington, the State Department later confirmed that an additional 46 others have been ordered to leave by July 1. No names of the ousted American diplomats were released, apparently because the Russians are still compiling the list of those to be expelled.

A confrontation reminiscent of a Cold War-era spy novel began with the arrest last month by the United States of veteran FBI agent Robert P. Hanssen on charges of spying for Moscow. But the Bush administration opted for a dramatic escalation this week, ordering four Russians to leave the country within 10 days and charging they were Washington-based intelligence officers who were involved in "handling" Hanssen. Another 46 Russians must clear out of Washington by summer.

Even before the official Russian response, President Vladimir Putin's national security chief Sergei Ivanov made clear the goal of the retaliation is to make things as "painful" as possible for the United States.

In an interview broadcast on Polish state television last night, Ivanov said, "The thing is that we have time to think well and choose those of the over 1,000 U.S. diplomats now working in Russia who are of greatest value for Americans."

Himself a former KGB official, Ivanov said the mass expulsion of Russian diplomats by the Unites States indicates "that at least part of the American administration has not given up Cold War stereotypes."

Putin himself has been silent so far on the latest rupture with the United States, which came just a day after he tried to tamp down the heated rhetoric in an interview with four Russian newspapers. Asked in the interview about a return to Cold War-era controversies like "spy scandals," Putin replied that worsening relations with the United States should not be "over-dramatized."

"The U.S. president has recently stated that Russia is neither an enemy nor an adversary of the United States," Putin said before learning of his diplomats were being sent home. "I believe that this is a very positive signal, we have heard it, and we have the same attitude toward the United States."

Other Russian politicians, however, have been much more vehemently anti-American in recent days, citing a string of what they perceive as recent insults by the new Bush administration. Just last week, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld accused Russia of being an "active proliferator" of nuclear weapons technology, which drew a sharp official retort from the Russian Foreign Ministry.

Russian official news services pointed out that the United States has, by their count, as much as five times as many people in its Moscow embassy as Russia does in Washington and therefore a proportional response should actually reach into "hundreds" of expulsions - a threat that Russians, however, are apparently not prepared to carry out.

"It should be noted that the Russian diplomatic mission in Washington has 190 staff members, while 1,100 work at the American embassy in Moscow. It is obvious which intelligence service this favors," a high-ranking Russian intelligence source was quoted by Interfax as saying.

Another Russian intelligence official was quoted by ITAR-TASS today as saying Russia plans to expel "only those staff members of the U.S. embassy who are sure to be on the payroll of the intelligence services." While no names have been released, the official said, "The lists of the people who may be deported from Russia have been made already."

----

Bush Backs Expulsion of 50 Russians
Moscow Vows an 'Adequate' Response Against U.S. Envoys

Washington Post
Friday, March 23, 2001; Page A01
By Vernon Loeb and Susan B. Glasser Washington Post Staff Writers
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A44327-2001Mar22?language=printer

President Bush yesterday strongly backed the expulsion of more than 50 Russian diplomats and said he was "confident that we can have good relations with the Russians" even as Moscow vowed to retaliate.

"I was presented with the facts, I made the decision, it was the right thing to do," Bush told reporters on Capitol Hill.

In Moscow, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov promised an "adequate" response within hours of learning that the State Department had ordered the immediate expulsion of four diplomats suspected of being intelligence officers and had given 46 others until July 1 to leave the United States.

By late last night, the Russians had served no official notice of their intentions. But Ivanov and other senior officials indicated that Moscow would expel an equal number of Americans. Asked by CNN when U.S. diplomats would have to leave Russia, Ivanov replied: "You won't have to wait long."

Echoing a consistent theme of Russian leaders in recent weeks, Ivanov also warned against "those who are trying to push mankind and the United States back to the epoch of the Cold War."

A Bush administration official speaking on condition of anonymity said the four Russians who have been declared persona non grata and must leave within 10 days were Washington-based intelligence officers who had been involved in "handling" Robert P. Hanssen, the veteran FBI agent arrested last month on charges of spying for Moscow since 1985.

In addition, the official said, two other Russian diplomats suspected of involvement in the Hanssen case would have been expelled if they had not already left the United States. One of them was Vladimir Frolov, press attaché for the Russian Embassy, who cut short his second tour of duty and returned to Moscow last week, the official said.

The Bush administration's decision to expel 46 others decisively settled a debate that has gone on in the government for years over how to respond to what U.S. counterintelligence officials say has been a large increase in the number of Russian spies with diplomatic cover in the United States. Both countries keep close tabs on foreign diplomats and, over time, develop a pretty accurate sense of the number who are involved in intelligence work, U.S. officials maintained.

The diplomatic confrontation comes at a time of increasingly testy relations between the two nuclear powers, with rhetorical clashes in recent weeks over issues ranging from the Bush administration's missile defense plans to Russia's renewed arms deals with Iran. This week, Russian officials lashed out twice at Washington for what they called "Cold War rhetoric" and for meeting with a representative of Chechen rebels.

In the two months since Bush took office, he has consciously kept Russia at arm's length, refusing to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin until summer at the earliest and threatening to cut off financial aid to Russia's still-transitioning economy. For his part, Putin has traveled the world in an effort to drum up opposition to U.S. missile defenses and courted countries that the United States considers rogue states, including Cuba and North Korea.

The FBI has been pushing for a mass expulsion of Russian intelligence officers since detecting a substantial increase in their numbers in the mid-1990s. "They've flooded the zone," said David G. Major, a former FBI counterintelligence official. "And as long as they continue flooding the zone, it puts a strain on American counterintelligence."

Hanssen was arrested Feb. 18 after he allegedly placed a plastic bag containing secret documents at a "dead drop" under a footbridge in a Northern Virginia park. Almost immediately, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer told reporters yesterday, Bush began discussing "possible remedies" with his security advisers.

"And then last week, his national security team made a recommendation to him," Fleischer said. "The president gave the go-ahead last week. Secretary [of State Colin L.] Powell met with Russian officials last night, as you know, and that's when the action was informed -- that's when the Russians became informed of the action."

Powell told Russian Ambassador Yuri V. Ushakov of the expulsions Wednesday. Powell said yesterday that he had also "made clear" to Ushakov what "actions the Russian government needs to take to address our long-standing concern about the level of their intelligence presence in the United States."

Yesterday, Russian news agencies reported that Powell phoned Ivanov and said: "We see this issue as closed."

Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, singled out "the Russian military presence" as being "out of line with what should be a very fruitful and, indeed, excellent relationship." Other officials said she was referring to steady growth in the number of GRU, or Russian military intelligence, officers operating in America.

The CIA traditionally has opposed mass expulsions, out of concern about the impact of Russian retaliation on its operations. But CIA Director George J. Tenet was "supportive" of this week's order because he believed that "the lack of a clear response" to the Hanssen case "would have had a negative effect," an intelligence official said.

Former senior CIA officials were divided yesterday over the wisdom of the move and its probable impact.

"This type of signal is the only signal that the Russians can understand," said Clair E. George, a former deputy director of CIA operations. "If it costs us people in Moscow, so be it."

Another former high-ranking CIA official, who asked not to be quoted by name, contended that U.S. intelligence would suffer because the number of U.S. spies in Russia is smaller than the number of Russian spies in the United States. "We're so much smaller there than they are here that I think the disruption for our side is going to be great," he said.

The expulsion of 50 people represents about a quarter of all the accredited Russian diplomats in the United States. Russia has 118 diplomats at its embassy here, 77 at its United Nations mission in New York, and five to 10 at each of three U.S. consulates.

But those numbers understate Russia's total diplomatic presence, because there are an additional 260 Russians working in the United States for U.N. agencies such as UNICEF.

Knowledgeable U.S. officials say Russia is believed to have nearly 200 intelligence officers in the United States, about the same as during the Cold War but nearly twice as many as it had in the early 1990s. The number of "illegals" -- agents without diplomatic cover here -- is unknown.

The expulsion of 50 U.S. diplomats from Moscow would make less of a dent in the overall number of Americans there. There are more than 1,000 Americans assigned to the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, including 300 diplomats, 380 nondiplomatic employees, and 300 to 400 part-time workers, according to a State Department official.

Glasser reported from Moscow. Special correspondent Colum Lynch in New York and staff writers Mike Allen, Manny Fernandez, Walter Pincus and David A. Vise in Washington contributed to this report.

----

Ties Strained Before Spy Scandal
U.S.-Russia Relationship Has Weakened in Recent Months

Washington Post
Friday, March 23, 2001; Page A14
By Susan B. Glasser Washington Post Foreign Service
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A43716-2001Mar22?language=printer

MOSCOW, March 22 -- The diplomatic confrontation between the United States and Russia that erupted this week demonstrates just how much the two countries have parted ways in recent months, ushering in a renewed era of testy, suspicious and arms-length relations, according to politicians and analysts here.

While it may be premature and inflammatory to call this a second "Cold War," that was the imagery invoked today by Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov and just about every member of parliament who found his way to a television camera.

And they made clear that the finger-pointing was about much more than the U.S. decision to expel 50 Russian diplomats. Indeed, even before the latest rupture, tensions have flared in the two months since President Bush was inaugurated over issues from U.S. missile defense plans and proposed NATO enlargement to Russian arms deals with Iran and its human rights record at home.

To many Russian political leaders, the spy scandal will be more easily overcome than the prospect of revived nuclear tensions between the two Cold War rivals.

"I don't think it's good for a new administration to start with a cold attitude toward Russia," said Viktor Pokhmelkin, a leader of the liberal Union of Right Forces in Russia's parliament.

Like many others here, Pokhmelkin argued in an interview that the espionage tit for tat is really just a pretext for a Bush administration bent on abandoning the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and starting a new nuclear confrontation. "The main purpose is escalation of the arms race," he said. Dmitri Rogozin, who chairs the international affairs committee in the State Duma, agreed: "They are trying to pressure us on national missile defense issues."

Regardless of Bush's intentions, their comments are a reflection of how much relations have soured since the heady days after the breakup of the Soviet Union, when Russia vowed to create a Western-style free-market democracy and the United States clamored to help.

With the election of former KGB spy Vladimir Putin as Russia's president a year ago, it was already long since clear that the former enemies had not succeeded in becoming allies.

Early on, Putin signaled a new distance from the United States, traveling from Western Europe to North Korea to rally opposition to missile defense and arguing at every turn against a "unipolar" world in which the United States is the only superpower. Putin's government won a conviction against alleged U.S. spy Edmund Pope, making him the first American found guilty of espionage charges here since U-2 pilot Francis Gary Powers in 1960; Putin later pardoned the American.

Even so, Russian political analysts and Kremlin insiders just a few months ago were welcoming the return of a Republican to the American White House, believing that a Bush presidency would offer them a respite from the idealistic but often intrusive lectures from President Bill Clinton about how to build a post-Communist democracy.

But the Kremlin's hopes quickly turned to recriminations when various members of the new Bush team started speaking out.

Twice already, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has called Russia a "proliferator" of nuclear arms. CIA Director George J. Tenet infuriated Russians by calling them a threat in congressional testimony. Even the lectures on democracy have not subsided, with Secretary of State Colin L. Powell urging Putin's government to halt its campaign against Russia's only independent television network.

Last week, Russian National Security Council chief Sergei Ivanov returned from Washington empty-handed, having failed to secure an early meeting between Putin and Bush.

Russians across the political spectrum are now arguing that, taken together, those events add up to a Bush administration bent on demonizing and isolating Russia at a time when Putin has just begun trying to reassert Russia's influence in international affairs.

"It's another example of someone trying to hit our heads very painfully," said Alexander Gurov, a committee chairman in the Duma, or lower house, and a former top official in the Soviet Interior Ministry. Bush "wants to show off and show his attitude, his patriotism and how strong and firm he is."

"I think President Bush wants to say to the new president of Russia, 'You should know your own place,'" said Viktor Ilyukin, a Communist member of the Duma. Russia may be "weak now," he said, "but at the same time we are still a great power and we would like the United States to respect us."

But even with the supercharged rhetoric, Russian politicians continued to express hope that Bush and Putin are both pragmatic politicians who will pull back from a confrontation that Russia can ill afford and the United States can hardly want.

"We are far away from the Cold War," Ilyukin said. "It didn't bring anything good or positive to anyone." Added Gurov: "Some people are already beginning to describe this as the beginning of a new Cold War. I don't think so. This will lead us nowhere."

In the end, the Cold War rhetoric may be scary enough to stop a new Cold War in reality.

"For a few days or weeks, we're going to be engaged in a shouting match," said Sergei Rogov, head of the Institute for USA-Canada Studies. "But I hope both sides will cool it down and [not] allow it to get out of hand."

Correspondent Peter Baker in Moscow contributed to this report.

----

Russia and Its Spies

Washington Post
Friday, March 23, 2001; Page A24
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A46357-2001Mar22?language=printer

THE BUSH administration's announcement of the expulsion of 50 Russian diplomats yesterday and Moscow's angry response came with worrisome echoes of the confrontations of the Cold War. But if the spy dramas of that bygone era have returned, then responsibility must rest not with the new American administration but with that of Russia. In the past two years Russian President Vladimir Putin has been aggressively rebuilding the espionage and secret police apparatus of which he is a product, an initiative that has led to a chilling series of spurious spy trials in Moscow, a crackdown against independent voices in the press and, it turns out, a sustained buildup in the corps of Russian intelligence agents in the United States. The Clinton administration tried to resolve the problem quietly through diplomatic channels, only to be rebuffed. That left the new administration with little choice other than to take the action it did yesterday.

To its credit, the administration tempered the unavoidable sensation of the expulsions with moderate and cautious rhetoric. At the White House and State Department, officials emphasized an expectation that Russian-American cooperation will continue in many areas, and portrayed the expulsions as one step in a complex policy toward Moscow based on "realism." Even amid the spy controversy, officials said, Russia and the United States have the opportunity to work together in the coming days to defuse the latest crisis in the Balkans, where they have common interests.

Still, the sum of the new administration's engagement so far with Russia pales beside the magnitude of yesterday's step. President Bush has pointedly snubbed Mr. Putin, pushing him down the list of his first phone calls and declining to schedule a full summit meeting with him. Though both Secretary of State Colin Powell and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice have met with their Russian counterparts, the administration rejected Moscow's suggestion to set up a structure for regular cooperation, like the Gore-Chernomyrdin commission of the Clinton administration. The Energy Department is considering significant cuts in U.S. programs that help Russia dispose of nuclear materials and prevent leakage of weapons and expertise. And administration officials have signaled an intention to abandon further arms control negotiations with Moscow in favor of unilateral U.S. action.

Some of these measures may be a reasonable response to the decline of Russian power vis à vis the United States and to the rise, in Mr. Putin, of a leader who seems less interested in building a partnership with Washington than in thwarting or defying American interests -- whether by selling arms to Iran or seeking to divide NATO on such issues as missile defense. The Bush administration has no reason to stroke or coddle Mr. Putin. But there is, as yet, no cause to isolate him or his country. There is still much the United States can do to promote democracy and a free economy in Russia. As its foreign policy team fills out in the coming months, the administration would do well to be as conspicuous in promoting those causes as it has been in rooting out spies.

---

Castro, Former Adversaries Meet at Bay of Pigs Forum

Washington Post
Friday, March 23, 2001
By Kevin Sullivan Washington Post Foreign Service
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A44648-2001Mar22?language=printer

HAVANA, March 22 -- President Fidel Castro spent the day at a conference marking the 40th anniversary of the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion with Kennedy administration officials and former CIA officials once determined to overthrow or kill him.

Castro, dressed in his trademark military fatigues, made no public comments today after spending nine hours hashing over history and historical documents at a Havana hotel. Protagonists from Cuba and the United States gathered here for a three-day examination of an event that has set the tone for relations between the two nations for the past four decades.

Conference participants said that Castro smiled broadly as he read aloud a 1959 U.S. State Department memo saying that despite his "appearance of naivete, unsophistication and ignorance on many matters," it would be "a serious mistake to underestimate this man."

Castro, now dealing with the 10th U.S. president since his revolutionary takeover of Cuba in 1959, has filled Havana with billboards reminding Cubans and visitors of the battle with depictions of a sunken invaders' ship bearing a skull and crossbones.

Nearly 50 people, including former CIA officials, five members of the defeated CIA-trained invasion force, top government officials and academics from both countries, are at the conference to review an event that continues to color attitudes in both nations.

The Bay of Pigs invasion in April 1961, which humiliated President John F. Kennedy and the CIA, and the Cuban missile crisis the following year led directly to U.S. economic sanctions against Cuba that continue to define and aggravate relations between the United States and its Communist neighbor to the south.

Although President Bill Clinton favored easing the sanctions, President Bush has indicated he will, at the least, leave them as they are. Politically powerful anti-Castro Cuban exiles in Florida are hoping that Bush will tighten the noose around Havana, particularly because his brother, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, is running for reelection next year.

But today the focus was on the tensions of 1961, and participants reviewed the first significant batch of documents to be declassified and made public by Castro's Cuba.

"We are creating a new history here studying the old history," said Thomas S. Blanton, head of the National Security Archive, a private organization in Washington that is co-sponsoring the conference with Cuban officials.

Robert S. McNamara, who was Kennedy's defense secretary, sent a letter today saying that the invasion was "wrong and never should have occurred," according to Peter Kornbluh of the National Security Archive.

Conference documents include a lengthy chronology of Castro's orders for the Bay of Pigs battle. The papers, filled with Castro's salty language, show in new relief what historians have long known: that Castro commanded his military personally, minute by minute, as his troops stopped the invasion force cold.

Also released today was an exchange of letters between Kennedy and Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev on April 18, 1961, as the battle raged. Khrushchev warned Kennedy that "any so-called 'little war' can touch off a chain reaction in all parts of the globe."

Kennedy responded with a letter saying that the United States would support those who sought to overthrow Castro, but denying any U.S. role in the invasion. "I have previously stated, and I repeat now, that the U.S. intends no military intervention in Cuban," he wrote.

U.S. historians have long concluded that the invading force failed for two key reasons: the CIA's bungled planning and Kennedy's refusal to provide air support.

Today, Cuban officials insisted there was another reason: The Cuban military was well-trained, effective and loyal. The invaders didn't lose, they said, the Cubans won.

Participants in the conference include Kennedy aides Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and Richard Goodwin, as well as Kennedy's sister, Jean Kennedy Smith, and her son, William Kennedy Smith. Also present are former CIA officials Robert Reynolds, who helped plan the invasion, and Sam Halpern, who was involved with CIA efforts to assassinate Castro.

Five members of the so-called 2506 Brigade Invasion Force are also participating, as is Jose Ramon Fernandez, Castro's top field commander during the invasion and now one of Cuba's vice presidents.

The centerpiece of the conference comes Saturday, when the group will drive south of the capital to several key battle sites, including the beach known as Playa Giron, where the invaders were stopped.

---

Spy vs. spy

USA Today
03/23/2001 - Updated 07:45 PM ET
http://www.usatoday.com/news/comment/2001-03-23-edtwof2.htm

With its backdrop of secret tunnels to the Russian Embassy and agents executed by Moscow, the Cold War script from Wednesday's expulsion of 50 Russian spies is so familiar that many Americans could have written it themselves - in the 1980s.

No sooner had President Bush ejected the spies (all diplomats) in retaliation for spying done by FBI counterintelligence agent Robert Hanssen than Russia said it would respond in kind. Concern about harm to U.S.-Russia relations quickly followed.

That's just about exactly what happened in 1986, the last time the U.S. expelled a Tupolev-full of Russian spies posing here as diplomats. For instance, pundits worried that nuclear-arms talks would be derailed.

The circumstances also recall the climate of the mid-'80s. The Hanssen case is the latest evidence that Russia and the U.S. still spy on each other with Cold War fervor. He is accused of turning over critical Cold War secrets to Russia - among them the existence of a tunnel the U.S. built under Russia's embassy in Washington to bug communications, and the names of Russians who spied for the U.S., whom Moscow then executed.

But below this surface, the fundamentals and consequences of today's spy spat are different. Russia is a spent power, reduced to collecting foreign aid from countries it once sought to dominate, watching its nuclear weapons degrade more quickly than they can be negotiated away in arms-control talks, and trying to steal secrets as much from U.S. businesses as from U.S. defense.

The USA, too, has changed. It gives Russia about $1 billion in aid annually. It shares a space station with Moscow. And Washington's main goal is not to contain Russia, but to help it become a capitalist democracy.

That's not to say there aren't costs to the relationship when it grows tense, as it has recently: Russian President Vladimir Putin has been trying to get foreign leaders, particularly in Asia and the Gulf, to protest U.S. power. Moscow is working to freelance a tourism program on the U.S.-funded space station. And it has pushed on with plans to sell advanced weapons to Iran, in defiance of a U.S. agreement.

But none of these tensions reaches Cold War levels. And they'd exist even if the spies weren't expelled: For all of the Clinton administration's walking on eggshells, Russia still challenged its interests in the Balkans and Iraq.

Nor do the tensions harm Washington's goal of democratic capitalism for Russia. Indeed, only Russia's domestic political sclerosis keeps that goal from gaining ground.

So relations continue. In the meantime, anything that can be done to reduce the Cold War veneer that still colors the relationship - such as the expulsion of dozens of unnecessary spies - is welcome progress.

---

Bush considers expulsions exchange closed

USA Today
03/23/2001 - Updated 06:07 PM ET
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washdc/12001-03-23-bushrussia.htm

WASHINGTON (AP) - As Russia dropped the other shoe with mass expulsions of U.S. diplomats, President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin sought to move on to normal relations between their countries. While agreeing, Secretary of State Colin Powell said ''we don't think there was a need for them to reciprocate'' for the ouster of Russian diplomats by the United States.

Some of the expelled Russians were linked to a spy scandal; the others were said by U.S. officials to be intelligence agents under diplomatic cover.

"We thought what we were doing was necessary and appropriate," Powell told a group of reporters from The Associated Press and other news agencies.

The White House said Friday that Bush considers the matter closed, while the president said "we will be firm and consistent in our foreign policy."

Putin, attending a European Union summit in Stockholm, Sweden, said he did not think there would be "big consequences" from the expulsions, which were rooted in the arrest of a veteran FBI agency on charges of spying for Russia.

Powell, speaking to a newspaper association meeting in Washington, said, "Our relationship continues and we'll see what we can do to isolate this one incident, but we are waiting to see about the totality of Russia's response."

"We did the right thing," Bush said while visiting a Salvation Army facility in Portland, Maine. "They can make whatever decision they deem necessary. Our country took the right course of action."

In Washington, Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft said "we always need to be vigilant that we have security risks, not only from foreign intelligence operatives, but we need to make sure that our own organizations are as risk-free as possible."

He spoke on ABC's "Good Morning America" after Russia notified the United States it was expelling four American diplomats and a U.S. official said another 46 will be asked to leave by the summer.

The expulsions are in reprisal for the ouster of four Russians - two others left earlier - implicated in the Robert Hanssen spy case. Another 46 Russians assigned to the embassy in Washington and consulates across the country were told to leave by July 1.

The Kremlin did not specify which Americans would be ousted beyond the four diplomats declared persona non grata. But a senior U.S. official said Thursday a like number of Americans would be sent home and on Friday the official confirmed the number was 46.

"We're aware of what Russia has said it will do. The president considers the matter closed," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said on Air Force One as Bush headed to Maine for a speech.

Earlier Friday, the Russian Foreign Ministry had announced the four immediate expulsions, saying the U.S. Embassy officials would be expelled from Russia for activities incompatible with their diplomatic status - a euphemism for espionage. A ministry press service statement did not announce the other 46 expulsions referred to by the State Department, but it indicated that more retaliatory measures would follow.

Friday's move by Russia was the latest act in a diplomatic squabble that began when the United States announced its expulsions of more than 50 Russian diplomats suspected of undercover intelligence activities.

On Thursday, Bush called for realistic, normal relations with Russia. But Russian officials made it clear the matter was not closed: They had threatened to "adequately respond" to the U.S. expulsions. Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov called the U.S. expulsions a groundless, "political" act harking back to the Cold War.

"Naturally, as it has before, Russia will firmly and steadfastly defend its national interests and will adequately respond to this unfriendly step by the United States," Ivanov said Thursday, somberly reading a statement on government-controlled ORT television.

Bush said he was simply dealing with facts and the two nations could maintain a good working relationship. The administration said it was acting to reduce Russia's large contingent of hidden intelligence operatives in this country and was specifically targeting diplomats linked to former FBI agent Hanssen, who is charged with spying for Moscow for the past 15 years.

"I'm confident we can have a good relationship with the Russians," Bush said Thursday after addressing the National Newspaper Association. "We've got some areas where we can work together."

"I don't think we've ever solved the mole problem," Rep. Porter Goss, R-Fla., a former CIA agent, told reporters, adding that there were still things that cannot be explained. "I'd be a bad guy to be in (counterintelligence) if I didn't always see things as suspicious."

Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., said in an interview, "I believe there is more than one spy operating in various sensitive positions of the government" and always has been.

"The Russians and other nations don't generally operate with just one agent," Shelby said. "It's not prudent."

Six Russians assigned to Moscow's embassy in Washington were directly linked by U.S. officials to Hanssen, the veteran FBI agent who was arrested a month ago. Two of the six already have left the United States; the four others must depart within 10 days.

---

Moscow threatens retaliation over ousters

Washington Times
March 23, 2001
By Ben Barber THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washtimes.com/world/default-200132322129.htm

Russia threatened swift retaliation yesterday against American diplomats as the State Department presented Moscow with a list of 50 Russian diplomats it called "intelligence officers" who must leave the United States as a result of a mushrooming spy scandal.

The U.S. expulsions of Russians, first leaked Wednesday evening, "cannot be qualified as anything but political," Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said in televised remarks in Moscow yesterday.

"Therefore it is not our choice, but we are forced to take adequate measures, adequate to the solution made by Washington," he added in comments broadcast on CNN and NBC.

Secretary of State Colin Powell said yesterday he had personally told the Russian Ambassador Yuriy Ushakov on Wednesday of "our decision to expel four Russian intelligence officers who were directly implicated" in the case of FBI counterintelligence agent Robert Hanssen.

Mr. Hanssen was arrested last month in Virginia on charges he spied for the Soviet Union and Russia for more than 15 years.

"I made clear to the ambassador the actions the Russian government needs to take to address our long-standing concern about the level of their intelligence presence in the United States," Mr. Powell told reporters.

Mr. Powell said he spoke with Mr. Ivanov about the expulsions and "we consider the matter closed."

But a few hours later, Mr. Ivanov vowed that Russia would retaliate, hinting broadly that a large number of U.S. diplomats may soon be asked to leave.

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Georgy Mamedov protested Washington's move in a meeting at the ministry with U.S. Ambassador James Collins.

"It was underlined that this is an unfriendly act, aimed at worsening Russian-American relations, and it follows that it will not remain without consequences and will receive an adequate answer," the ministry said in a statement.

Despite the spy-vs.-spy scenario played out in the past two days, both President Bush and Mr. Powell said they hoped overall U.S.-Russian relations would not be disrupted.

"We have important interests in maintaining cooperative and productive relations with Russia, and we intend to continue working to advance those interests," Mr. Powell said.

Mr. Bush, addressing the National Newspaper Association meeting yesterday, said: "The actions we took yesterday speak for themselves. . . . Our government made the right decisions."

"I intend to have a working relationship with the Russians," Mr. Bush added. "I suspect the first time I'll have a chance to sit down with [Russian President Vladimir] Putin is when I head overseas" to the Group of Eight summit in Naples this summer.

The U.S. action was the largest of its kind since 1986, when President Reagan ordered some 80 Soviet diplomats expelled for espionage work.

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said yesterday that four Russian diplomats had already been asked to leave the country. Another department official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that 46 others would have to leave as well.

"This morning, the Department of State notified the Russian Embassy that four of its accredited diplomats have been declared persona non grata in the United States and should leave the country forthwith," Mr. Boucher said.

The four, implicated either in collecting secrets from Mr. Hanssen or financing his activities, must leave within 10 days, a senior State Department official said yesterday. Another two have already left.

Forty-six more names were handed over to the Russians yesterday, the senior official told reporters yesterday, speaking on condition of anonymity.

All are "intelligence officers" working under the cover of diplomatic postings, he said. "We did not expel their declared [intelligence] officers who cooperate with us on terrorism and drugs."

Russia had promised after the collapse of the Soviet Union to rein in its spying network. The number of intelligence agents in the United States fell from 1991 to 1993, the senior State Department official said.

"But from 1993 to 1997 the level went back up again, and after 1997 it hasn't come down," he said.

The official refused to disclose the names of any of the 52 Russians required to leave the United States.

The total of 52 Russians is four less than an estimate made Wednesday and cited in yesterday's editions of The Washington Times. State Department officials said they had not completed the list of those to be expelled until yesterday morning. It is the largest number of expelled diplomats since 1986 during the Cold War.

Russian Embassy spokesman Yuriy Zubarev said yesterday that he would not comment on the expulsions.

"There is an ongoing process of leaving and coming at the embassy. We have about 200 families and some of them are replaced every week on a rotation basis," he said.

Rep. Porter J. Goss, Florida Republican and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, told reporters at a breakfast yesterday the expulsion of the diplomats signaled a tougher U.S. approach to Russia by the new administration.

---

A cold front from Moscow returns

Washington Times
EDITORIAL • March 23, 2001
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/ed-house-2001323192033.htm

News of large-scale Russian spy expulsions descended on Washington Wednesday like an unwelcome Cold War reminder.

But the only reason the expulsions were so surprising is that the Clinton administration failed to expose or challenge the Kremlin's increasingly intense intelligence operations. Under Vladimir Putin's stewardship, Russia began dispatching spies to the United States at a Soviet-era pace. Experts maintain that the Kremlin's intelligence presence in the United States has become far larger than Washington's spy apparatus in Russia.

The Washington Times reported in July 1999 that U.S. officials were so concerned about Russian espionage that Amb. James Collins warned the Kremlin to reign in its operation or face expulsions. But unsurprisingly, the Clinton administration failed to back Mr. Collins' message with action.

Reportedly, six of the Russians the White House has asked to leave within 10 days were believed to have been intelligence handlers for Robert Hanssen, a high-ranking FBI agent who was recently accused of spying for the Russians. In total, Washington expelled more than 50 Russian diplomats, but most are not required to leave the country until July 1. Through the expulsions, the Bush administration is demonstrating that it will take the necessary steps to protect the United States, regardless of how Moscow likes it. Interestingly, after Aldrich Ames was caught spying in 1994, the United States timidly expelled just one suspected senior spy, Alexander Iosifovich Lysenko.

One would hope Russia responds to the expulsions in a reasonable manner, so that this unpleasant chapter can be closed. The Bush administration has clearly articulated both its commitment to national security and a reasonable desire to see U.S.-Russian relations improve. "We have important interests in maintaining cooperative and productive relations with Russia," Secretary of State Colin Powell told reporters. "And we intend to continue working to advance those issues," he added.

Indeed, Russia's most dire problems are economic, and in this area America could be an invaluable ally. Mr. Putin should make the economic well-being of his countrymen his overriding priority. The money he has devoted to espionage would be much better spent paying what the Kremlin owes to its public employees or aiding widows of the Kursk submarine accident, for example.

It would be absurd and unrealistic to expect the United States and Russia to stop spying on each other. But Mr. Putin's determination to continue running a Soviet-style intelligence operation is archaic, impractical and ungracious.

---

Freeh beefs up FBI's security

Washington Times
March 23, 2001
By Jerry Seper THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washtimes.com/national/default-2001323222430.htm

FBI Director Louis J. Freeh, stung by the arrest of one of his own agents as a Russian spy, has ordered sweeping changes in the bureau's internal security measures, including expanded use of polygraph tests for FBI employees.

In a strongly worded five-page memo, Mr. Freeh directed that "periodic" polygraph examinations be administered to all agents and support personnel who have access to the "FBI's most sensitive information" - with the first round of tests beginning within 60 days.

First up, the memo said, will be senior executive personnel, employees leaving and returning from overseas postings, and those agents and other personnel whose assignments "expose them to extremely sensitive information, sources or investigative techniques."

Mr. Freeh, under pressure from Congress and elsewhere to begin polygraph tests of his agents, said he had asked former FBI Director William H. Webster to conduct an independent review of the bureau's internal security measures.

But the memo, issued last week, says that improving internal security is "too important to wait" for Mr. Webster's pending recommendations.

"I ask every employee to give this mandate their serious attention," he said. "Together, we will strike the proper balance between security, operations and employee privacy necessary to safeguard our nation's most critical information."

Noting resistance from within the bureau to widespread polygraph examinations, Mr. Freeh said the tests would focus on counterintelligence issues and would be administered by the bureau's National Security Division.

The confidential memo, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Times, comes in the wake of the arrest last month of Agent Robert Hanssen on espionage charges. The 27-year veteran is accused of working with the Russians for more than 15 years, exchanging secret U.S. intelligence secrets for cash and diamonds.

Mr. Freeh, in announcing the arrest, said that while the full extent of the damage done was unknown, he believed it was "exceptionally grave." An affidavit by FBI Agent Stefan A. Pluta said Mr. Hanssen "compromised numerous human resources of the United States intelligence community."

Mr. Hanssen's arrest exposed weaknesses in the FBI's internal security, including document-handling procedures and a policy of not requiring regular polygraph tests for its agents. Mr. Hanssen, like most veteran agents, never underwent routine polygraph examinations that might have detected his activities sooner.

The Freeh memo, ordering what the director described as "immediate changes in the FBI security program," also starts a review process of those who electronically access the bureau's most sensitive case files - the Automated Case Support (ACS) files.

To that end, Mr. Freeh ordered that special-agents-in-charge of the FBI's field offices immediately identify their "most sensitive" foreign counterintelligence and counterterrorism investigations. Each of those cases, starting today, will be audited to learn if anyone gained unauthorized access or improperly sought to enter the files.

Mr. Freeh also noted that "because accountability must begin at the top," the FBI's senior executive managers would personally be responsible for security concerns at headquarters and the field offices - including assistant directors and special-agents-in-charge, all of whom are expected to work with their individual security officers "who can provide informed guidance of security-related matters."

Additionally, he said, within the next 90 days the FBI would convene a bureauwide training conference for its security officers "to ensure they are fully prepared to carry out their assignments."

Mr. Freeh also said that in order to practice "sound risk management," the FBI would devote more resources to the reinvestigation of those employees now assigned to positions with sensitive access.

"We must recognize the FBI remains an attractive target for those groups who desire to harm the interests of the United States or engage in criminal activity," he said. "Without a strong commitment to security and an effective security program, all other FBI initiatives are placed in jeopardy."

Mr. Freeh also said that while new security measures should have a "substantial impact on lowering the probability that sensitive information will be compromised," they were "merely preliminary to the numerous and substantial improvements expected to follow."

Mr. Webster, also a former director of the CIA, has said his review will not make any recommendations on security measures, including the use of polygraphs, until after his blue-ribbon commission completes its work.

-------- activists

Rapid Action Network Alert-- support new Kuk Dong/NIKE union

Fri, 23 Mar 2001
From: Rachael Torchia <rmcrobe@bennington.edu>

Forwarded from Campaign for Labor Rights:
Rapid Action Network Alert, posted March 22, 2001

Kuk Dong Workers Establish Independent Union

Members of the independent worker coalition at the Kuk Dong factory in Atlixco, Mexico gathered on Sunday, March 18 to meet the legal requirements for forming an independent union. Kuk Dong is a factory that produces for, among others, Nike, Reebok, and many U.S. colleges and universities.

The drive for an independent union at Kuk Dong began in January 2001 as 800 of the factory's then 900 workers went on strike in protest of the unfair firings of five workers. Three months later, independent union supporters met and adopted statutes, elected leadership, and met the legal requirements for the formation of an independent union. By the end of the meeting, the unionists had taken the name SITEKIM, Sindicato Independiente de Trabajadores de la Empresa Kukdong International de Mexico or the Independent Union of Workers at the Company Kukdong International of Mexico. This is the first step in the process of becoming a legally recognized body with rights to represent the Kuk Dong workers.

Due to continued hostility towards the independent union, both inside and outside the plant (mainly at the hands of the conservative government affiliated union, the FROC-CROC - the union from which SITEKIM is struggling to win bargaining rights), workers feared reprisal or outright violence at Sunday's meeting. Fortunately, no such measures have been reported. However, in an intimidating move, the FROC-CROC did station three people with a video camera to tape the workers entering the meeting.

The meeting was also attended by a lawyer from a law firm in nearby Puebla, Mexico, by activists from the Comite de Apoyo al Trabajador, and by a student activists from United Students Against Sweatshops (USAS).

Reports from sources in Mexico say that the atmosphere in the Kuk Dong plant is calmer than it has been in months. The newly elected leaders are beginning to take on the role of representing their co-workers, investigating grievances and meeting with management on their behalf. A large majority of the workers in the factory are united in their support of SITEKIM.

Nike Pressured to Take a Stand

The lack of disruption of the founding meeting of SITEKIM was in part due to the success of the international campaign in pressuring Nike to intervene in a strong manner with direct communication to Kuk Dong management about the violations in the factory. On February 9th, the Corporate Responsibility Vice President of Nike, Dusty Kidd, sent a letter to the President of Kuk Dong, Mexico asking for some very specific demands including special outreach for reinstatement to the original five fired workers, reinstatement of all workers who wish to return with their previous seniority (addressing the problem of returning workers being treated as new workers), and publicizing the fact that the company dropped the charges waged against workers and supporters involved in the strike at the beginning of the year.

On March 14th, Veritè, an independent monitor hired by Nike to review the Kuk Dong case, released its findings and recommendations that revealed many code and Mexican law violations at the factory. These findings mainly corroborated the findings of the Worker Rights Consortium and the International Labor Rights Fund who issued separate reports at the end of January. This included the finding that most workers are unhappy with FROC-CROC representation and that a union election should be by a secret ballot vote.

In a publicly unprecedented response to these findings, Nike issued a remediation plan outlining the violations, the actions to be taken by Kuk Dong, and the timeline given for compliance. Included in these actions are: that the factory immediately develop a policy and documentation procedure of termination that does not included forcing workers to sign resignation notices; that the factory immediately support workers' freedom to select their own representation; and that over the next 6 weeks the factory work to bring its safety conditions up to standard.

Nike making these demands of Kuk Dong is a big success in anti-sweatshop organizing, a testament of the international solidarity campaign and, particularly, the effectiveness of the student anti-sweatshop movement codes of conduct. In part because Nike was "persuaded" by the student campaign to forcefully intervene, approximately 400 of the 800 strikers have returned to work. Most of the five original fired workers have returned, many workers have been reinstated with their previous seniority, and Kuk Dong did make efforts to outreach to all workers to invite them back to work. Nike's membership in the Fair Labor Association has also made them vulnerable to "internal" pressure from the International Labor Rights Fund.

Hostility Still Reigns, Where's Nike?

However, reports indicate that while significant gains have been made, the climate in the Kuk Dong factory is still hostile towards independent union organizing. While Nike claims that all the workers who wish to return are back in the factory, organizers feel many more wish to return. Also, it seems not all workers have received the seniority they once enjoyed. Workers report that the "neutral" ILO training sponsored by Nike was facilitated by a trainer who repeatedly endorsed the FROC-CROC during the training while not giving the same attention to the independent union.

Also, Kuk Dong has not worked to create a neutral space inside the factory. Kuk Dong has given the FROC-CROC access to company facilities (such as the public announcement system) during working hours without giving this access to the independent union. An independent union leader has reported that a member of the FROC-CROC drives around her house even though he does not live in her hometown and has told her that he was "guarding the chicks so that they would not step out of the fence." This behavior is interpreted as a threat to the worker's safety. Considering these events and the history of intimidation tactics employed by the FROC-CROC against the workers, reprisals against independent union supporters are still considered a strong threat.

What Nike did not include in its remediation plan is the need for a secret ballot vote for the union elections and a demand to end the advantages the FROC-CROC is taking of its access to company facilities to campaign against the independent union during working hours. Nike's neglect of these points leads to some questions as to the seriousness of Nike's commitment to freedom of association.

Next Step: Legal Recognition. Reprisals Still Possible & Union Asks For Support

In a March 18th statement released by the new union, the executive committee noted its future plans and its concerns: "During the next days, we will be requesting that the government recognize us as a union. We know we will be facing much pressure and greater reprisals by the company-imposed union, the FROC-CROC."

SITEKIM's statement calls for further support from the international community: "For this reason, we request your moral and political support to continue our struggle, through letters and e-mails to the government of the State of Puebla, the Local Labor Board, Kukdong, Nike and Reebok. We want Mexican laws to be respected and we don't want any unnecessary obstacles to obtain the union's legal recognition by the government. This will be the next step in a long struggle that will continue until we have a collective contract with the company."

Support SITEKIM!

Suggested Action:

1) Contact Nike and Kuk Dong and ask that they stave off reprisals or violence against the independent union supporters and, of course, not take these measures themselves, as SITEKIM strives for legal recognition.

~ Contact: Dusty Kidd, Global Director for Labor Practices, Nike Corp., One Bowerman Drive, Beaverton, OR 97003. Phone: (503) 671-6453; Fax: (503) 532-0440; Email: Dusty.Kidd@nike.com.

~ Contact: Hoon Park, General Manager, Kukdong International Mexico, S.A. de C.V. Retorno de los Continentes No. 38, Col. Rancho los Soles C.P. 74210, Atlixco, Puebla, Mexico. Phone: 011-52-2-446-1020-3; Fax: 011-52-2-446-1024; Email: kukdong@avante.net.mx

2) Contact the local government of Puebla, Mexico and ask that the process to grant legal recognition for SITEKIM be executed fairly and swiftly.

~ Contact: Government of the State of Puebla, C. Melquiades Morales Flores, Governor. Email: visit http://www.sicomnet.edu.mx/cgibin/rg/paginas/puegob/ejecutivo/cgis/correogobfrm.pl and fill out the form on this page.

Background:

The Kuk Dong Story: A Strike, A Police Attack, An Agreement, and Mass Firings

The strike of 800 of the some 900 workers at the Kuk Dong factory in southern Mexico that produces for Nike and many U.S. universities began on January 9, 2001 after the company fired or forced the resignation of 25 workers who had complained about low wages and rotten food in the cafeteria.

The workers claim that the union at the factory, the FROC-CROC, which is tied to the conservative Mexican political party, the PRI, is not representing their interests. For this reason, they want to create a new independent union in its place. Workers complain of forced overtime (including 14 to 16 year old workers who are legally required to work no more than 6 hours a day and are instead working 10), verbal abuse, and failure to give legally mandated benefits.

On January 11, as strikers picketed the factory gates, known "enforcers" of the FROC-CROC union attempted to provoke a confrontation with the 300 or so workers present. These attempts were unsuccessful, but soon after, approximately 200 riot police surrounded the workers in front of the plant and announced they had been ordered by the Governor to remove the workers from the area. The strikers put up no resistance. Nevertheless, the police used violence to disperse them--many workers were severely beaten. In fact, fifteen workers were sent to the hospital and two people had injuries severe enough to require hospitalization. There are even reports that the police were being directed by a leader of the FROC-CROC union, implying cooperation between the police and the company.

Two days later, an agreement was reached to allow the strikers to return to work without reprisals. The company agreed to distribute copies of this agreement to all the workers. However, when the workers tried to go back to work with copies of the agreement in hand, the guards at the factory gates would not let many of them return unless they signed a loyalty oath to the FROC-CROC. Hundreds of returning workers were either fired or forced to resign.

Kuk Dong then came to a second agreement at the end of January to rehire all the workers fired or forced to resign for supporting an independent union and to outreach to these workers to let them know it is safe to come back to the factory. As of the beginning of February, sources estimated the return of only 200 of the 800 workers who went on strike.

Mexican-based sources report that workers were intimidated to return to work due to the 30-40 armed riot police who were consistently in the factory, the fact that returning workers were being forced to sign a loyalty oath to the FROC-CROC, and their earned seniority status and pay was disregarded because they were being treated as new workers.

Since then, escalating the international campaign pressured Nike to intervene more forcefully with Kuk Dong management in February and March has which made a difference. The hostile climate towards the independent union continues to be a problem. Thus, the right to organize and freedom of association have not yet been won - but the initial loss has been reversed.

Kuk Dong International is a Korean-based Nike producer with large factories in Indonesia, Brazil, and Mexico. Reports indicate that there have been repeated labor disputes at Kuk Dong's Indonesian factory, most recently over the failure to pay a minimum wage.

You can find the monitor reports on Kuk Dong online: Veritè: www.nikebiz.com Worker Rights Consortium: www.workersrights.org International Labor Rights Fund: www.laborrights.org

Solidarity, Daisy Pitkin National Campaigns Coordinator Campaign for Labor Rights CLRDC@afgj.org (202) 544-9355

---

Greenpeace International founder dies in car crash

USA Today
03/23/2001 - Updated 06:54 PM ET
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2001-03-23-greenpeace.htm

ROME (AP) - David McTaggart, one of the founders of Greenpeace International, who piloted boats into the teeth of the French navy to disrupt nuclear testing, was killed Friday in a head-on car crash on a country road in central Italy. He was 68.

Police said McTaggart was alone in his car. The driver of the other car also died and his wife was injured, police said. The accident happened in Umbria, about 20 miles from Perugia.

"Greenpeace would be unimaginable without his force of personality," Gerd Leipold, the organization's interim international executive director, said from Amsterdam, Netherlands.

McTaggart, a native of Canada, had lived in Italy for many years and had an olive farm in Umbria.

He galvanized the international environmental movement in 1972 by leading protests against French nuclear-testing in the South Pacific.

He went on to stir up support throughout Europe for Greenpeace, forging an alliance in 1979 among separate factions of the organization and uniting them under his chairmanship as Greenpeace International. He was chairman until 1991.

In a separate incident in 1995, McTaggart and two companions slipped onto the Mururoa atoll in the South Pacific in an inflatable speedboat to disrupt planned French nuclear tests and remained their for two weeks playing cat and mouse with French authorities. As they infiltrated the atoll, French commandos stormed their main vessel, the Rainbow Warrior II.

Repeatedly detained by French authorities, his reckless confrontations with authority helped establish Greenpeace's reputation for fighting for the environment.

"He was the last medieval knight, capable of great symbolic acts for the environmental cause," said Gianfranco Bologna, a spokesman in Italy for the World Wildlife Fund.

Grazia Francescato, president of the Italian Green Party, called McTaggart "a figure of extraordinary force" and "an example for all of us."

In a 1991 article, Forbes magazine depicted him as a masterful manipulator and myth-maker who turned Greenpeace into one of the largest environmental organizations in the world and a booming business.

Under his leadership, it said, Greenpeace mastered "the tools of direct mail and image manipulation" and indulged "in forms of lobbying that would bring instant condemnation if practiced by a for-profit corporation."

McTaggart, sometimes dubbed "the shadow warrior," was "a very difficult person because he was extremely stubborn, extremely tough," said David Newmann, ex-director of Greenpeace Italy, adding he was "a person of enormous courage and determination."

Born in Vancouver, British Columbia, McTaggart worked in the construction business for 20 years, then moved to the United States in the 1960s where he became a successful contractor and developer.

He retired after an explosion destroyed a resort his firm had built and sailed the Pacific for pleasure. In 1971 he became outraged with the French government's decision to cordon off a vast swath of international waters in the Pacific for nuclear tests.

McTaggart was also a driving force behind Greenpeace campaigns to save the whales, to stop the dumping of nuclear waste in the ocean, to block the production of toxic wastes, to end nuclear testing, and to protect the Antarctic continent from oil and mineral exploitation.

There was no immediate information on survivors or funeral arrangements. McTaggart had been married several times.

---

Zapatistas to appear before Mexican Congress

USA Today
03/23/2001 - Updated 07:13 PM ET
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2001-03-23-mexrebels.htm

MEXICO CITY (AP) - Mexico's Zapatista rebels say they will stay in the capital to fight for peace, accepting a proposal to promote an Indian rights bill before Congress.

Rebel leader Subcomandante Marcos said Zapatista representatives would meet with lawmakers Friday to determine a date and format for the rebels' appearance.

"It appears that the doors to peace are starting to open," Marcos said in a late-night news conference Thursday outside the university where the rebels are staying.

"If there are no tricks, the Zapatista National Liberation Army will be in the Congress promoting the constitutional recognition of the rights and culture of the indigenous people."

In a last-minute effort to salvage peace in the southern state of Chiapas, legislators narrowly passed a measure Thursday requiring at least 100 members of the 682-seat Congress to be present when the rebels make their pitch.

Following a two-week journey from Chiapas, the 24 Zapatista leaders had pledged to stay in Mexico City until the Indian rights bill was approved. But early this week, angry that Congress refused to let them speak from the podium of its chambers, they announced they would leave on Friday.

Although the rebels accepted the offer to speak before lawmakers, they again rejected President Vicente Fox's invitation to meet with Marcos, saying he had not yet met their conditions to reopen talks with the government.

"We have the desire for true dialogue and to reach a rapid peace," masked rebel Comandante Zebedeo said at a news conference, stressing the Zapatistas want to start talks once their conditions are met.

In addition to the rights bill, the rebels want all military bases in Chiapas closed and all Zapatista sympathizers imprisoned on federal charges released.

Fox has closed four of seven bases and announced Wednesday he would turn three others into Indian community centers. Most of the jailed rebels have been released, and Fox proposed the bill to Congress after he took office in December.

Zebedeo complained that the last three bases were still open and that some sympathizers remained in jail.

"You know that for many years we have been tricked with false promises," he said. "So we do not trust in words, but in deeds."

Fox, who was in Los Angeles on Thursday, said he had met all the Zapatistas' demands and called again for a meeting with Marcos.

"Marcos, neither you nor I want the indigenous people of our country to remain in the margins of society, in extreme poverty, in exclusion and obscurity," Fox wrote in his invitation, which was circulated publicly Thursday. "Let's not allow ... inflexibility to eclipse the desire for peace that all Mexicans have."

The rebels seized six towns in Chiapas on Jan. 1, 1994. Twelve days of fighting left more than 145 dead before a cease-fire took hold. Peace talks stalled in 1996 after the government of former President Ernesto Zedillo rejected an Indian rights bill.

Meanwhile, in Chiapas on Thursday, cattlemen and landowners demonstrated in the city of San Cristobal de las Casas, demanding that the Zapatista leaders be prevented from returning to the state and be ordered to give back land and cattle seized during spates of violence in 1994 and 1995.

"We're going to block the return of the Zapatistas, and to fight to the end," said Constantino Kanter, an organizer of demonstrations that drew about 2,000 people.

On Thursday evening, hundreds of Chiapas Indians briefly took over two radio stations in the city and broadcast messages of support for the Zapatistas.

-------

NGOS LAMBASTE WORLD BANK FOR IGNORING DAM GUIDELINES

Inter Press Service,
March 23, 2001, Friday
By Gumisai Mutume

Nearly 100 non-governmental organizations have criticised the World Bank for refusing to adopt guidelines recommended by the groundbreaking World Commission on Dams report last year which were aimed at limiting the construction of destructive large dams.

The World Commission on Dams (WCD), an independent body which the Bank had a hand in establishing, announced in November that priority be put on optimizing existing water and energy facilities rather than on new large dam projects and that all decisions to build new dams be based on agreements with affected communities.

At the report's release, Bank President James Wolfensohn described it as impressive, saying it showed that common ground could be found "among people of good faith coming from very diverse starting points."

But, now the World Bank is singing a different tune, saying it will only use the guidelines proffered by the WCD as reference points rather than adopt them as rules governing its operation.

"We believe that the position which the World Bank and its representatives have taken on the WCD is ill-advised, disappointing and in parts inappropriate," notes a letter sent out to Wolfensohn this week by a network of 87 organizations and movements from 30 countries.

"If the Bank simply builds its position on the views of dam- building governments it should refrain from being an honest broker, but should make it clear that it represents one interest group in a conflictive debate," says the letter initiated by Swiss-based NGO, the Berne Declaration, and the South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People.

The NGOs charge that following the release of the report a Bank task-force studied it, management consulted with a number of governments supporting big dams and came up with the new stance, even though the Bank together with the World Conservation Union were behind the establishment of the WCD.

The WCD consisted of 12 prominent figures representing diverse views on big dam construction, including those of activists. It was headed by South African government minister Kader Asmal. Its objectives were to review the development effectiveness of large dams and develop international standards for planning, designing construction and decommissioning of dams.

After two years of study, WCD concluded that large dams have largely failed to provide as much electricity, as much water or control as much floods as their backers claim. Instead they have produced massive forced resettlements, environmental degradation and most often benefited those at the top at the expense of poor rural communities.

The WCD therefore recommended that no dam be built without the agreement of affected people, that comprehensive and participatory needs assessments be developed before new dams were built and periodic reviews be done on existing dams to assess their safety and where necessary decommission some. Furthermore, ways of paying reparations for those who suffered from big dam constructions had to be found.

The WCD estimates that between 40 and 80 million people have been displaced by large dams (defined as being higher than 15 meters), and in India and China alone, as many as 58 million people could have been displaced between 1950 and 1990.

Responding to questions on whether the Bank would adopt the WCD guidelines its senior water specialist John Briscoe said "no we are not going to comply with them, the majority of our borrowers say they are not implementable and the chairman of the commission himself, Asmal, says the guidelines are not meant to be binding."

"We will use it as a reference but not as a set of conditions to be complied with," says Briscoe noting that the Bank is an institution governed by its shareholders and borrowers -- some 182 governments. "Every borrower we have consulted says forget it, these guidelines are not realistic."

Some of the Bank's biggest clients such as India and China have categorically stated they will not respect the findings of the WCD. China is among the Bank's 10 largest borrowers that accounted for 62 percent of the Bank's total lending in 1999.

The Bank itself holds the reputation of being the largest single source of financing for large dam construction around the world, even though its involvement has waned in the face of intense public pressure.

According to the WCD, the Bank has provided an estimated $75 billion (in 1998 dollars) for about 540 large dams in 92 countries including many of the world's largest and most controversial projects.

In the late 1970s the Bank averted its eyes from the massacre of 400 Maya villagers by Guatemala's military government. Residents of the village of Rio Negro were refusing to leave their ancestral homes to make way for the construction of the Bank-funded Chixoy Dam.

The Bank's silence over the massacre was only broken in 1996 when human rights groups exposed the atrocities. An internal Bank investigation subsequently absolved the Bank of responsibility, but affected communities are still seeking reparations from Washington.

Patrick McCully, campaigns director of the California-based International Rivers Network says how the Bank treats the WCD report will influence whether or not other international organizations engaged in big dam projects integrate the recommendations into their own polices.

"While the Bank says it is building fewer dams now, it is still an important actor and its policies are viewed as the international standard by other development agencies," says McCully.

In their letter, the NGOs called on the Bank to adopt the recommendations, establish independent reviews of its planned and ongoing dam projects and provide reparations to communities harmed by its dam projects.

"If the Bank does not implement the consensus recommendations which were reached by the WCD, but uses dialogue only to deflect opposition, NGOs will likely distrust any future multi-stakeholder process promoted by the Bank," says Christine Eberlein of the Berne Declaration.

==

Neil Watkins <neil@econjustice.net> World Bank bonds boycott campaign Center for Economic Justice 1830 Connecticut Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20009 phone: (202) 299-0020 fax: (202) 299-0021 web: www.worldbankboycott.org


------- Onelist (submissions from subscribers)