------- Index of Articles

NUCLEAR
UK Admits Military Personnel Deliberately Exposed to Nuclear Tests
Shares of Canada uranium miners rise on Bush plan
Newport Can't Consider Northrop Bid
Lee sees 'too much' U.S. unilateralism
Lee sees China as unstoppable
Greens Warn Bush of Opposition to Come
Finnish lawmakers seen approving nuclear waste dump
France Fires Nuclear-Powered Ship
Japan village prepares for nuclear referendum
Resource-poor Japan hails Bush energy plan
No Time To Delay On North Korea
N. Korea threatens to end nuclear freeze
Missile Defense: A Third Strike
Russia Signs Deal to Raise Kursk
Bush Meets With Russia's Ivanov
Russian Defense Chief Sees More Arms Talks with U.S.
Fact sheet: mods and possible new nuke weapons
Alterations, Modifications, Refurbishments, and Possible New Designs
Eisenhower's Instructions Predelegating Nuclear Weapons Use
Ike Secretive on Nuclear Attack Plans
25 Years Later, Rumsfeld's Dream Is Alive Again
Bush - Putin Set Summit in Slovenia
Nuclear Power Play
Energy Industry Lobbying Congress
Bush Issues Energy Warning

MILITARY
Guinea Gunships Attack Sierra Leone
Russia, China say no to proposed sanction changes
Tomorrow's NATO
State targets plight of rights groups at U.N.
Ex-Army Chief: Bush Strategy Wrong
US-Indonesia Military Exercise Opens
Possible Military Overhaul Outlined
CIA China Wars

OTHER
Nevada - Solar Energy
Sweden's energy agency advocates more windpower
Germany's MVV to invest in more biomass plants
A Misguided Energy Proposal
Bush's new plan has a lot of waste gas
OPEC Addresses Bush's Energy Plan
Oil, Gas Drillers Welcome Bush Plan
Energy Plan Winners & Losers
Bush Signs Executive Energy Orders
Environmentalists say US energy plans disastrous
News Analysis: A New Focus on Supply
German President Urges Caution on Genetic Research
Russian Accuses Aid Groups of Spying


-------- NUCLEAR

-------- britain

UK Admits Military Personnel Deliberately Exposed to Nuclear Tests

By Jim Green, Ph.D.
May 18, 2001
ENS
http://ens-news.com/ens/may2001/2001L-05-18-04.html

SYDNEY, Australia, The British government has admitted that British, Australian and New Zealand military personnel were used in radiation experiments during the nuclear weapons tests at Maralinga in South Australia in the 1950s, but claims that clothing was being tested, not humans.

Confirming statements made repeatedly by veterans over the years, the British Ministry of Defence acknowledged on May 11 that it used military personnel from Britain, Australia and New Zealand in various experiments.

Geoffrey Hoon is Secretary of State for Defence of the United Kingdom. (Photo courtesy UK Ministry of Defence)

A statement released by the British government said that military personnel were "transported to or walked in various uniforms to an area of low-level fallout."

The admission followed publicity surrounding a document found in the Australian National Archive in February by Sue Rabbitt Roff, a senior research fellow from Scotland's Dundee University.

The October 12, 1956, document on an "Australian Military Forces - Central Command" letterhead refers to the Buffalo series of four atmospheric nuclear tests conducted at Maralinga in September and October, 1956. The document names 70 Australian military personnel and one civilian, plus five New Zealand officers, all listed as exposed to radiation following a September 27 nuclear test.

"As far as can be determined the individual dose for round one was received over a period of two to three hours while the various indoctrinee groups were touring the target response area. ... Certain people were exposed to radiation on dates other than 28 and 29 Sep, during clothing trials or for a limited number during a tour of the contaminated area after round two," the document says.

At least 26 of the 76 people named as being exposed to radiation from tests in 1956 received a dose greater than the "maximum permissible exposure" of 0.3 roentgens in a week; the highest exposure was 0.66 roentgens in a few hours, the central command document reveals.

During Operation Buffalo in October 1956, two 49 Squadron Valiants dropped Britain's first atomic bombs on Maralinga range, Australia. (Photo courtesy UK Ministry of Defence)

Some men were chosen for "clothing trials" from an "indoctrinee force" of British, Australian and New Zealand military personnel. The men walked, crawled and were driven through a fallout zone three days after a nuclear test at Maralinga.

Roff dismisses the British government's claim that it was testing clothing, not humans, and says that thousands of Commonwealth military personnel not directly involved in the nuclear tests at Maralinga were required to be outdoors to observe the detonations.

Roff said the central command document contradicts claims by the British government in the European Court of Human Rights in 1997 that no humans were used in experiments in nuclear weapons trials; a claim which enabled the British government to successfully defeat compensation claims.

"I was in the court in 1997 when the government denied using humans [in] studies of the effects of radiation," Roff said. "In fact the government said it would be 'an act of indefensible callousness to have done so.'"

The European Court of Human Rights was presented with a 1953 memo issued by the British "Defense Research Policy Sub-Committee of the Chiefs of Staff Committee." The memo, titled "Atomic Weapons Trials" and marked "Top Secret," stated, "The army must discover the detailed effects of various types of explosions on equipment, stores and men with and without various types of protection."

Veterans of the Maralinga tests have described trucks speeding past to raise dust to make sure military personnel "got a bit of the fallout over the top of us," and being ordered to uncover equipment shelters located 100-150 meters (325-490 feet) from ground zero about one hour after a test, without protective clothing.

Men have described being ordered to roll in the dust about five kilometers (three miles) from ground zero after a test; ship and ground crews washing down equipment and themselves with irradiated water; and drinking contaminated water and eating contaminated food.

Ric Johnstone, national president of the Australian Nuclear Veterans Association, referred to the military personnel at Maralinga in a July 2000 statement. "They were provided with little or no protective clothing and seldom badged while some badges and dosimeters were falsified or not recorded because of high readings. In spite of this long lived dangerous level of radioactivity, the Australian Government expect us to believe that the test participants were exposed to only minimal non-hazardous levels of radiation."

Thirty Australian veterans are seeking compensation from the federal government as a result of weapons tests at Maralinga and on the Monte Bello Islands off the coast of Western Australia.

Buck-passing between successive British and Australian governments has for many years been a familiar ploy to avoid responsibility for the nuclear tests. Another ploy has been to stall for time in the expectation that the political controversy will fade away as veterans die. A large majority of the people involved in weapons tests in Australia have already died.

Australian Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Bruce Scott (Photo courtesy government of Australia)

Bruce Scott, Minister for Veterans' Affairs, responded to Roff's release of Australian archives by saying that his office has contacted Roff in Scotland to ask her to forward the documents. But the documents are held in the national archive in Canberra, Australia, and Scott has access to further information which still remains classified.

In 1999, the federal government announced it would compile a "nominal roll" of veterans, Aborigines and others who may have been exposed to radiation from the Maralinga tests. The roll is expected to be complete in June or July 2001. A cancer incidence study is promised following compilation of the roll.

An offical from the Veterans' Affairs department said in a Senate hearing in May 2000 that the cancer incidence study would be complete by the end of 2000 - yet it has not even begun as at May 2001.

Ric Johnstone said in his July 2000 statement that the government's procrastination was "... just another stalling tactic as the government are now fully aware that time is on their side."

Scott says that issues raised by Roff in recent weeks will only be pursued if "there is any new material in these documents that hasn't been raised before in the context of the royal commission." The McClelland Royal Commission inquiry into the British weapons tests in Australia did raise the issue of clothing trials in its 1985 report, possibly basing its findings on the same document uncovered by Roff.

Ric Johnstone heads the Australian Nuclear Veterans Association (Photo courtesy ANVA)

Johnstone derided the government's claim that victims are being adequately dealt with under the Military Compensation Scheme. "The onus of proof is on the claimant and not on the government as it is under the Veterans Entitlement Act. So go ahead and prove it if you can, knowing full well that since all of the tests were done under maximum secrecy - some aspects of the tests will never be revealed - and that all records are held by the Australian or the British governments, it is going to be almost impossible for a claimant to prove the relationship between radiation exposure and illness, disease or death without their help, which has been constantly refused."

The government has consistently refused to provide funding for medical tests to assist in the determination of past radiation exposure.

The radioactive contamination remains at Maralinga - much of it from so-called minor trials which did not involve fission explosions but scattered about 24 kilograms (53 pounds) of plutonium nonetheless.

The last of four cleanups was completed last year, but a leaked email from Geoff Williams, a senior officer of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA), complained about "a host of indiscretions, short-cuts and cover-ups."

ARPANSA chief executive officer Dr. John Loy describes the clean-up as "world's best practice." The radioactive materials were buried in unlined trenches. More thorough clean-up options were debated and discarded.

Trenches at Maralinga in which plutonium contaminated soil was buried. An American company, CH2M Hill, won the contract to ensure the cleanup meets appropriate health physics criteria. (Photo courtesy ARPANSA)

Alan Parkinson, a nuclear engineer with over 40 years experience and a former government adviser on the Maralinga clean-up, wrote in the April 16, 2000, Canberra Times, "Is Dr. Loy saying that a hole in the ground, without any treatment or lining is world best practice? That isn't even world best practice for disposal of household garbage, let alone a long-lived hazardous substance such as plutonium."

Parkinson said a temporary storage pit should have been dug and lined with concrete for use until a permanent storage technique would be devised to immobilize the plutonium.

The Aboriginal owners of the land have been adversely affected by the nuclear tests. The Menzies government did not seek permission from traditional owners before the tests. Some Aborigines in South Australia were given one way train tickets to Karlgoorlie; others were herded into a camp at Yalata, a mission station 150 kilometers (93 miles) west of Ceduna. Others others remained in the testing range during the tests, a fact known to the Australian government at the time.

The McClelland Royal Commission concluded about the Buffalo series, "Overall, the attempts to ensure Aboriginal safety during the Buffalo series demonstrate ignorance, incompetence and cynicism on the part of those responsible for that safety."

A 1996 government report on the Maralinga cleanup said, "The project is aimed at reducing Commonwealth liability arising from residual contamination."

Having appropriated and polluted Aboriginal land, the federal government now wants to "reduce Commonwealth liability" by giving the land back to the traditional owners, the Tjarutja. The government's maneuvring to avoid future responsibility may continue for some months or years and will involve the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency.

The ongoing scandals surrounding the Maralinga project are of interest to the vast majority of South Australians who are opposed to the federal government's plan to build a national radioactive waste dump in South Australia. The same bureaucrats are involved, the same minister, the same regulatory agency. And the same game plan - dump the waste in unlined trenches while insisting that this is "world's best practice."

-------- business

Shares of Canada uranium miners rise on Bush plan

May 18, 2001
Reuters
http://news.excite.com/news/r/010518/16/minerals-uranium-stocks

TORONTO - Shares of big Canadian uranium producer Cameco Corp. hit a 52-week high Friday, buoyed by U.S. plans to increase use of nuclear power.

The plans, unveiled by U.S. President George W. Bush Thursday, include streamlining the licensing of new nuclear plants and tax incentives.

Shares of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan-based Cameco, which supplies about 25 percent of the world's uranium, closed up 40 Canadian cents at C$41.75 on volume of 207,000 shares Friday on the Toronto Stock Exchange, after touching a 52-week high of C$41.95 earlier in the day.

The much smaller Denison Mines Ltd. , which has an interest in a number of uranium projects, closed up 1 Canadian cent to a 52-week high of 21 Canadian cents, on volume of 4.7 million shares, after touching a high of 22 Canadian cents earlier in the session.

"The stocks are obviously running on the new energy policy in the United States," said Terence Ortslan, a metals analyst at T.S. Ortslan & Associates, in Montreal. "We haven't seen serious nuclear commitment by the United States since the early to mid-'70s."

Ortslan noted the United States is the world's biggest nuclear market with 20 percent of its energy coming from more than 100 nuclear plants.

Ortslan said that with the expanded nuclear power capability coming on stream over the next decade there could be huge demand for uranium to feed the facilities.

----

Newport Can't Consider Northrop Bid

By Bill Baskervill
Associated Press Writer
Friday, May 18, 2001
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20010518/aponline161804_000.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/business/AP-Northrop-Newport-News.html?searchpv=aponline

RICHMOND, Va. -- Northrop Grumman Corp. has not provided enough information about its $2.1 billion bid to buy Newport News Shipbuilding Inc. for the company's board to consider the proposal, Newport News' top executive said Friday.

For now, the Newport News, Va.-based builder of nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers is focusing on a previously announced merger with General Dynamics Corp., said Newport News chairman and chief executive William B. Fricks.

Northrop Grumman spokesman Bob Bishop said details of the proposal by the Los Angeles-based defense giant will be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and forwarded to Newport News officials early next week.

Northrop Grumman announced its surprise offer to buy Newport News last week, saying its a bid matches the offer from Falls Church, Va.-base General Dynamics.

But Fricks said Newport News' board cannot consider the Northrop Grumman proposal until it receives crucial information about the deal's financial terms.

"Our plan is to proceed with the deal in hand unless we have a superior offer before we close the deal," Fricks told reporters after speaking at Newport News' annual shareholders meeting.

Newport News spokeswoman Jerri Fuller Dickseski said Fricks was not suggesting that Northrop Grumman should raise the price of its offer. Until more information is received from Northrop, its proposal doesn't qualify as a bona fide offer, she said.

"We only have one offer right now," she said.

Northrop's bid for Newport News would come in at the same $67.50 per share price as General Dynamic's offer. But the offer is 75 percent stock and 25 percent cash, while General Dynamic's proposal is an all-cash transaction.

Northrop so far has not provided key details on the exchange rate for the stock portion of its bid.

Northrop officials have claimed that their bid stands a better chance of being approved by the Navy and the Defense Department because a General Dynamics-Newport News combination would leave the country with only one builder of nuclear submarines.

General Dynamics and Newport News officials have said their are no antitrust issues because the two companies have cooperated on nuclear submarine construction for years.

Two years ago, then-Defense Secretary William Coven said a purchase of Newport News by General Dynamics or Litton Industries Inc. - bought by Northrop last month for $3.8 billion - would stifle competition.

Federal officials have until May 25 to issue a decision on the General Dynamics-Newport News combination. The deadline can be extended 10 days if General Dynamics and Newport News decide they need to provide additional information.

Fricks expressed confidence that regulators will approve the deal.

"I would not have entered into the General Dynamics deal if I did not think the primary customer was in agreement with it," he said.

Some Newport News shareholders have filed lawsuits seeking to block the purchase by General Dynamics, but the lawsuits were not mentioned at Friday's shareholders meeting.

One lawsuit said the acquisition is "wrongful, unfair and harmful" to shareholders because the yard's board agreed to the sale without looking for better offers. Newport News officials denied the lawsuits' claims.

-------- china

Lee sees 'too much' U.S. unilateralism

May 18, 2001
Washington Times
United Press International
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20010518-22077479.htm

Senior statesman Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore has been active in every major Asian event for 40 years, a staunch Cold War ally of the United States and close friend ever since and an unofficial mediator between China and Taiwan. He rejected Western-type democracy in favor of authoritarian government to build Singapore into the world´s largest port and an ultramodern city-state of 4 million. He retired as prime minister in 1990, but is still Singapore´s dominant political figure with the title of Senior Minister. Arnaud de Borchgrave, editor-at-large of The Washington Times, interviewed him in Singapore.

Question: On Taiwan, which President Bush said the United States would defend by any means necessary, what do you think would be the wisest policy at this juncture?

Answer: The strategic question for America is: Do you want to encourage a situation in which the Taiwanese government, relying on American support, decides that there is no need to discuss eventual reunification with China? In that case the danger of armed conflict between Taiwan and China is greatly increased and America will be drawn in. America´s allies and friends in the Asia Pacific do not see any advantage in a drift toward armed confrontation.

The U.S. has expressed its strong opposition to China using force to reunite Taiwan with the mainland. China genuinely wants dialogue and negotiations, but on the basis that Taiwan acknowledges the "one China principle" -- one country with two systems, or three with Hong Kong. But the present Taiwan government has not accepted this. President Chen Shui-bian, whose DPP party stands for independence, says the one-China principle is a subject for discussion. He does not accept that talks with Beijing should be about how to reunite the mainland and Taiwan, even though the U.S., and all other permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, and all countries in the U.N., except 20, recognize "one China."

Q: What really worries China about Taiwan?

A: Certainly not Taiwan´s economic prosperity, as some believed back in the 1970s and ´80s. China is actually helping to make Taiwan more competitive by encouraging Taiwanese investments to exploit the mainland´s cheap labor, land and other resources. A more prosperous Taiwan means not just more investments in China, but an even stronger desire among the majority of Taiwanese not to upset the status quo. But a Taiwan that is drifting away from China and creeping toward independence will set off alarm bells in Beijing.

All in East Asia know that China will go to any lengths to prevent Taiwan´s independence. Unless Taiwan is willing to talk about the terms for an eventual reunification, there will be increased problems and heightened tension between China and Taiwan.

Many in the region regard a U.S. presence as stabilizing and benign and want it to balance the growing weight of China. But none believe that a line drawn across the Taiwan Straits can be held for very long.

Q: If Taiwan were to go the route of UDI (unilateral declaration of independence), how would you expect China to react?

A: Without question, China would use force. After its repeated threats, China has to do so, or be seen as a paper tiger. But I do not foresee Taiwan declaring independence after the U.S. has made clear it will not support it.

Q: China is becoming more like Taiwan, at least economically.

A: In terms of a free-market economy, yes.

Q: Won´t pluralism have to follow?

A: But that´s going to take 20 to 30 years. I don´t believe this will happen in the next decade. Younger people do not rise to the ranks of the top leadership in China. Traditionally and historically, you have to wait until you have reached your 60s. We have to wait for the current generation, people now in their 20s who have been exposed to Western education and the ways of pluralistic societies. They must reach their 50s before we will see the changes that are inevitable sooner or later. Maybe the age of the Internet, satellite TV and global transparency will shorten the time frame.

Q: When I arrived In Singapore, it seemed the world was suddenly upside down. Headlines in the Singapore Strait Times said, "The U.S. vs. The Rest of the World"; "Bush Has Alarm Bells Ringing Across Asia and Europe"; "New US-UN Rift Sign of World in Flux." The U.S., betrayed by 14 nations, had just been voted out of the U.N. Human Rights Commission to be replaced by Sudan. And the U.S., the country most impacted by narcotics trafficking, also lost its seat on the International Narcotics Control Board. What is going on and where do you think the U.S. went wrong?

A: I think there´s growing discomfort at the unilateralism that has been accentuated since the Bush administration came to power. It was already there with Clinton, but Clinton was a master wordsmith and managed to disguise his real intentions. Bush is a straight-talker who speaks what´s in his mind. Even when he doesn´t intend to, it still comes out.

Q: The U.S. is seen as too big and too cocky?

A: People feel squatted upon. And what you´re seeing is too much unilateralism, and the message is "enough is enough."

Q: The world is clearly in a greater state of flux than at any other time since the end of the Cold War. As we look at the next 50 years of the 21st century, what is your idea of a viable global security system, especially for this part of the world?

A: What existed since World War II has evolved. It was frozen by the Cold War. Lines were clear. But this was re-delineated in 1972, when [President] Nixon and [his national security adviser, Henry] Kissinger went to Beijing. That was good fortune for China. Without that breakthrough, we would not have seen a Deng Xiaoping to bring China into the modern age -- first the coastal cities, then the riverine cities -- which saved China from the kind of explosion that demolished the Soviet Union.

We are gradually moving toward a very different system, in which China becomes the largest player on this side of the Pacific. Not suddenly, but over two or three decades. Like Europe, where they could not possibly balance the Soviet Union and therefore NATO was necessary with America and Canada, we are now in a similar position.

Japan, however advanced and highly developed, South Korea, and even a reunited Korea, and the rest of Asia cannot balance China. There is nothing Hong Kong and Taiwan are doing that China cannot do better if they educate their people into the modern age, which they are doing.

I would go one step further. There is nothing the Japanese and Koreans have done that China can´t do better in the years to come. You cannot stop them. Shanghai is now a city of almost 15 million and still streaming in, as well as into Shenzhen. Its new Silicon Valley attracts the cream of the crop. There is a reverse brain drain with highly motivated and well-educated Chinese giving up lucrative jobs and good lifestyles abroad and returning to new challenges in mainland China.

Q: What you are saying is that the U.S. can´t prevent China from becoming a major player in the world.

A: You can´t. No way. But the Chinese leadership can. They can abort the process if they change course from the inevitable consequences of an open market, especially if they go into conflict over Taiwan.

But I was greatly encouraged to read the speech of President Jiang Zemin at last week´s Fortune 500 Forum in Hong Kong -- very moderate and highly controlled. It is clear China wants to avoid conflict and go into the [World Trade Organization] and face the new rules of international play. Given their size and wealth and technological competence, it is quite logical that they will want a bigger say in how the neighborhood is run.

Q: Won´t a growing toleration for political dissent in China be part of the new rules?

A: In China´s known 4,000-year history, no government was elected by counting heads. No Chinese government in history has tolerated any political group that wanted to unseat it.

I do not believe Western-style democracy will come about in China within the next 30 years. However, some form of participatory government will evolve. They have already started with village-level elections. It is not inconceivable that in the medium term, the practice could move up the ladder.

China is a hugely complex country. It has never had a functioning democracy, so its approach will likely be tentative and experimental. They will avoid a free-for-all contest with unpredictable results. But China´s governance cannot remain static. The information revolution with the Internet and instant access to information is increasing the ability of the Chinese people to communicate with each other and make their views felt.

As the population moves over the next 50 years from over 70 percent in the rural areas to over 70 percent in the urban areas, the system must change. The people and the society are already changing. In the next 20 to 30 years, China will be a radically different society and its system of government will be correspondingly different.

Q: Vis-a-vis China, America´s political establishment is divided between "engagers" and "containers." But since the April 1 incident over the South China Sea, engagers say their position has become increasingly precarious. For example, Congressman Curt Weldon (Pennsylvania Republican), an engager, says that on his last three trips to China he met with senior military officials who believe in the "inevitability of war" with the U.S. "sooner or later." So where do we go from here?

A: When senior military officials talk to a visiting U.S. senator or congressman about the inevitability of war with the U.S., I certainly do not take that as a policy statement. It´s part of their military mind-set.

No Chinese leader can afford to work or plan on the basis of an inevitable war with the U.S. The consequences would be debilitating for their economic modernization. To work on the assumption that they cannot avoid war with the U.S. is to adopt an apocalyptic view of their own future. The stakes must be so high that they are prepared to abandon any hope of a modern, industrialized and technologically capable China. They will do so only if they fear that they will lose Taiwan.

Q: Falun Gong means what, in your judgment? A sect, a spiritual or political movement? Or a subversive movement as Beijing claims?

A: A year or so ago, I was talking to a Chinese leader and said, "You know, when you have rapid economic development and rapid change in peoples´ lives -- even though for the better, from hovels to high-rises -- they are disoriented."

This happened in Singapore, and we had a sudden growth in religious activity. People became Christians, the Buddhists got active, and various sects got going. This was in the 1970s and it puzzled me. So we formed a committee to study the problem here, and in Hong Kong, Taiwan, Korea and Japan, where there was similar rapid transformation. And they experienced exactly the same phenomenon. The Koreans were becoming Christians in huge numbers. And the explanation was -- which I believed was sound -- that a sense of rootlessness had triggered a group search for eternal truths and spiritual solace. So you become religious. In Japan, each time there´s a crisis a new sects pop up.

Q: To the point where the regime could be in jeopardy?

A: Since that conversation, I must admit I have a big question mark against the Falun Gong. For no rhyme or reason, they started demonstrating in Singapore. They started putting up banners to protest against arrests in China. They caused a public disturbance and we told them to disperse. They refused, so we arrested them.

Interestingly enough, most of them were Chinese mainlanders who were working in Singapore. We were then bombarded with e-mails from all over the world. So I do not believe this is simply a deep-breathing, meditating exercise. It´s a heavy-breathing political exercise.

Q: As modern Singapore´s Founding Father and leader for 40 years, you long argued that rapid economic development and Western democratic politics were incompatible. Isn´t this now changing under the pressure of globalization and transparency?

A: Yes, of course. We have changed and continue to change and cannot possibly predict what we will look like 10 years from now. With the exponential growth of the Internet, we are bound to be a very different society. The people are more involved, sending e-mails to ministers and getting replies. But this doesn´t mean we are going to be like a Western society. The values are different.

We also have the growing divide, not between Indians and Chinese, and Malays and Chinese, but between the Muslims and non-Muslims. Islam is going through a renaissance and globalizing. Its disciples are using modern technology to reassert themselves and spread the Muslim message.

Throughout 150 years of British rule and 36 years of independence, dress was never an issue. But now the Muslims have made it a major one. I´m sure you´ve seen the covered heads of women around town. It´s part of this worldwide movement. And we have a problem.

Q: Where do you see the major threats in the next 10 years? Is it Islamist extremism?

A: To call it a threat antagonizes the majority of Muslim moderates, the very people we should convince to be part of the mainstream. This world is going to globalize whether we like it or not. The biggest threat will be the challenges to the status quo -- from China and India.

Q: Hence the rapprochement between the U.S. and India as a balance to China´s growing geopolitical clout?

A: It makes good geopolitical sense. India lost a good 40 years going with the Soviets, and they now realize it.

Q: And the second biggest threat to global stability?

A: I would say the Gulf, when those regimes change over the next few years -- a transition that will be aggravated by the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. That is the real tinderbox in the foreseeable future.

The Muslim nuclear weapon -- which already exists in Pakistan -- will travel to other Muslim countries in the years to come.

Rational people don´t worry me. China is rational, so is India, America, Europe and the rest of the world. But not the Islamist fundamentalist extremists. I am very worried because this fanaticism is growing in Indonesia, which is next door to us.

----

Lee sees China as unstoppable

May 18, 2001
By Arnaud de Borchgrave
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20010518-784264896.htm

SINGAPORE -- China is going to become a major player in the world and there is nothing the United States can do to prevent it, Asia´s senior statesman Lee Kuan Yew said.

The biggest threats to global stability, said Mr. Lee, will be "the challenges to the status quo from China and India" while the "tinderbox" is Islamist extremism coupled with "a Muslim nuclear weapon that will travel."

Independent Singapore´s Founding Father and a close friend of the United States for the past 40 years, Mr. Lee explained in an interview why China is now the world´s second most powerful nation.

"There is nothing" Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong have done "that China can´t do better in the years to come," Mr. Lee said. "You cannot stop [the Chinese]. Shanghai is now a city of almost 15 million and still streaming in, as well as into Shenzhen. Its new Silicon Valley is the cream of the crop. ... Take your Ivy League and West Coast universities and multiply by five and then imagine that concentrated in two cities."

Chinese generals who have talked to U.S. congressmen about the "inevitability of war" with the United States sooner or later are reflecting their own military "mind-set," not Chinese policy, he said.

"No Chinese leader can afford to work or plan on the basis of [war with the United States]," Mr. Lee said, but he made clear that China indeed would go to war if Taiwan opted for a unilateral declaration of independence.

If the United States decided to draw a line across the Taiwan Straits, Mr. Lee said, no East Asian nation believes it can be "held for very long."

"It is clear China wants to avoid conflict," Mr. Lee stated emphatically, "and go into the [World Trade Organization]. Given their size, wealth and competence, it is quite logical that they will want a bigger say in how the neighborhood is run."

"We are gradually moving toward a very different [security] system, in which China becomes the largest player on this side of the Pacific," he said. "Not suddenly, but over two or three decades."

"The Oracle of the Orient," as he has been dubbed, believes that President Bush´s statement that the United States would defend Taiwan by any means necessary encouraged Taiwan to conclude that there was no need to discuss eventual reunification with China.

The United States quickly made clear that it had not changed its "one-China" policy.

"China genuinely wants dialogue and negotiations," Mr. Lee said, but Taiwan´s governing party stands for independence and concedes only that the "one-China principle is a subject for discussion."

Taiwanese leader Chen Shui-bian, Mr. Lee said, "does not accept that talks with Beijing should be about how to reunite the mainland and Taiwan, even though the U.S. and all other permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, and all countries in the U.N., except 20, recognize one China."

China is actually helping to make Taiwan more competitive by encouraging Taiwanese investments to exploit the mainland´s cheap labor, land and resources," he said. "A more prosperous Taiwan means not just more investments in China, but an even stronger desire among a majority of Taiwanese not to upset the status quo."

But in the same interview, Mr. Lee conceded that the Taiwanese would opt for independence "if they could do so [with impunity]. ... For all intents and purposes, they have been independent since the Japanese left in 1945." Pluralism in China? Not until the current crop of Western-educated Chinese who are now in their 20s reach political leadership age in their 60s, Mr. Lee said, though the Internet, global TV networks and globalization in general probably will shorten the time frame and bring about some form of "participatory democracy."

At first, Mr. Lee believed that Falun Gong was the same phenomenon that had sprung up in rapidly changing societies when people developed a sense of "rootlessness" and sought "eternal truths and spiritual solace."

A ranking Chinese official told Mr. Lee that Falun Gong threatened stability much the way the Boxer Rebellion did.

"Since that conversation, I must admit I have a big question mark against Falun Gong," he said. "For no rhyme or reason, they started demonstrating in Singapore. ... They caused a public disturbance and we told them to disperse. They refused, so we arrested them. Interestingly enough, most of them were Chinese mainlanders who were working in Singapore. We were then bombarded with e-mails from all over the world. So I do not believe this is simply a deep-breathing, meditating exercise. It´s a heavy breathing political exercise."

Asked about headlines in Singapore that depict the United States at odds with the rest of the world -- especially with its recent ouster from the U.N. Human Rights Commission and the International Narcotics Control Board -- Mr. Lee said U.S. unilateralism was to blame.

"There´s a growing discomfort at the unilateralism that has been accentuated since the Bush administration came to power. It was already there with [President] Clinton, but Clinton was a master wordsmith and managed to disguise his real intentions. Bush is a straight talker who speaks what´s in his mind. Even when he doesn´t intend to, it still comes out."

"People feel squatted upon," Mr. Lee explained. "and the message [to the United States] is 'enough is enough.´"

The biggest threat to global stability, Mr. Lee concluded, will be the challenges to the status quo from China and India.

After that, "I would say the [Persian] Gulf, when those regimes change over the next few years, a transition that will be aggravated by the Israeli-Palestinian crisis.

"That is the real tinderbox in the foreseeable future. The Muslim nuclear weapon -- which already exists in Pakistan -- will travel to other Muslim countries in the years to come. Rational people don´t worry me. China is rational, so is India, America and Europe and the rest of the world. But not the Islamist fundamentalist extremists. I am very worried because this fanaticism is growing in Indonesia, which is next door to us."

-------- europe

Greens Warn Bush of Opposition to Come

May 18, 2001 By REUTERS http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-bush-en.html

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain's Green Party has warned President Bush his plan to tackle the U.S. energy crisis would face a barrage of criticism at a European Union summit next month.

Jean Lambert, Green Party spokeswoman and European Parliament member, said on Friday Greens across Europe would martial their forces to blast Bush's energy policy.

``Bush's plans to increase drilling for fossil fuels and increase nuclear capacity are potentially disastrous,'' Lambert said at the launch of the Green's campaign for Britain's June 7 general election.

``He is taking the completely wrong direction and should be concerned with reducing demand for energy, not with producing more of it. We will certainly focus on Bush and his environmental policies at the summit in Sweden,'' Lambert said, referring to the Gothenburg meeting set for June 13.

While the Greens have yet to make headway in mainstream British politics, they are a political player in parts of continental Europe, and have become a potent force in Germany.

Bush, who has been slammed by international environmental groups over his plans to expand U.S. coal, oil and nuclear power production, is scheduled to attend the summit.

He has called his energy strategy a remedy to ``the most serious energy shortage'' since the 1970s.

But the European Commission unveiled its own strategy earlier this week to put environmental protection at the heart of all its policies and to make the EU the world leader in sustainable economic development.

Europe and the United States have locked horns over environmental policy since Bush pulled out of the 1997 Kyoto climate change deal in March.

European Commission President Romano Prodi will submit his paper, ``A Sustainable Europe for a Better World,'' to EU Leaders at the summit.

The Green party, which is fielding 140 candidates in the campaign for the June 7 British election, is touting policies of fairer taxation, increased petrol duty and a ban on genetically modified foods.

-------- finland

Finnish lawmakers seen approving nuclear waste dump

FINLAND: May 18, 2001
Story by Heli Suominen
REUTERS
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=10862

HELSINKI - Finland's parliament is expected to back a proposal to build a 500-metre-deep final repository for the country's radioactive nuclear waste, leading political parties said yesterday.

Parliament debated the controversial plan on Wednesday and will vote on it on Friday.

The three largest parties in parliament - the co-ruling Social Democrats (SDP) and Conservatives and the opposition Centre Party - have already in principle backed the proposal, according party officials Reuters has spoken to.

These three parties would guarantee more than enough support in the house to pass it.

"The (SDP) will vote in favour of the government's proposal and it will definitely pass because there was only one objection," said Sisko Seppa, a spokeswoman for the SDP's parliamentary group.

If the lawmakers approve the plan, Finnish waste-disposal company Posiva would start building the deep waste dump in western Finland in 2010, but the radioactive waste would not be deposited there until 2020 at the earliest.

However, if members of parliament have objections to the actual construction plans at a later date they would be able to raise the issue again.

Friday's decision would make Finland the first country in the world to give political approval to the notion that nuclear waste can be placed in permanent underground waste facilities, though several other countries are exploring the idea, according to Greenpeace.

The move comes at a time when countries across Europe are moving away from nuclear power with public opinion increasingly opposed to both atomic energy and worried about radioactive waste disposal.

Even the Greens, junior partners in Finland's coalition government and strongly opposed to nuclear power, have decided to vote for the proposal.

"The underground disposal is a better option than the temporary storage above ground, but it is clear that further research is needed before the actual burying (of waste)," said Janina Andersson, Green MP and representative in the economic committee that recommended the proposal.

"There is no good final solution for nuclear waste, but something has to be done with it", she said.

A 1995 law forbids the export of nuclear waste, which up to the mid-1990s was shipped to Russia for reprocessing and storage.

Accepting the proposal would amount to political approval of the plan to bury the radioactive waste underground at Olkiluoto in the town of Eurajoki on the west coast of Finland, next to the nuclear power plant there.

The Eurajoki authorities have already accepted the radioactive waste unit, which would annually bring the town up to 10 million markka ($1.49 million), nearly 17,000 markka per capita, in real estate tax revenues.

-------- france

France Fires Nuclear-Powered Ship

MAY 18, 14:24 EST http://wire.ap.org/APnews/center_story.html?FRONTID=EUROPE&STORYID=APIS7C2MK0G0

PARIS (AP) - After a three-year delay, France officially launched the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle on Friday, its first new carrier in nearly 40 years.

The vessel, France's first nuclear-powered carrier, cost $2.7 billion to build, making it Europe's most expensive piece of military hardware, a French naval spokesman said.

``We are not going to crow about it, but we are proud to give France the ability to intervene when needed anywhere in the world,'' said Lt. Cmdr. Jerome Erulin.

The go-ahead for the new ship, which has been plagued by woes including a broken propeller, a runway too short to accommodate some planes and engine trouble, comes as military leaders in France debate whether to seek a sister ship for the costly new vessel.

Defense Minister Alain Richard has said he expects a decision within the next year on whether to build a second carrier, which the navy says would cost about $1.8 billion.

``The belief is that we need to have two so that at least one will always be ready,'' Erulin said. Nuclear-powered carriers need frequent maintenance, making them operable only 70 percent of the year, he said.

The vessel fills a hole in France's naval arsenal after the sale last year of its only other operational aircraft carrier, the Foch, to Brazil.

The new ship is 240 yards long with a displacement of 40,000 tons, making it roughly 50 percent larger than the Foch. It can carry as many as 40 planes - bombers, fighters and surveillance planes - and hold a crew of 2,000.

It will be based in the Mediterranean port city of Toulon.

-------- japan

Japan village prepares for nuclear referendum

JAPAN: May 18, 2001
REUTERS
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=10856

TOKYO - A village in northern Japan formally announced yesterday the start of campaigning for a rare referendum this month to decide on the use of controversial recycled nuclear fuel in a local power plant.

The vote, which will not be legally binding, will be held on May 27 and will address whether Japan's largest power utility, Tokyo Electric Power Co Inc (TEPCO) , should be allowed to use the fuel at its Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant in Kariwa on the Sea of Japan coast.

The use of MOX fuel in conventional reactors is a cornerstone of Japan's energy policy. The resource-poor country depends on nuclear energy for a third of its power needs.

But the referendum by the village's 4,141 eligible voters on the use of MOX, a blend of uranium and plutonium recycled from spent nuclear fuel, comes amid mounting anti-nuclear sentiment.

Hoping to persuade the villagers to see the government's point of view, the nation's top energy official, Natural Resources and Energy Agency Director General Hirobumi Kawano, will visit Kariwa ahead of the vote.

"The...process has proved to be safe in a number of countries abroad. We've been trying to publicise the significance of the process," Kyodo news agency quoted Katsusada Hirose, vice minister for economy, trade and industry, as telling a news conference.

HARD TO IGNORE

Anti-nuclear campaigners say TEPCO would find it difficult to ignore the result of the vote even if it is not binding.

Critics charge that MOX fuel is dangerous and does not make economic sense because it is more expensive than conventional nuclear fuel.

A string of nuclear accidents in recent years has bolstered their cause and eroded public faith in Japan's nuclear industry.

The Fukushima governor said in February that he would not allow the use of the fuel, noting deep-seated public opposition - in part because of state-owned British Nuclear Fuels Ltd's (BNFL) falsification of data on MOX fuel shipped to Kansai Electric Power Co Inc in 1999.

Japan's power industry had planned to begin commercial use of MOX fuel in 1999 but was forced to postpone its plans due to that year's mishaps.

NUCLEAR MISTRUST

The nation's worst nuclear accident occurred on September 1999 at a uranium processing facility run by JCO Co Ltd in Tokaimura, 140 km (90 miles) northeast of Tokyo, exposing plant workers, emergency personnel and hundreds of residents to radiation. Two workers later died.

On Wednesday, a Japanese government panel approved construction of a new nuclear power plant for the first time since the Tokaimura accident.

Pending final approval by Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, Chigoku Electric Power Co Inc will have the green light to build a 2.74-gigawatt plant with two reactors in Kaminoseki, Yamaguchi Prefecture, some 600 km (375 miles) west of Tokyo.

That decision is likely to raise a furore among local residents, some of whom are refusing to see the rest of the land needed to build the facility.

----

Resource-poor Japan hails Bush energy plan

May 18, 2001
By Miho Yoshikawa
http://news.excite.com/news/r/010518/06/bush-energy-japan-nuclear

TOKYO, May 18 (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush's new energy plan won applause on Friday from Japan's government and nuclear industry, which hoped Washington's proposals would raise public support for more nuclear plants in Japan.

The energy package announced by President George W. Bush on Thursday called for expanding U.S. nuclear power production among other steps aimed at boosting the country's energy supplies, sparking protests by environmentalists.

Bush seeks to ease restrictions on relicensing nuclear power stations and encourage investment in coal technologies. The proposals also call for tax credits to fund energy conservation and alternative fuels.

Japan's Federation of Electric Power Companies, an industry body comprising 10 key power utilities, said the new U.S. policy could help galvanise Japanese moves to build new nuclear plants in the long term, although the impact may not be immediate.

"Japan has no indigenous energy resources and needs to rely on nuclear energy," Federation chairman Hiroji Ota told a news conference. "We should take careful note that the United States, even with its abundant resources, has chosen to make this policy shift."

Japan operates 51 commercial nuclear reactors, which together supply about a third of the nation's electric power. The industry, however, has come under criticism for a series of accidents including the nation's worst ever in September 1999.

"This decision is good news for Japan's energy policy," an official at the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry said.

Most proponents of nuclear energy, however, doubted the U.S. policy would directly influence Japanese policymaking by encouraging construction of new plants or softening local opposition to the industry.

But they say the construction of new nuclear plants is essential if Tokyo is to fulfil a pledge made under the Kyoto pact in 1997 to cut emissions of six greenhouse gases by six percent by the 2008-2012 period from 1990 levels.

The Kyoto agreement has been rejected by the new U.S. administration.

Resource-poor Japan imports almost all its crude oil, 80 percent or more of which comes from the Middle East.

LOCAL OPPOSITION

But the industry has long seen its plans to build more reactors thwarted by pockets of fierce local opposition.

"We will continue to have to work to win the understanding of local residents for nuclear power," a spokesman for the power federation said.

The memory of Japan's worst nuclear accident in 1999, which killed two plant workers, is still raw in many peoples' minds.

Hundreds of workers, nearby residents and emergency personnel were exposed to radiation when an uncontroled nuclear chain reaction was triggered at a uranium processing plant in Tokaimura, northeast of Tokyo.

Last February, grass-roots opposition forced a power utility to drop a 37-year-old plan to build a nuclear plant in Mie prefecture in western Japan.

Citing years of conflict, outspoken Mie Governor Masayasu Kitagawa said the plan should be sent back to the drawing board.

U.S. POLICY A DISTANT DEBATE

For residents of a northern village about to vote in a referendum on the use of controversial recycled nuclear fuel at a local power plant, Bush's energy proposals seem distant and irrelevant.

"That was a decision made far away in the United States. I don't see it affecting what is taking place here," said Yukio Irisawa, 70, who leads a group in favour of using MOX."

Residents will vote on May 27 on whether Japan's largest power utility, Tokyo Electric Power Co Inc (TEPCO) (9501.T), should be allowed to use the blend of uranium and plutonium recycled from spent nuclear fuel.

In the opposite camp, Ken Ishiguro agreed it was highly unlikely any of the villagers would change their minds on a subject that has been under debate for a number of years. The 67-year-old anti-nuclear campaigner said: "I think people's minds are already made up, and the new U.S. energy policy isn't likely to make a difference."

-------- korea

No Time To Delay On North Korea

By James P. Rubin
Friday, May 18, 2001
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A42742-2001May17?language=printer

President Bush is right to focus world attention on new threats we all face from the spread of missiles and nuclear weapons. But his administration's approach to North Korea's missiles raises some troubling questions.

Yes, the world has changed since the end of the Cold War. Our new challenge is not so much to manage the nuclear arms race with Moscow but rather to enlist all civilized countries in a battle against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

The problem is that the Bush administration doesn't seem to accept that international diplomacy is crucial to success in combating this new danger. A serious nonproliferation policy requires far more than developing defenses against ballistic missiles. The other elements must include persuading friends and allies not to provide the raw materials for countries seeking dangerous new weapons; inducing other countries not to pursue weapons of mass destruction; and if all else fails, gaining international support for stiffer measures such as sanctions or the use of force.

That is why the Bush administration's handling of North Korea is so disturbing. The most effective defense against potential North Korean missiles is to persuade Pyongyang to give them up. Our key friends and allies are justified in wondering why the administration seems to think there is only a technical fix to this new danger.

Intelligence estimates indicate that North Korea is the only new country that could have the potential in the next five years or so to deliver a ballistic missile against the United States. Yet it is not Americans but top European diplomats who are leading the effort to deal with this threat, meeting Pyongyang's leader, Kim Jong Il, and securing an extension of his moratorium on testing such missiles.

So far, the Bush administration has spurned diplomatic efforts to deal with this issue, saying the matter is still under review. What is taking so long to decide whether to seek a diplomatic solution to a national security problem? That is what Republican and Democratic presidents alike did for decades in arms control negotiations with the Soviet Union. You don't have to approve of Communist North Korea to talk to it about its missiles. President Reagan was capable of negotiating with Moscow on the one hand and labeling it the "evil empire" on the other.

The Clinton administration secured a commitment from Kim Jong Il to ban the production, testing, transfer and deployment of medium- and long-range missiles. Key questions about how to verify this commitment needed to be answered, and the tricky issue of compensation for stopping future sales of missiles and technology needed to be addressed.

Reasonable people can disagree on what verification measures would be adequate for such an agreement. A legitimate question exists as to what incentives the United States should provide, in terms of food aid and acceptance of the North Korean regime, in exchange for securing a ban on North Korean missile sales. But refusing even to discuss these questions is simply irresponsible.

It is not enough to hint that talks will resume at some point. If the threat from missile proliferation is dangerous enough to justify the possible abrogation of the ABM treaty, as Mr. Bush has suggested, then there is no excuse for not addressing that threat immediately through vigorous diplomacy.

Mr. Bush claims that we can't trust North Korea. Fair enough. That is why any agreement must have adequate verification provisions. As Ronald Reagan put it, "trust but verify." The Clinton administration secured a landmark agreement with North Korea that stopped the operation of facilities capable of producing material for dozens of nuclear weapons. That accord was not based on trust; it has been verified through a combination of our intelligence capability and regular inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency. And contrary to some suggestions from the new administration, North Korea has lived up to its obligations.

By delaying diplomatic solutions to the missile problem, the administration is harming our credibility and allowing Europeans to lead what should be an American task in East Asia. If the Bush administration wants the rest of the world to take the threat of missile proliferation seriously, it must show its seriousness by recognizing that international diplomacy is critical to this effort. A good-faith effort to achieve an agreement with North Korea would be a good place to start.

The writer was assistant secretary of state under President Clinton and teaches American foreign policy at the London School of Economics.

----

N. Korea threatens to end nuclear freeze

Friday, May 18, 2001
By CHRISTOPHER TORCHIA
The Associated Press
http://www.bergen.com/morenews/nkorea17200105174.htm

SEOUL, South Korea -- North Korea on Wednesday threatened to pull out of a 1994 nuclear deal with the United States, saying Washington has failed to uphold terms of the agreement.

The warning came less than a week after a top U.S. official said Washington would resume talks soon with North Korea, raising hopes that the stalled reconciliation process between the two Koreas might get back on track.

North Korea agreed in 1994 to freeze its nuclear program -- which U.S. officials suspected was being used to make nuclear weapons -- in exchange for two nuclear reactors to be built by a U.S.-led consortium. But funding and contractual problems, as well as political tensions, have delayed completion of the project by several years.

"The failure by the U.S. to live up to its obligation . . . by the year 2003 would possibly drive us to respond to it with abandoning [the] ongoing nuclear freeze," the North's foreign media outlet, KCNA, said in a report.

"We cannot sit idle over our loss while maintaining the nuclear freeze," the agency said.

In Washington, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Wednesday that the United States has no intention of abandoning the agreement.

"Our position has always been that we intend to abide by the agreed framework," he said. "And we expect them to abide by the agreed framework."

North Korea has made similar threats in recent months without acting on them.

It recently said it might scrap a moratorium on missile tests, but North Korean leader Kim Jong Il told a European Union delegation this month that he would extend the moratorium until 2003.

Reflecting the communist North's dependency on the nation it often denounces, the United States said this past weekend that it would donate 100,000 tons of commodities to the U.N. World Food Program for distribution in North Korea.

On a visit to Seoul last week, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said the United States was concluding a review of North Korea policy and would resume talks with the North "in the near future."

Armitage also said the Bush administration would abide by the 1994 nuclear deal, which has been criticized by some U.S. lawmakers as costly and impractical.

North Korea said it had abided by its requirements "over 100 percent," but the project might be held up until 2010, because "ground work" had yet to begin.

On the U.S. side, however verification issues remain unresolved. John E. McLaughlin, deputy director of the CIA, said last month that North Korea "probably has one or two nuclear bombs."

-------- missile defense

Missile Defense: A Third Strike

By Michael Kinsley
Friday, May 18, 2001
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A42720-2001May17?language=printer

In The Post last week, columnist Charles Krauthammer took issue with my earlier column expressing skepticism about President Bush's plans for missile defense. What follows is my response to Krauthammer.

Dear Charles:

Thank you for calling me "too bright" to make one particular argument against missile defense, although I am apparently not bright enough to avoid several others.

I hope I am bright enough to summarize your argument accurately. You make two points: (1) Regarding the continued importance of "mutually assured destruction," you note that the risk of a Russian nuclear attack on the United States is far smaller than it was during the Cold War. And (2) regarding the possibility of a "suitcase bomb" (shorthand for various delivery methods other than intercontinental missiles), you say that the continued existence of one risk is no reason to deny ourselves protection from another.

You are right, of course, that a Russian nuclear attack on the United States was always unlikely (a point your side did not emphasize, to say the least, during the first missile defense debate of the 1980s) and is even more unlikely now. But the logic of mutually assured destruction does not allow for midcourse adjustments. MAD is either/or: Either we need it or we don't.

Is MAD passe? If so, what justification is there for maintaining our nuclear arsenal at all? Because you find the idea of a "massive, genocidal and unprovoked" first strike by Russia against the United States "wacky," I presume you find the idea of a similar first strike by the United States against Russia even wackier. We'll have missile defense to protect us against attacks from "rogue states" (and a more than adequate ability to punish one without going nuclear).

The other Cold War first use possibility was in response to a Russian non-nuclear attack on Western Europe. Surely that risk is also dramatically lower than during the Cold War -- both the risk that the Russians would attempt it and the risk that their enfeebled army could succeed. For that matter, the credibility of our threat to commit suicide by nuclear holocaust if the Russians invaded Europe is also negligible by now.

So, are you prepared to see the United States unilaterally give up our ability to launch a devastating nuclear attack on Russia (or China)? Is the risk of a first strike against us so farcically small that we don't need to worry about it at all? Are you prepared to live in a world where the Russians can destroy us but we cannot destroy them? Krauthammer the unilateral disarmer?

Unilateral disarmament would solve the "second strike" problem I wrote about. The Russians would not need to worry that an American first strike would leave them unable to respond effectively, and therefore we would not need to worry that pressure to "use 'em or lose 'em" will increase their incentive, however slight, to use 'em. But if you are not prepared to give up America's first-strike ability, the conundrum of MAD still holds: Anything that reduces our vulnerability to a second strike increases our vulnerability to a first strike.

President Bush has explicitly told the Russians that he does not aspire to negate their nuclear capability. And nobody seriously believes that strategic defense can do that anyway. My point was that if strategic defense cannot protect us from a first strike by a grown-up nuclear power, it had better not be good enough to protect us from a second strike. So far, I will admit, the danger of such a system being too good does not seem to be a problem.

Regarding the suitcase bomb problem, you are, of course, right that it makes no sense to leave yourself unprotected against one risk just because there are other risks you can't protect yourself against. But the question of a suitcase bomb vs. a nuclear missile is not one of different risks, but of different versions of the same risk. The fact that your house may burn down is no reason not to lock your door against burglars. But locking the door really is close to pointless when there's a wide-open window right next to it. The suitcase bomb problem is more like the second situation: The existence of an alternative means that even a successful missile defense would just shift the risk, not reduce it.

This would not be true if, as you suggest, the suitcase bomb was a lot harder for a hostile foreign leader to pull off. You compare the complexity of sneaking a nuclear weapon past U.S. customs with the ease of pushing a button to launch a missile from the comfort of your own palace. But this misses the point. Presumably the suitcase option also involves pushing a button, or could. The proper comparison is smuggling a bomb in a suitcase with building an intercontinental ballistic missile system from scratch. There are pros and cons of both options, but it is far from obvious that any sensible insane Third-World dictator would opt for the missile (and give up in despair if that option were foreclosed).

Michael Kinsley, editor of Slate (www.slate.com), writes a weekly column for The Post.

-------- russia

Russia Signs Deal to Raise Kursk

By Vladimir Isachenkov
Associated Press Writer
Friday, May 18, 2001
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20010518/aponline064433_000.htm

MOSCOW -- Russian officials called a press conference Friday to announce a deal to raise the nuclear submarine Kursk, which sank in the Barents Sea last August, killing all 118 crew members.

Deputy Prime Minister Ilya Klebanov said a contract would be signed later in the day, Russian news agencies reported. The deal comes after months of negotiations between various salvage companies and the Russian government, which has vowed to pull the submarine from its watery grave near the Arctic circle.

Officials did not release the name of the company which would be getting the contract. Media reports said the government was talking with Netherlands-based Mammoet Transport BV, a major operator of heavy-lift cranes which has no experience in raising sunken vessels.

Spokesmen for both the government and Mammoet declined to comment further.

Russia had negotiated for months with a consortium consisting of the Norwegian branch of the U.S. company Halliburton and the Netherlands' Heerema Marine Contractors and Smit Tak. Then, this week, Klebanov abruptly announced that the contract would go to another company.

He gave no reason, but the Kommersant newspaper said the government was unhappy with the consortium's demand for advance payment and compensation for possible damage incurred during the ambitious and risky effort.

The Kursk sank after an explosion during maneuvers. The government has not yet determined the cause of the sinking, saying it could have been triggered by an internal malfunction, a collision with a Western submarine or a World War II mine. Most Russian and foreign experts believe that the explosion of a practice torpedo was the most probable cause.

President Vladimir Putin vowed to raise the Kursk at an emotional meeting with the victims' relatives shortly after the disaster. Officials say the submarine must be raised to retrieve the bodies of dead sailors and determine why it sank. Divers reached the wreck last fall, but they only managed to retrieve 12 bodies.

Some victims' family members said later they would prefer the bodies be left in peace at sea according to naval tradition. Many experts also objected to raising the wreck, citing the project's high cost and the danger that the sub's two nuclear reactors might break open and release radiation.

The reactors were automatically shut down when the vessel sank, and regular monitoring has shown no radiation leak.

The government so far has earmarked no funds for the Kursk salvage effort, and the consortium's representatives had warned Moscow that the delay in getting started has left little time to finish the complicated operation before autumn storms begin. Klebanov has said the rescue effort would start in July and dismissed warnings that it could be derailed by storms.

It wasn't immediately clear how the submarine would be raised to the surface and towed to shore. An earlier plan by the consortium envisaged using a huge crane and a pontoon barge.

----

Bush Meets With Russia's Ivanov

By Barry Schweid
AP Diplomatic Writer
Friday, May 18, 2001
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20010518/aponline022415_000.htm

WASHINGTON -- Working his way toward a summit meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in June, President Bush is making his case to Putin's foreign minister for an anti-missile shield and curbs on Russian arms sales to Iran.

The White House meeting in midafternoon Friday with Igor Ivanov is designed to clarify U.S. policy for the Kremlin in a wide range of issues in hopes of a productive summit.

Bush's determination to explore anti-missile defenses over Russia's vehement opposition is among the most contentious items on the agenda. Another is Russia's sale of technology to Iran that the United States fears might assist in development of nuclear weapons.

Ivanov flew here Thursday night and faced a tight schedule Friday, beginning at breakfast with Secretary of State Colin Powell. They planned to meet again for lunch and a third time in late afternoon after Ivanov's call on Bush at the White House and separate meeting with Condoleezza Rice, Bush's national security adviser.

Not all the topics under discussion were sensitive. For one, the two sides are comparing notes on how to revive peacemaking in the Middle East. For another, the Bush administration is in the midst of revising U.S. policy to permit export of consumer goods to Iraq. Russia has opposed the 11-year embargo and still has not fully endorsed the relaxed sanctions.

Russia's ailing economy was on the agenda, as well.

Powell told Congress this week that money alone will not solve Russia's problems. "What really has to happen," he said, "is they have to put in place a functioning economic system that is grounded on the rule of law. Where the law of contract is sacrosanct. Where money that goes inside of Russia stays inside of Russia."

Bush also may elaborate on his plan to offer deep cuts in U.S. nuclear weapons, long sought by Russia and proffered by the president partly to coax Putin into accepting a missile-defense program banned in a landmark 1972 arms control agreement.

On the touchy side, the administration is pushing Russia to pursue negotiations in the rebellious Chechnya province and to punish Russians who committed atrocities.

Bush and Putin have agreed to meet in Europe, most likely in mid-June at the end of a four-nation trip by Bush, U.S. officials said this week.

The trip will be the most ambitious overseas venture by far of Bush's young presidency. Among high points are meetings with NATO allies in Brussels, Belgium, and leaders of the European Union in Goteborg, Sweden.

The session with Putin, to be followed by another in July at an eight-nation economic summit conference in Genoa, Italy, is apt to rival the others in importance.

Until now, Bush has focused on tax reductions and other domestic items while getting his bearings in foreign affairs.

Powell has met twice with Ivanov before Friday, in Cairo in February and in Paris in April. They are in frequent touch by telephone, as well.

----

Russian Defense Chief Sees More Arms Talks with U.S.

May 18, 2001
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-arms-ru.html?searchpv=reuters

BAKU (Reuters) - Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov on Friday welcomed Washington's commitment to discuss plans for a U.S. anti-missile defense system and said he expected a new round of expert consultations next month.

He made his statement during a visit to Azerbaijan and just hours before Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov was due to start talks with Secretary of State Colin Powell in Washington aimed at soothing strained relations with the new U.S. administration.

President Bush's commitment to develop a protection against potential missile attacks from ``rogue states'' such as Iran, Iraq and North Korea is on the top of the list of Moscow's concerns.

Russia agrees the post-Cold War world faces new security threats. But Moscow strongly opposes U.S. missile defense plans, which it says would ruin the existing fabric of international nuclear security without offering a reliable replacement.

Bush sent a team of senior officials to Moscow earlier this month to explain U.S. reasons for pressing ahead with the missile defense plan. But Russian officials said they were not impressed with the U.S. arguments.

Sergei Ivanov told a news conference in the Azeri capital Baku, where he was discussing defense cooperation with the former Soviet republic, that he was not discouraged by the lack of progress on the subject at an initial round of talks.

``We welcome the U.S. desire and commitment for consultations and agreed to continue them on a more profound expert level,'' he said. ``I cannot rule out that such discussion will take place in early June at the meeting of the Russia-NATO council in Brussels.''

Sergei Ivanov is scheduled to attend that meeting.

Russia initially rejected U.S. missile defense plans outright, saying if Washington went ahead Moscow would feel free from obligations under most arms deals of the past 30 years.

But as major European nations made clear they would cooperate with Washington, Moscow sent signals it was ready for discussions.

Many influential Russian politicians say the war of words over missile defense, which has strained ties with Washington, is pointless because U.S. missile plans are still vague and may never be carried out for technological or financial reasons.

They say if the plan succeeds, Russia faces the choice of becoming an outcast or jumping in the boat to have at least some of its security concerns taken into account and then possibly enjoying some of the mooted benefits of the planned system.

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

Fact sheet: mods and possible new nuke weapons

From: Jay Coghlan <wslf@earthlink.net> (by way of Jackie Cabasso <wslf@earthlink.net>)
Fri, 18 May 2001

In my capacity as convener of the "New Nuclear Weapons Research and Development" working group (formerly known as the "Beyond the CTBT" working group) [of Abolition 2000,] I'm forwarding the following message from our colleague Jay Coghlan at Nuclear Watch of New Mexico. The fact sheet described is a very detailed, weapon-by-weapon update on the status of every nuclear weapon type in the US arsenal, including upgrades, modifications and possible new weapons. If you want to receive a paper copy of the fact sheet, please send an e-mail to Jay at: nuclearwatch@earthlink.net -- Jackie Cabasso

Greetings - A 6-page fact sheet entitled "Alterations, Modifications, Refurbishments and Possible New Designs for the US Nuclear Weapons Stockpile" is now available on the Nuclear Watch of New Mexico web page at www.nukewatch.org. This fact sheet is essentially a compilation of quotes and references from the FY 2002 Department of Energy (DOE) Congressional Budget Request, the FY 2001 DOE Stockpile Stewardship Plan (AKA the "Green Book") and various DOE and nuclear weapons labs documents.

Just last year the US pledged to "an unequivocal undertaking" to disarm its nuclear stockpile and to take "practical steps for the systematic and progressive efforts to implement [NonProliferation Treaty] Article VI." Besides being informational, the attempt of this fact sheet is to provide indisputable evidence from relevant government documents that the US is qualitatively doing the opposite. Information like this might then perhaps be of some use during future reviews of the Nonproliferation Treaty to help further pressure the US to disarm.

Again, this fact sheet is downloadable from www.nukewatch.org.

Alternatively, the specific URL for the fact sheet is: http://www.nukewatch.org/weaponsfactsheet.html

Or if you want a Microsoft Word version: http://www.nukewatch.org/weapons.doc [The formatting in this version is better.]

If any organization wishes to link to those sites, please feel free to do so. We can mail hard copy upon request if an address is sent to <nuclearwatch@earthlink.net>.

Regards, Jay Coghlan

---

Alterations, Modifications, Refurbishments, and Possible New Designs
For the US Nuclear Weapons Stockpile

Nuclear Watch of New Mexico
http://www.nukewatch.org/weaponsfactsheet.html

Article VI of the 1970 NonProliferation Treaty (NPT) mandated the five nuclear powers (the US, USSR, U.K., France and China) to "pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to the cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament...." At the May 2000 NPT Review Conference, this pledge was renewed as "an unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear-weapons States to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament" and a commitment to "practical steps for the systematic and progressive efforts to implement Article VI." NPT Preparatory Committees will be convened in each of the next three years in advance of another full NPT Review Conference in 2005. These Preparatory Committees (with representatives from over 100 countries) will be looking for demonstrable progress toward multilateral nuclear disarmament. While the overall number of nuclear weapons is gradually being reduced over time, government documents concretely demonstrate that the US is qualitatively moving in a direction opposed to disarmament.

Under the Department of Energy's (DOE's) so-called Stockpile Stewardship Program, now being implemented by the semi-autonomous National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), funding for core nuclear weapons programs has risen from a Cold War yearly average of an estimated $4 billion (constant 2001 dollars)[i] to $5.3 billion for FY 2002 (which Congress will likely further substantially augment). NNSA Defense Programs are to receive a 4.6% increase, but under that Directed Stockpile Work will specifically receive a 14% funding increase.[ii] Extensively planned Stockpile Life Extension Programs[iii] for each of the existing weapons systems in the "enduring" stockpile are being implemented to preserve the operational life of each weapons system for at least 30 years.[iv] Far from the stated program rationale of merely maintaining the safety and reliability of the stockpile in the absence of full-scale testing, these programs are aggressively introducing major modifications and possible new designs that will improve accuracy and military effectiveness in order to meet "changing military requirements." The weapons labs themselves now describe the stockpile as "evolving," [v] in contrast to simply enduring. One of the stated objectives of Directed Stockpile Work is to "provide the capability to realize new weapons, if they are needed." [vi] Increasingly, top nuclear weapons labs officials are suggesting that the US needs new nuclear weapons, in large part to create a new "capability #2" to counter "new, emerging threats" ("capability #1" remains the existing arsenal targeting Russia).[vii]

Historically the life cycle of US nuclear weapons has gone through seven phases, from conceptual development to eventual retirement and/or storage. According to DOE, "since all enduring stockpile weapons are currently in Phase 6 [Quantity Production and Stockpile Phase, presence in the stockpile before and after the refurbishment project] an expanded process has been established to extend the life of the weapons in the stockpile." [viii] This is the new expanded "Phase 6.X" process:

Phase 6.1 Concept Assessment
Phase 6.2 Feasibility study
Phase 6.2A Design Definition and Cost Study
Phase 6.3 Development Engineering
Phase 6.4 Production Engineering
Phase 6.5 First production
Phase 6.6 Full-Scale Production

Known current and future alterations, refurbishments, modifications and possible new designs for the US nuclear stockpile are listed by the weapons types below or in related nuclear weapons activities. Stockpile Life Extension Programs (SLEPs) with major refurbishments are active today for the B61, W76, W80 and W87.[ix] SLEPs for the other weapons-types are presently on hold pending "Administration strategic review," which is due before the end of 2001 with a new Nuclear Posture Review. In addition, eleven alterations (Alts) are now underway,[x] some of which may substantially expand the military capabilities of some weapons.

• B61-3, 4, 10: A strategic and/or tactical bomb with four "dial-a-yield" settings estimated between 10 to 500 kilotons. This B61 "family" is currently in Phase 6.3 to change the bomb fin angle (Alt 354) and for safety enhancements and surety upgrades (Alts 335 and 339).[xi]

• B61-7,11: This B61 "family" was created four years ago when the B61-7 was modified into the earth-penetrating B61-11 and fast tracked to the stockpile for deployment on B-2 stealth bombers (as a substitute for the 9 megaton B-53 surface-burst weapon). A "Stockpile Modernization" goal for FY 2001 is to "complete certification of the B61-11 as an unlimited stockpile weapon." [xii] Despite the major modification of four years ago, feasibility and design studies (of a not revealed type) will accelerate in FY 2002,[xiii] with full production to start in FY 2004.[xiv] Additionally, the B61-11 is now receiving structural enhancements (Alt 349). "This Alt will improve the bomb survivability during earth penetration." [xv] The B61-7/11 will also have electrostatic safety upgrade kits (Alt 336) and will have secondaries refurbished beginning in FY 2002.[xvi] [Secondaries are the second-stage thermonuclear components in modern weapons, often called canned subassemblies.]

• W62: Warhead for the Minuteman III ICBM; estimated yield 170 kilotons. Tritium reservoirs are now being modified (tritium is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen used to boost a weapon's yield). However, the W-62 is the one weapon system in the enduring stockpile that DOE is apparently not aggressively seeking to extend its life. "The decision on a course of action for the W62 must be made in the near future. If it is to remain in the inventory, there will be a need to address surety issues." [xvii] The W-62 is being gradually replaced by the W78 and W87.

• W76: MIRVed warhead for the submarine-launched Trident 1 missile; estimated yield 100 kilotons; each sub can carry up to 24 missiles with up to 8 warheads each. Currently in Phase 6.3/6.4[xviii] for "W76 Block 1 initial development work," which includes "the refurbishment of the nuclear package and the AF&F [arming, firing and fuzing]." [xix] This new AF&F "upgrade" could provide a near-surface burst capability to knock out hardened, buried targets (thereby increasing its perceived first-strike threat). The W76 is receiving new tritium reservoirs and neutron generators (Alt 317).[xx]

• W78: MIRVed warhead for the Air Force's Minuteman III ICBM; estimated yield 335 kilotons. "Starting and continuing retrofit with modified gas [tritium] transfer system (Alt 351)." [xxi]

• W80: Warhead for sea/sub-launched and air-launched cruise missiles; estimated yield 150 kilotons. Currently in Phase 6.3/6.4[xxii] to extend operational life, which may include a new tritium reservoir. There is a pending, unspecified W80-1 modification, but a recent weapons lab document has referred to "Mods 2 and 3, as well as potential future Mods." [xxiii] There is to be "uninterrupted refurbishment" with an "aggressive interlinked schedule - compressed in half." [xxiv]

• B83: Strategic bomb for low-level supersonic flights against "hardened" targets (concrete missile silos and command and control centers), huge estimated yield between 1 - 2 megatons. Mod 1 incorporating an encrypted firing set, new spin rocket motor and new radar antenna was completed in FY98.[xxv] Tritium transfer system is in Phase 6.1. Alt 750 adds common radar and Alt 752 "incorporates a new cable for revised radar heights of burst." [xxvi] This last alteration, perhaps analogous to the W76 AF&F alteration, could potentially increase its perceived first-strike threat.

• W87: MIRVed warhead for the Air Force's "Peacekeeper" ICBM; estimated yield 300 kilotons. The W87 is currently undergoing "full-scale refurbishment" [xxvii] which "requires disassembly of the nuclear explosive package" and "refurbishment of the secondary." [xxviii] Retrofits are continuing to improve structural integrity (Alt 342) and new tritium reservoirs are being installed (Alt 345).[xxix] "FY02 initiates the assessment and certification for the W87 Safety Enhanced Reentry Vehicle replacement." [xxx]

• W88: MIRVed warhead for the submarine-launched Trident II missile; estimated yield 475 kilotons; each sub can carry up to 24 missiles with up to 8 warheads each. The W88 is considered to be the US's most advanced nuclear weapon. Its plutonium pit is scheduled to be the first to go back into stockpile production with the newly refocused "W88 Pit Manufacturing And Certification Campaign" ($217.7 million in FY 2202),[xxxi] with full production scheduled for 2004.[xxxii]

Related Nuclear Weapons Activities and Programs

Baselining: A program whose aim is that "the legacy-stockpile knowledge of the Cold War period be captured in an organized, preservable manner to provide a baseline of information and serve as a foundation for the evolution of the Stockpile Stewardship Program." This is for the "younger workers [who] will become stewards of the stockpile." [xxxiii] Baselining is to be accomplished through the compilation of archival full-scale testing data, the development of 3-D weapons codes (see ASCI below) and extensive hydrotesting (also see below). DOE plans to have all weapons systems baselined by the end of FY 2004. Baselines will then be used as tools to evaluate proposed alterations, modifications and refurbishments.[xxxiv]

"Mininukes" and low-yield weapons: Future new design work will likely center on low-yield weapons in the five kilotons or below range (including so-called "mini-nukes"). These weapons would inherently be more dangerous because they are more likely to be used. The Warner-Allard provision of the FY 2001 Senate Defense Authorization Bill required DOE to undertake mini-nuke research and development, a direction that has been legislatively barred since 1994 (funding for that provision was not appropriated in House/Senate conference). SNL Director Paul Robinson has urged that the US develop low-yield weapons, most specifically for forward-based submarine-launched strategic and cruise missiles that would use GPS guidance systems for precise accuracy. He has also proposed using "dummy" secondaries in existing designs so that only single-stage (plutonium pit-only) yields would be obtained.[xxxv] Steve Younger, LANL Associate Director for Nuclear Weapons Technologies, has proposed low-yield weapons based on existing HEU designs. These would have the advantage of requiring neither full-scale testing nor a massive plutonium infrastructure.[xxxvi]

Submarine Warhead Protection Program: The weapons labs are planning for a "replacement warhead design for the Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile Warhead Protection Program." [xxxvii] In Spring 2000 Sandia Labs conducted a flight test of a new warhead concept that "investigated potential future replacement options." [xxxviii]

Supporting Research and Development: "General supporting R&D [under Directed Stockpile Work] pursues technologies which are used to support the nuclear weapons stockpile, but are not designed for a specific weapons system. Activities include military characteristics as issued by the Nuclear Weapons Council (NWC), technology development/material studies, and advanced development systems engineering." [xxxix] This may well be a source of funding ($32.5 million in FY00[xl] ) for new design work.

Threat Reduction Programs: The labs are investing heavily in so-called Threat Reduction Programs, which they often describe as nonproliferation programs (and which receive funding separate from the NNSA weapons budget account). Rather than being non-proliferation-oriented, their aim is largely to "provide technologies and assessments to counter weapons of mass destruction, terrorism and proliferation." (Emphasis added.). This includes "support [for] DoD in dealing with such priority issues as detecting and defeating hard and deeply buried targets." [xli] These "Threat Reduction Programs" may have supported the development of the B61-11 earth-penetrator four years ago and may support likely future earth-penetrator research and development.

Future Plutonium Pit Production: As already stated, DOE NNSA is spending $217.7 million at LANL in FY02 for plutonium pit production. However, it is becoming increasingly clear that LANL's limited capabilities are not sufficient for the future pit production rates that NNSA believes is necessary for the "enduring" nuclear weapons stockpile. In FY01, NNSA requested $2 million for conceptual design activities for a "modern" pit facility that could have production rates of up to 450 pits annually (roughly half of Cold War levels). For FY02, the request is $4 million.[xlii] Senior government officials have recently described LANL's pit production capabilities as a mere "interim, R&D effort" and have stated that concrete planning for the super facility must begin immediately.[xliii] It can hardly be overstated that US plans for a new and modern plutonium pit production facility is evidence enough of the lack of genuine US commitment to NPT Article VI.

The National Ignition Facility (NIF): DOE has touted the NIF as a vitally needed dual-use (both weapons and physics R&D) inertial confinement fusion facility. It is currently far over budget and way behind its construction schedule. Among other future weapons applications, one of its future missions is to "conduct laser/fireball test in National Ignition Facility (NIF) to improve understanding [of] in-tunnel blast."[xliv] This is likely related to ongoing work on earth-penetrating nuclear weapons and/or low-yield weapons under Directed Stockpile Work and Threat Reduction Programs.

Joint Test Assemblies (JTAs): JTAs are real warheads minus their nuclear parts and real delivery systems launched through their entire warfighting "Stockpile to Target Sequence." New, high-fidelity JTAs are now being developed for the W76, W80 and W87. JTAs are a major component of the benign-sounding Stockpile Surveillance Program. DOE conducted 43 JTA flight tests in 1999.[xlv]

Magnetized Target Fusion (MTF): LANL and the Air Force are attempting to super compress deuterium-tritium into a high-density plasma which burns as nuclear fusion, all in a cylinder the size of a beer can. While MTF research is being advertised for future energy production, empirical demonstration would likely have immediate and profound weapons applications. If MTF was ever successful, pure fusion weapons could be possible. The implication is that fission triggers (plutonium pits) would no longer be necessary for initiating fusion in thermonuclear weapons. This, in turn, could lead to "mini-nuke" development. LANL has projected that several billion dollars of research will be spent on MTF.[xlvi]

Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative: "The objective of this campaign is to develop the capability to transition from nuclear-test-based methods to simulation-based methods for certifying the safety, performance, and reliability of the nuclear weapons in the enduring stockpile." [xlvii] In December 1999 the first-ever 3-D computer simulation of an imploding plutonium pit was achieved.[xlviii]

Hydrodynamic testing: Hydrodynamic testing has always been the principal experimental tool for nuclear weapons designers. It involves radiography (x-ray pictures) of simulated plutonium/HEU pits (either using non-fissile isotopes and/or below critical masses) imploded by high explosives. The prefix "hydro" is used because plutonium/HEU behave like fluids under the intense pressures and temperatures that are achieved. During the testing moratorium of the early 1960's, an aggressive hydrotesting campaign was conducted at LANL. Today, the lab is planning to triple the present number of its hydrotests with the completion of the Dual Axis Radiographic Hydrotest Facility ($280 million). Before DARHT is even finished, the FY02 DOE budget request has added $15 million for the conceptual design of the Advanced Hydrotest Facility (estimated cost $2 billion). This facility will be designed to provide 3-D motion pictures of imploding plutonium/HEU pits, a weapons designer's dream come true.

Department of Defense (DoD) Nuclear Weapons Programs: DoD nuclear weapons programs are outside the scope of this paper. As a general note, most of DoD's costs for nuclear weapons are for the various nuclear weapons delivery systems (bombers and land and submarine-based missiles). DoD also conducts weapons effects studies on the survivability of nuclear weapons in the event of nuclear war. DoD costs associated with nuclear weapons are currently estimated to be approximately $30 billion annually.[xlix]

The Single Integrated Operational Plan and Nuclear Posture Review: DoD sets what it believes is the necessary nuclear force structure to implement its highly-classified Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP), which is the nuclear warfighting plan and target list. DoD then directs DOE to supply the needed nuclear weapons. DOE, in turn, sets the parameters of the nuclear weapons complex that it believes is necessary to support the SIOP. Projected DoD nuclear force structures and DOE capabilities are formalized through Nuclear Posture Reviews (NPRs). Congress has legislated that DoD complete a new NPR before the end of this year.

Some observers believe that the SIOP targeting list is being expanded to meet "new, diverse threats" while still maintaining some 2,000 targets in Russia alone. In the same paper that SNL Director Paul Robinson proposes expanding the "deterrence" into "capability # 1" and "capability #2" he worries that "far too many people (including many in our own armed forces) are beginning to believe that nuclear weapons no longer have value... I regret that we have not yet captured such thinking in our public statements as to why the U.S. will retain nuclear deterrence as a cornerstone of our defense policy, and urge that we do so in the upcoming Nuclear Posture Review."[l]

The SIOP, if ever executed, would obviously be the most fateful decision this country could ever make. Yet Congress has had little formal access to the SIOP. In addition, while it has legislated a new NPR, Congress has historically refrained from undertaking probing review of any Nuclear Posture Review. This may change in the future. There is currently movement in the US Senate to request access to the SIOP and to hold hearings on the new NPR.[li]

[i] From Atomic Audit, Steve Schwartz editor, The Brookings Institution, 1998.

[ii] DOE FY02 Congressional Budget Request, NNSA, p.36.

[iii] Mr. Thomas Hunter, Senior VP for Defense Programs, SNL, has publicly stated (paraphrased) that "The Stockpile Life Extension Programs are the tangible work for the NNSA. They represent clarity. They are the heart of what is meaningful." Nuclear Security Decisionmakers' Forum, Albuquerque, NM, March 27, 2001.

[iv] FY01 Stockpile Stewardship Plan (AKA the "Green Book"), DOE NNSA. The Green Book was made available through FOIA by the Western states Legal Foundation of Oakland, CA.

[v] FY01 LANL Institutional Plan, p.32.

[vi] FY01 Green Book, p. II-2, DOE NNSA.

[vii] "Pursuing a New Nuclear Weapons Policy for the 21st Century," SNL Director Paul Robinson, early 2001.

[viii] DOE FY02 Congressional Budget Request, NNSA, p.34.

[ix] DOE FY02 Congressional Budget Request, NNSA, p.45.

[x] DOE FY02 Congressional Budget Request, NNSA, p.12.

[xi] DOE FY02 Congressional Budget Request, NNSA, pp.34 & 46.

[xii] FY01 Green Book, p. 1-11, DOE NNSA.

[xiii] "The FY 2002 Department of Energy Budget - A Principled and Responsible Request," p. 43, DOE. Note that in this "responsible" request and during this purported energy crisis, DOE cut national lab research into renewable energies by 36% in favor of "clean coal and advanced nuclear technologies." (p. 4)

[xiv] DOE FY02 Congressional Budget Request, NNSA, p. 47.

[xv] FY01 Green Book, p. 1-6, DOE NNSA.

[xvi] DOE FY02 Congressional Budget Request, NNSA, p. 43.

[xvii] FY01 Green Book, p. 1-6 & 1-10, DOE NNSA.

[xviii] DOE FY02 Congressional Budget Request, NNSA, p. 46.

[xix] DOE FY02 Congressional Budget Request, NNSA, p. 43.

[xx] DOE FY02 Congressional Budget Request, NNSA, p. 46.

[xxi] Id.

[xxii] Id.

[xxiii] "Agreement on Assignment of W80 Responsibilities," LANL, LLNL, SNL, 1/04/01. This document and the one below was made available through FOIA by Tri-Valley Cares of Livermore, CA.

[xxiv] "Overview of the W80," LLNL, August 1999, pp. 2 & 3.

[xxv] FY01 Green Book, p. 1-6, DOE NNSA.

[xxvi] DOE FY02 Congressional Budget Request, NNSA, p. 46.

[xxvii] DOE FY02 Congressional Budget Request, NNSA, p. 33.

[xxviii] FY01 Green Book, p. 1-7, DOE NNSA.

[xxix] DOE FY02 Congressional Budget Request, NNSA, p. 46.

[xxx] DOE FY02 Congressional Budget Request, NNSA, p. 40.

[xxxi] DOE FY02 Congressional Budget Request, NNSA, p. 154. Includes $128.5 million for the Campaign and additional funding for plutonium pit production facilities under "Readiness in Technical Base & Facilities."

[xxxii] FY01 Green Book, p. 2-2, DOE NNSA.

[xxxiii] FY01 Green Book, p. 6-1, DOE NNSA.

[xxxiv] FY01 Green Book, p. 6-3, DOE NNSA.

[xxxv] "Pursuing a New Nuclear Weapons Policy for the 21st Century," SNL Director Paul Robinson, early 2001.

[xxxvi] "Nuclear Weapons in the 21st Century," Steve Younger, LANL, June 2000.

[xxxvii] FY00 LANL Institutional Plan, p. 30.

[xxxviii] Sandia Lab News, January 26, 2001.

[xxxix] DOE FY02 Congressional Budget Request, NNSA, p. 41.

[xl] Id.

[xli] FY00 LANL Institutional Plan, pp. 49 & 50.

[xlii] DOE FY02 Congressional Budget Request, NNSA, p. 154.

[xliii] Remarks made by General Gordon, NNSA Administrator; John Foster, chair of the Foster Commission; and A. Earl Whiteman, DOE NNSA Albuquerque; Nuclear Security Decisionmakers' Forum; Albuquerque, NM; March 27, 2001.

[xliv] "Defense Technology Area Plan," p. XI-14, Department of Defense, February 1999. This document was made available through FOIA by the Western States Legal Foundation of Oakland, CA.

[xlv] FY01 Green Book, p. 4-10, DOE NNSA.

[xlvi] "Physics Division Technology Review," LANL (LALP-95-156), no date given.

[xlvii] FY00 LANL Institutional Plan, p. 32.

[xlviii] DOE FY02 Congressional Budget Request, NNSA, p. 13.

[xlix] From Holding the Line: US Defense Alternatives for the Early 21st Century, Chapter 5, p. 119, David Mosher, JFK School of Government, Harvard University, 2001.

[l] "Pursuing a New Nuclear Weapons Policy for the 21st Century," SNL Director Paul Robinson, early 2001.

[li] As stated in an April 5, 2001, letter from Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) to the Director of Nuclear Watch of New Mexico.

General nuclear weapons descriptions and yields are from The Secret History of U.S. Nuclear Weapons, Chuck Hansen, Orion Press, 1988.

Acronyms: AF&F = arming, firing and fuzing, DOE = Department of Energy, FOIA = Freedom of Information Act, FY = fiscal year, HEU = highly enriched uranium, LANL = Los Alamos National Laboratory, LLNL = Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, MIRV = Multiple Independently-targeted Reentry Vehicle (means each warhead can hit different targets), NPR = Nuclear Posture Review, NNSA = National Nuclear Security Administration, SIOP = Single Integrated Operational Plan, SNL = Sandia National Laboratories.

Corrections, additions, suggestions are welcomed. Please write to:

Nuclear Watch of New Mexico, 551 W. Cordova Rd., # 808, Santa Fe, NM 87501-4100

or e-mail to nuclearwatch@earthlink.net. This paper is available at www.nukewatch.org. May 2001.

To download a Microsoft Word [.doc] version of this fact sheet, please go to this link: http://www.nukewatch.org/weapons.doc

-------- us nuc politics

First Declassification of Eisenhower's Instructions Predelegating Nuclear Weapons Use

National Security Archive Update, May 18, 2001
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001
From: NSARCHIVE <mevans@GWU.EDU>
http://www.nsarchive.org/NSAEBB/NSAEBB45

WASHINGTON, DC - President Dwight D. Eisenhower's top secret instructions that delegated nuclear-launch authority to military commanders and the Secretary of Defense under specific emergency conditions, declassified for the first time last month, today appeared on the World Wide Web site of the National Security Archive, which obtained released of this highly sensitive document after repeated efforts starting in 1993.

National Security Archive staff first requested the "Instructions" in 1993 under the mandatory review provisions of Executive Order 12356, although other requesters had begun pursuing them in 1989. Declassification took over ten years because the "Instructions" were among the deepest U.S. military policy secrets of the Cold War. According to David A. Rosenberg, a professor of strategy at the National War College and author of pioneering historical studies of Cold War nuclear strategy, ISCAP "should be applauded for releasing these documents because it has pushed back the boundaries of declassification to some of the most sensitive and unknown areas of U.S. government operations during the Cold War." Not only do these releases "confirm the basic facts about predelegation, they also help flesh out the degree of control that Eisenhower thought that he had over the government and how he tried to meet the challenges of the perilous times that he felt the country faced."

The documents are available at the following URL:
http://www.nsarchive.org/NSAEBB/NSAEBB45

----

Ike Secretive on Nuclear Attack Plans

By Ron Kampeas
Associated Press Writer
Friday, May 18, 2001
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20010518/aponline193907_000.htm

WASHINGTON -- President Eisenhower kept secret from U.S allies his orders that authorized military commanders to launch retaliatory nuclear attacks from their territory, declassified documents reveal.

The instructions to the commanders, declassified last month and published Friday by the independent National Security Archive, authorized nuclear strikes to repel a major invasion of U.S.-occupied territory by conventional forces. Such a scenario could have turned a theater war in Europe into a nuclear conflict.

It has long been known that Eisenhower was the first president to "predelegate" nuclear authority to senior U.S. commanders in cases where they could not contact him in time to authorize nuclear counterattacks. Presidents Kennedy and Johnson maintained the practice.

The newly declassified documents are the first to include a set of instructions and the first to attach Eisenhower's signature to such an order.

In a Nov. 2, 1959, letter to Deputy Secretary of Defense Thomas Gates, Eisenhower reviews his original May, 1957, authorization, and in the process he stresses the need for secrecy.

"I cannot overemphasize the need for the utmost discretion and understanding in exercising the authority set forth in these documents," he tells Gates. He urges him to brief the commanders "in a small symposium, consisting only of the commanders concerned."

Among those listed as authorized to issue such commands are commanders of U.S. forces in Europe, the Caribbean, the Atlantic, the Pacific and, in some cases, commanders of naval forces in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean.

At a June 27, 1958, meeting, Eisenhower and others in his Cabinet express their fears that European allies would expel U.S. forces should they learn of the "predelegation."

Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, certain the information would be leaked to the Europeans, worried that "foreign governments will take action to curtail (the authorization), whether by eliminating our forces from those countries or subjecting them to civil authority," according to a declassified summary of the meeting.

The prospect of sharing authority with the Europeans was anathema to Eisenhower, who spoke of the "weakness of coalitions" at the meeting. A memo summarizing a similar meeting Dec. 19, 1958, quotes the president as saying, "It is most important that word of any delegation from the president be withheld from our allies."

Still, the memos show that Eisenhower wanted to ensure that commanders understood they should exhaust efforts to contact him and inform the leaders of the countries they were in before carrying out the "predelegation" to launch nuclear retaliation.

He instructs Gates to add the clause "subject to the limitations in accordance with international agreements" to the instructions to commanders.

A January 1959 revision of the instructions begins by emphasizing the very narrow circumstances under which the commanders could authorize nuclear weapons use.

"Only when the urgency of time and circumstances clearly does not permit a specific decision by the President or other person empowered to act in his stead," the instructions say.

Further on, the instructions outline three broad scenarios in which a retaliatory nuclear strike would be justified:

-A submarine or surface craft launches missiles against the United States;

-A Sino-Soviet bloc launch of missiles, bombs, air-to-air attacks or strafing "against a major U.S. force in international waters or foreign territory."

-"Sino-Soviet bloc ground, paratroop or other forces make a major assault and thereby effect a significant penetration of an area occupied by major U.S. forces in foreign territory," a definition that would have included U.S. forces stationed in Germany at the time.

The George Washington University-affiliated National Security Archive originally applied for declassification of the documents in 1993. Parts of the instructions to the commanders have been blacked out.

Previously declassified documents show that the practice of "predelegation" persisted through the Johnson administration. It is not known whether any president subsequently revoked the orders.

-------

25 Years Later, Rumsfeld's Dream Is Alive Again

May 18, 2001
By JAMES DAO and ERIC SCHMITT
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/18/world/18MILI.html?searchpv=nytToday
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/18/world/18MILI.html?pagewanted=2&searchpv=nytToday

WASHINGTON, May 17 - A quarter of a century ago, a new secretary of defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld, faced a towering challenge: convincing a skeptical Congress that the post-Vietnam military needed a major infusion of money to meet the still-fearsome Soviet threat. Mr. Rumsfeld prevailed, winning the largest increase in military spending in a decade.

Twenty-five years later, the Soviet Union has collapsed and America stands unrivaled as a military power. But Mr. Rumsfeld, now 68, is back at the Pentagon's helm. And once again he is arguing before a wary Congress that the armed forces need an expensive face-lift to counter emerging threats like terrorists with biological weapons and potentially hostile nations with long-range ballistic missiles.

In the coming weeks, Mr. Rumsfeld will begin making his case for adding billions of dollars to the current defense budget and increasing President Bush's proposed $324 billion Pentagon budget. His goal is to transform the military into a more agile, lethal and stealthy force, and to build a costly and unproven missile shield.

Though Americans may feel safer today than in decades, he asserts that "weakness is provocative," that the nation is in danger of growing complacent and that the military must remain strong enough to deter and punish aggressors in this "dangerous and untidy world."

"If things are not bad, why do you need to change anything?" Mr. Rumsfeld said in an hourlong interview this week in his Pentagon office overlooking the Potomac. "And, of course, that's exactly when institutions suffer. If they think things are good, and they relax and don't recognize the changes taking place in the world, they tend to fail."

Critics contend that Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Bush's other top advisers have exaggerated the military challenges facing the United States and that he is arguing for a missile shield at a time when, at least numerically, the missile threat has lessened.

Russia still has 6,000 nuclear- tipped ballistic missiles, but is no longer viewed as an enemy. China has perhaps only 18 long-range nuclear missiles, Iraq currently none, and North Korea perhaps one or two.

"These guys are movement conservatives, and they have a view of the world, and of the threat, that is very different than I have," said Senator Joseph R. Biden of Delaware, the senior Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee. "This fixation on national missile defense is a mistake."

But such arguments do not sway Mr. Rumsfeld, who sees China as a potential military rival to the United States in the Pacific and nations like North Korea as potentially destabilizing forces.

"The weapons of mass destruction are more widely dispersed," he said. "And they are in the hands of people who are different than the people who had them 25 years ago."

Besides, he argued, America would be reverting to isolationism if it failed to build a missile shield because it would be unable to protect its allies. And to those who believe constructing such a system would lead to a renewed arms race, Mr. Rumsfeld countered that not building a system would encourage more nations to acquire ballistic missiles to defend themselves from nuclear attack.

In an extensive interview, Mr. Rumsfeld, a former naval aviator, college wrestler, congressman and pharmaceutical executive, spoke about his desire to build the missile shield, his vision for the military and his sweeping review of Pentagon policies and programs, a process that many senior Congressional and military officials have criticized as overly secretive.

That supposed secrecy has generated much grumbling on Capitol Hill and anxiety inside the Pentagon, where many senior officials worry that he will use the closed-door proceedings to justify deep cuts to weapons programs that do not fit his vision.

Earlier this month, Trent Lott, the Senate majority leader, summoned Mr. Rumsfeld to his office to discuss the Pentagon budget. During the sessions, Congressional officials said, Mr. Lott complained about being left "in the dark" about the reviews.

Mr. Rumsfeld expresses exasperation when told many people think he does not consult enough when it comes to the reviews that are being conducted by about two dozen panels staffed mainly by close aides, outside experts and retired officers.

During the interview, he dramatically thrust his hand into a sheaf of papers and pulled out a sheet containing this tally of his meetings in office: 50 with foreign officials; 70 with senior administration officials; 170 with 44 different general and flag officers; and 70 involving more than 100 members of Congress.

"I don't think of them as particularly close held," Mr. Rumsfeld said of the reviews. "Everyone in the building will have a chance to chew it and chop on it and kick it around and beat it up."

Throughout the interview, Mr. Rumsfeld was careful not to express opinions on several contentious issues like the antiballistic missile treaty.

He also left many points ambiguous and aides and colleagues said this was typical of how he works. Though he holds many strong views - particularly on missile defense - they say he is masterly at asking questions and soaking up information without revealing his positions.

The experience has been unsettling for even four-star generals, some of whom have complained about giving Mr. Rumsfeld detailed briefings and getting no feedback in return.

His critics say he has set a preordained course for the Pentagon and will simply use the defense review to justify it. But his allies say Mr. Rumsfeld is meticulously gathering information because he is trying to build consensus.

"He's getting his ducks in a row, and waiting for a full and complete buy-in by the president on the strategy and the dollars to go with it," said one senior Pentagon official.

Transforming the military after the cold war has proved more complicated than Mr. Rumsfeld probably expected. Until just a few days ago, the secretary and his deputy, Paul D. Wolfowitz, were the only senior political appointees in place at the Pentagon. Yet the real world has kept barging in.

In his first three months on the job, American warplanes bombed Iraq, a Navy submarine sank a Japanese fishing boat, killing nine people aboard, and 24 Americans were detained in China after their Navy spy plane collided with a Chinese fighter jet.

As a result, Mr. Rumsfeld has maintained a frenetic pace, typically arriving at the office by 6:30 a.m. and leaving about 8 p.m. Most days begin with a morning conference call with Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, and with Secretary of State Colin L. Powell. Mr. Rumsfeld said he talks to Mr. Powell one or two more times each day, and also speaks to Vice President Dick Cheney, his protégé from the Nixon and Ford administrations, at least weekly.

Fittingly, Mr. Rumsfeld never seems to sit down. In his office, he works at a small stand-up desk, eschewing the walnut table at the center of the tennis court-sized room. He can be both calmly disciplined and manically exuberant, aides say, often pacing about during meetings, waving his arms to underscore a point.

Aides have become accustomed to a deluge of "snowflakes" from Mr. Rumsfeld - a seemingly endless flurry of questions, problems or assignments he dictates into a Dictaphone and has transcribed by secretaries and dispatched to all areas of the Pentagon. Responses are expected to be terse: as much information and as little prose as possible.

Though he is a millionaire many times over, collects Theodore Roosevelt bronzes and owns a ranch in Taos, N.M., Mr. Rumsfeld, a Chicago native, has tried to portray a more regular-guy image than his predecessor, William S. Cohen.

A few years ago, when Mr. Rumsfeld was chairman of a bipartisan panel examining the threat of ballistic missile attacks, he would sometimes slip away to watch a Chicago Bulls basketball game at a local Washington bar while his compatriots repaired to fancy Washington parties. And during a recent outdoor reception for a foreign dignitary he yanked away an umbrella from a colonel trying to hold it over him.

Though friends say Mr. Rumsfeld is gracious and attentive, he is also often described as gruff and arrogant.

"He is a hard-nosed guy who is not a pushover," said Representative Porter Goss, a Florida Republican who heads the House Intelligence Committee. "I don't expect him to win a whole lot of friends."

Some Democratic lawmakers have suggested that Mr. Rumsfeld's secretive style may cost him most heavily in Congress, which may retaliate by blocking his proposals.

"Now is the time to bring Congress, the uniformed services and the defense industry in on the Rumsfeld review," Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, a Connecticut Democrat, wrote in Roll Call this week. "If their voices are ignored or not given their due weight now, then no matter how strong the review's recommendations are, they may well be dead on arrival."

But advocates of revamping the military say Mr. Rumsfeld is right to keep the "Iron Triangle" that dominates military budgeting - Congress, the defense industry and the service chiefs - at arm's length until his reviews are over.

"He has the best shot in a generation to scrub the defense budget and I hope he does," said Representative Jane Harman, a California Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. "Both Congress and the Pentagon are part of the problem. We're very good at protecting our pet rocks and less good at focusing on long- term strategic solutions."

Mr. Rumsfeld acknowledges that he has a tough selling job ahead.

Perhaps the biggest immediate change he has in mind is fielding a national defense against a limited missile strike as quickly as possible, however imperfect the first attempts might be.

"It's wrong to allow people to develop a zero tolerance for risk," Mr. Rumsfeld said. "We would not have airplanes if the first 20 times the Wright brothers crashed and failed we said, `Stop it, don't try it again, you're wasting money.' "

----

Bush - Putin Set Summit in Slovenia

May 18, 2001
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-US-Russia.html?searchpv=aponline

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed Friday to hold their first meeting next month in Slovenia and, moving to improve relations, American and Russian oficials opened talks here on missile defenses and nuclear weapons cutbacks.

Two U.S. and Russian working groups began their deliberations at the State Department a few hours after Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov delivered a letter to Bush from Putin at the White House pledging a constructive relationship.

They will focus on Bush's hopes for a missile defense system, which Moscow vehemently opposes as a threat to arms control measures, and potential reductions in U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals.

Secretary of State Colin Powell said 30 years of arms control agreements would be under discussion. This includes the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty that Bush has declared a Cold War relic that should not inhibit a quest for an anti-missile system.

``What we're trying to do is together to define what kinds of threats we're talking about, what kind of challenges, and what kinds of means and measures we have at our disposal to find solutions,'' Ivanov said.

``I know it's going to be lively,'' he said of the Bush-Putin summit June 16 in Ljubljana, the capital of Slovenia, chosen, Powell said, because it was convenient to the travel schedules of the two leaders.

``We attach a high priority to the development of constructive relations with the United States,'' Ivanov said.

The smiling foreign minister, speaking in Russian, avoided any criticism of the Bush administration or pointed reference to the disagreements that have roiled relations between Washington and Moscow.

And yet, Ivanov declined to embrace the U.S. proposal to lift all U.N. sanctions on consumer exports to Iraq. ``We have our own proposals,'' Ivanov said, saying discussions would be continued on that issue at the United Nations.

Bush stressed to Ivanov in their 30-minute Oval Office meeting ``the importance of maintaining a constructive dialogue,'' Powell said after he held his third meeting with the foreign minister at the State Department.

Powell said the talks that began late Friday would cover all elements of U.S. and Russian strategic concepts.

But in the end, he stressed at a joint news conference, the United States will ``act on our own best interests'' in the event agreement is not reached with Russia.

The meeting in Solvenia will be Bush's first with Putin and his most significant meeting with a foreign leader since taking office.

It will come at the end of a five-nation trip by Bush to Europe, his most ambitious overseas venture. It could help reshape the sometimes strained relationship between Washington and Moscow.

But with deep differences on several fronts, including Bush's dream of a missile defense system and Russia's continuing shipment of modern technology to Iran, prospects are uncertain.

Powell and Ivanov, meanwhile, made plans to meet in Budapest, Hungary, later in the month to continue summit preparations.

In a busy day, Ivanov met three times with Powell, once with Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser, and with some members of the Senate and House on Capitol Hill.

There was no indication whether Ivanov's visit spanned any of the gaps between the Bush administration and the Kremlin.

A White House statement said Bush looked forward to the meeting with Putin ``and to discussing how the United States and Russia can build a strong, positive relationship and work together toward common goals.''

The White House meeting gave Bush a chance to make his case for an anti-missile shield and for curbs on Russian arms sales to Iran.

``The environment of our talks is very constructive,'' Ivanov said after a breakfast meeting with Powell. Bush's determination to explore anti-missile defenses over Russia's vehement opposition is among the most contentious items on the Slovenia agenda. Another is Russia's sale of technology to Iran, which the United States fears might assist in the development of nuclear weapons.

On Capitol Hill, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., said the dispute over a national missile defense in conflict with the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty was ``not going to make things easier,''

``We need to work through that, and we'll do our best,'' Reid said.

Not all the topics under discussion were sensitive. For one, the two sides were comparing notes on how to revive peacemaking in the Middle East. For another, the Bush administration is in the midst of revising U.S. policy to permit export of consumer goods to Iraq. Russia has opposed the 11-year embargo and still has not fully endorsed the relaxed sanctions.

Russia's ailing economy was on the agenda, as well.

Powell told Congress this week that money alone will not solve Russia's problems. ``What really has to happen,'' he said, ``is they have to put in place a functioning economic system that is grounded on the rule of law. Where the law of contract is sacrosanct. Where money that goes inside of Russia stays inside of Russia.''

On the touchy side, the administration is pushing Russia to pursue negotiations in the rebellious Chechnya province and to punish Russians who committed atrocities.

Among high points of Bush's European trip are meetings with NATO allies in Brussels, Belgium, and leaders of the European Union in Goteborg, Sweden. The session with Putin will be followed by another in July at an eight-nation economic conference in Genoa, Italy.

----

Nuclear Power Play

By Jerry Taylor and Peter VanDoren
Friday, May 18, 2001
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A42733-2001May17?language=printer

The political drive to revive nuclear power is in full swing. Unveiling his energy plan yesterday, President Bush said, "America should also expand a clean and unlimited source of energy, nuclear power." Vice President Cheney says "we must seriously question the wisdom of backing away from what is, as a matter of record, a safe, clean and very plentiful energy source." But why conservatives are so in love with nuclear power is a mystery.

Aren't conservatives supposed to be skeptical about having the federal government pick winners and losers in the marketplace? Isn't it best to leave such decisions to investors, not politicians? If nuclear power is a better investment than gas or coal-fired power, then no amount of government help is necessary. If it's not, then no amount of government help will make it so.

The Bush administration maintains that the only reason investors haven't been jumping at nuclear power is because the government has effectively shut down the industry. Cheney, for instance, laments that "the government has not granted a single new nuclear power permit in more than 20 years." But there's a reason for that; no utility company has submitted an application for a nuclear power permit in more than 20 years.

Investors have stayed away from nuclear power because nuclear-fired electricity is about twice as expensive as coal- or gas-fired electricity. The marginal costs of nuclear are indeed lower, but the capital costs are much higher. For instance, electricity costs skyrocketed by 60 percent between 1978 and 1982 largely because of a wave of nuclear power plants that came online in the late 1970s.

Another reason investors have stayed away is because of the shift to competitive generation markets. In the old regulatory world, public utility commissions guaranteed quick returns on capital investments through the rate base. The more capital you spent, the more you made, and a $1 billion nuclear power plant offered a far better return than a $200 million coal-fired plant, regardless of total costs. In a deregulated market, investors think long and hard about investing in plants that might take decades to pay off under ideal conditions.

Proponents counter that nuclear power would be far less expensive were it not for needlessly burdensome safety and maintenance regulations. While you can certainly make a strong case for that, it's unclear whether government has really harmed nuclear power more than it has helped.

The administration should recall that the Atomic Energy Commission, beginning in 1957, directly subsidized the construction of reactors by private utilities. A year later, the "Euroatom" program was adopted, which gave federal subsidies to NATO allies to purchase American light-water reactor technology.

Here at home, the federal government took responsibility for the supply and enrichment of uranium but failed to charge nuclear power plants anything for the capital or inventory costs of the program. And just since the establishment of the Department of Energy in 1978, more than $20 billion of taxpayer money has been spent on nuclear power research and development.

Then there's the granddaddy of all subsidies, the federal assumption of high-level radioactive waste-disposal responsibilities. If the feds had stayed out of this and simply required the industry to secure its own waste disposal through private arrangements, who doubts that the construction costs for such facilities and, more important, the liability costs would greatly exceed the fees the industry currently pays the federal government? In fact, it's extremely doubtful that the industry could insure itself against the possibility of accidents in waste disposal facilities, which could remain highly radioactive for thousands of years.

Perhaps new advances in technology will remedy the environmental and economic problems that plague the industry. If so, fine. Investors will respond with orders for new nukes and we'll have no complaint. But in the meantime, the feds shouldn't try to ram this technology down the market's throat.

In the final analysis, the nuclear industry is purely a creature of government. The administration needs to practice the free-market rhetoric that it preaches and put away its nuclear pompoms.

Jerry Taylor is director of natural resource studies at the Cato Institute. Peter VanDoren is editor of the Cato journal Regulation.

----

Energy Industry Lobbying Congress

By Sharon Theimer
Associated Press Writer
Friday, May 18, 2001
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20010518/aponline021759_000.htm

WASHINGTON -- Energy interests who would get nearly all of what they want under President Bush's energy proposals plan a million-dollar ad campaign and heavy lobbying to make sure the Bush program becomes law.

Even as energy companies and interest groups pored over the Bush plan Thursday to determine whether they would win or lose, many were plotting strategy for the next battleground: Congress.

At least 400 groups led by oil, coal, electric, natural gas and nuclear power associations and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have formed the Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth to promote Bush's push to expand energy production, pipelines and power lines.

"It's a campaign plan in its infancy right now," alliance spokesman Bruce Josten said. "We're in a fund-raising mode."

The alliance initially expects to spend about $1 million on advertising in the Washington media market directed at lawmakers, Josten said.

The group, responding to Democratic and other critics of Bush's plan who want to focus on conservation rather than increasing the energy supply, will urge lawmakers to strike a balance, Josten said.

"It's not conserve or consume; it's both, laced with new technologies in between," he said.

The ad campaign will not go unanswered.

Environmentalists who say the Bush plan benefits big GOP campaign contributors at the expense of the environment and consumers are preparing responses in cities across the country. Twenty groups founded the Web-based Save Our Environment Action Center and plan news conferences and ads nationally.

"Even without the president's energy plan, we are in the midst of a national energy production boom," said Philip E. Clapp, president of National Environmental Trust. Clapp predicted the plan would "perpetuate higher energy prices for consumers."

The groups are starting an Internet ad campaign depicting the "Bush Energy Monkey" and plan TV ads in Florida, New Mexico, Illinois, Montana, Colorado, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Oregon and Washington, D.C., starting Friday.

Organizers refused to say how much they were spending.

Others displeased with the Bush plan who may run ads include the American Wind Energy Association, which describes itself as "underwhelmed" with the proposals.

Aside from seeking to extend a wind-energy production tax credit, the Bush policy would do little to promote renewable energy, said Jamie Steve, the association's director of legislative affairs.

"There's so much they left lying on the floor that wouldn't have cost them very much, and the renewable groups would have praised them up and down, but I think the White House really dropped the ball on this stuff," said Steve, whose group is confident Congress will restore wind research and development incentives the Bush budget would cut.

House and Senate lawmakers will face a wave of lobbying by groups urging them to back, reject or add to Bush's proposals.

Consumers Union will urge Congress to take immediate action to curb high electricity, gas and natural gas prices, policy analyst Adam Goldberg said.

Federal energy regulators have failed in their duty to ensure just and reasonable prices, and the Bush plan would do nothing to help, Goldberg said.

"What we're looking for is cost-of-service-based pricing, which basically says the energy companies will get a return on their investment and make a reasonable profit: 10, 12, 15 percent," Goldberg said.

Energy producers oppose any attempt to regulate prices and say the Bush plan rightly focuses on increasing the nation's supply of oil, coal, natural gas and electric, nuclear and hydroelectric power.

The nation's energy problems, including those in power-strapped California, come from years of neglecting supply, they contend.

"We've been over this a billion times," said Jim Owen of the Edison Electric Institute, an industry group whose members include the Southern California Edison electric utility. "They need to build power plants, we need to bolster the transmission system both in California and coming in from surrounding states."

Owen said the institute and several others in the Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth will add their own lobbying to the coalition's effort.

"This is the beginning, not the end," he said. "There's a lot of legwork still to be done."

EDITOR'S NOTE - Associated Press Writer John Heilprin in Washington contributed to this report.

----

Bush Issues Energy Warning
President Unveils New Policy, to Praise and Attacks on Party Lines

By Mike Allen and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, May 18, 2001; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A42053-2001May17?language=printer

ST. PAUL, Minn., May 17 -- President Bush unveiled his much-anticipated energy policy to the nation today from the banks of the Mississippi River, warning of widespread misery if Congress resists his plan to increase the country's power production.

Bush flew to a convention center here to announce his proposals after four months of deliberations, winning acclaim from Republicans and the energy industry, which stands to make billions of dollars from his ideas, and complaints from Democrats and environmentalists, who hope to exploit the policy as a way to portray the president -- a former Texas oilman -- as a captive of industry.

"If we fail to act, Americans will face more, and more widespread, blackouts," Bush said. "America cannot allow that to be our future, and we will not." The president, adding a tone of urgency to his long-term proposals, said a future without new sources of energy "is unfortunately being previewed in rising prices at the gas pump and rolling blackouts in the great state of California."

In California, Gov. Gray Davis (D) accused the administration of "turning a blind eye to the bleeding and hemorrhaging that exists in this state." He excoriated Bush for refusing to cap wholesale energy prices. "We are literally in a war with energy companies, many of which reside in Texas," Davis said.

The White House today released the full 170-page report, which provides more detail but follows closely the outline Bush advisers introduced Wednesday night. Bush seeks reduced regulations to encourage more oil, gas and nuclear production, tax incentives to boost coal output, and other tax incentives aimed at conservation and renewable fuels. The president said the nation needs 1,300 to 1,900 new power plants over the next 20 years, and 38,000 additional miles of natural gas pipelines and 263,000 miles of distribution lines.

Some of the proposals, notably the call to drill in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, are considered nonstarters in Congress, where the plan is likely to be amended with more short-term solutions to the California energy squeeze. But the bulk of the recommendations are in executive orders and regulatory changes, which the administration can do with little resistance. Bush plans to sign an order next week directing federal agencies to expedite permits for new energy plants.

The president's allies in Congress vowed swift action. House Resources Committee Chairman James V. Hansen (R-Utah) said his panel would work quickly to accommodate the plan by opening up protected areas for oil drilling and coal mining.

The thrust of the energy recommendations could be seen today in the initial reactions: satisfaction from industry, consternation from conservationists.

"It's balanced -- I think it has something for everybody and it addresses the problems that should be addressed," said Thomas E. Capps, chairman of Dominion Resources Inc., the Richmond energy company that is Virginia's largest electricity supplier. "California has an energy crisis now. The rest of the country is going to have one unless something is done."

Industry representatives voiced few if any objections; at a White House briefing, an administration official took a lengthy pause when asked if any part of the report would disappoint industry. "That's a good point," he said, noting tax credits that go to conservation rather than oil and gas.

Leading environmental groups held a joint news conference in Washington to denounce Bush's proposal, which they said would spoil natural resources but do little to ease the short-term energy shortage. They unveiled a television ad featuring a mock auctioneer selling the nation's resources to the highest bidder. And they argued that Bush's plan, by increasing reliance on fossil fuels, would increase global warming emissions by 35 percent over 20 years.

Environmentalists were particularly miffed that the plan ties the few benefits conservationists sought to more controversial elements such as expanding drilling on public land. "In what is a truly cruel joke, the Bush plan would also use oil revenues from the Arctic refuge to pay for land protection and renewable energy programs," said William H. Meadows, president of the Wilderness Society. "That's like burning your furniture to heat your home."

Objections came from government watchdogs too. The libertarian Cato Institute argued that the administration "is simply positioning itself to take credit for what the market is already busily accomplishing." Cato analyst Jerry Taylor said the nation is in a power plant construction boom, with 90,000 megawatts of new capacity to be available by 2002 and as much as 200,000 megawatts by 2004. "This will not only burst the electricity price bubble but will probably produce an electricity glut in the near future," Taylor said. He decried a "smorgasbord of handouts and subsidies for virtually every energy lobby in Washington."

On Capitol Hill, reactions to Bush's proposals fell predictably along party lines. House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) pledged to start hearings immediately on the plan, which he praised as well-balanced. "I believe it meets the goals most important to the American people by increasing our energy supplies, providing price stability and protecting our precious environment," he said in a statement.

House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.), on the other hand, held an elaborate news conference in the Capitol with other Democrats that featured a satellite connection to three San Diego residents facing rising energy prices. "We think the president's plan makes the wrong choices for America and the American people," Gephardt declared in front of projected images of a gas pump and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. "It was crafted behind closed doors with a lot of input from energy executives, and in a highly secretive way that doesn't serve the public interest." Democrats say they view the issue as one of the GOP's top vulnerabilities in the months to come.

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) said he wants to begin hearings on one big energy policy bill next week. House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman W.J. "Billy" Tauzin (R-La.), whose panel will move much of the energy-related legislation, predicted his committee would take up conservation measures first and then move to the question of supply. In the coming months, Tauzin said, Congress will take steps to allow consumers to sell power back to their local energy grids, urge the auto industry to adopt stricter fuel efficiency standards and promote better transmission technologies.

Bush is the first president since Jimmy Carter in 1979 to ask Americans to think about their energy supply, and the tones were as different as thetimes. Carter proposed a windfall profits tax for oil companies and asked citizens to follow the speed limit, drive 15 fewer miles a week and carpool once a week. Bush declared, "Conservation doesn't have to mean doing without. Thanks to technology, it can mean doing better and smarter and cheaper."

The plan leaves many issues to be hashed out. For instance, it directs Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham to "propose comprehensive electricity legislation" that promotes competition while protecting consumers. It directs Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta to consider higher fuel-economy standards for new vehicles, but said they must "increase efficiency without negatively impacting the U.S. automotive industry."

Before Bush's speech, he toured a power plant that runs off natural gas, low-sulfur coal and wood waste. In his energy report, the page with a message from Vice President Cheney is stamped "Printed on Recyclable Paper," and the plan is larded with color photos that include an oil derrick bathed by a fiery sunset, a fly-fisherman in a red plaid shirt with a snow-capped mountain behind him, and a farm family bounding through a hayfield toward a combine.

Bush drew applause from the crowd, which had been selected by a local business group, when he called on his critics to work with him. "Just as we need a new tone in Washington, we also need a new tone in discussing energy and the environment -- one that is less suspicious, less punitive, less rancorous," he said. "We've yelled at each other enough. Now it's time to listen to each other, and act."

Still, Bush could see signs of the struggle to come in the energy debate between industry and environmentalists. He was met here by demonstrators with signs saying, "I Breathe and I Vote," and "Got Oil?"

Milbank reported from Washington. Staff writers Juliet Eilperin and Peter Behr contributed to this report.

-------- MILITARY

-------- africa

Guinea Gunships Attack Sierra Leone

By Clarence Roy-Macaulay
Associated Press Writer
Friday, May 18, 2001
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20010518/aponline192217_000.htm

ROKUPR, Sierra Leone -- Helicopter gunships from Guinea rocketed the town where the disarmament of Sierra Leone's rebels and militias began Friday in a stinging counterpoint to U.N. efforts to end the country's 10-year-old civil war.

The attack on the northern town of Rokupr, where the disarmament ceremony took place earlier in the day, occurred shortly after U.N. observers had left, U.N. spokeswoman Margaret Novicki said.

She had no details of casualties. U.N. officials said they were awaiting reports from their military observers.

Guinea's army increasingly has taken the offensive against Sierra Leone's rebels, blaming them for attacks along its border.

Earlier Friday, peace efforts had seemed to be going well, with scores of rebels and pro-government militia fighters surrendering their anti-aircraft guns, surface-to-air missiles and other weapons.

Twenty-five child soldiers ages 8 to 16 also left the rebel ranks. In recent days, the rebels have released dozens of boys whom they had kidnapped and forced into service as soldiers.

Sierra Leone's rebel Revolutionary United Front has killed, raped and maimed thousands of civilians in a terror campaign aimed chiefly at controlling the West African nation's diamond mines.

An offensive by neighboring Guinea has put pressure on the rebels, as have a British military presence and a 12,000-strong U.N. force that is the largest U.N. deployment in the world.

With founder Foday Sankoh in government custody since last year, rebels announced this year they were ready to talk peace.

Friday's disarmament came as part of an accord reached this month by the rebels and militias fighting on the government side.

"The RUF is showing the world that we are determined to bring peace to the people of Sierra Leone. The time has come for fighting to be over and the disarmament is beginning," said Omrie Golley, head of the rebels' newly formed political council.

About 120 rebels, including women, surrendered guns, mortars, grenades, and other weapons. Rebel Col. Bai Buieh was the first, handing in a mortar cannon.

"Nobody has forced me to disarm. I voluntarily agreed so as to bring peace to the people of Sierra Leone," Buieh said.

He said he planned to join the rebel's political party.

Sixty militia fighters also turned in their weapons.

Rebels handed over the 25 children to the U.N. mission. The children were to be taken to a demobilization center run by the Catholic aid group Caritas.

Addressing the rebels, Oluyemi Adenigi, U.N. special envoy in Sierra Leone, said: "What you have done today will encourage the UN, who is here to bring peace to Sierra Leone. Put your minds to it and follow this disarmament path."

-------- iraq

Russia, China say no to proposed sanction changes

UNITED NATIONS (AP)
05/18/2001
http://usatoday.com/news/world/2001-05-17-un-iraq.htm

Members of the U.N. Security Council were divided Thursday over a British proposal to ease trade sanctions on Iraq but tighten controls on sales of weapons and related goods.

The United States and Norway backed the measure, but Russia and China said they were not ready to support it. French officials want to see a final text before deciding.

Iraq, meanwhile, flatly rejected the proposal. It wants a complete end to all sanctions.

Russia, China and France have been Iraq's main supporters on the 15-member Security Council, and their support is critical to any overhaul of sanctions because each has veto power.

Britain said Wednesday it had a positive initial response to the plan from France, Russia and China, as well as from Iraq's neighbors.

But the Russians and Chinese were far more cautious in public comments on Thursday, signaling that lengthy and tough negotiations are likely before a resolution is adopted.

"It is clearly premature to speak of Russian support for this initiative," Sergei Ordzhonikidze, Russia's deputy foreign minister, was quoted as saying by the Interfax news agency.

Russia's ITAR-Tass news agency reported that Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz asked Moscow to use its veto on any U.S.-British proposal to change sanctions, but Russia's deputy U.N. ambassador, Gennadi Gatilov, told The Associated Press he was unaware of such a request.

The British and Americans want to end sanctions on civilian goods entering Iraq to alleviate the suffering of the Iraqi people but toughen enforcement of the arms embargo against Saddam Hussein. The plan would ban military-related items and require approval for items with potential military use.

The British want the resolution, incorporating the new proposals, to be part of the extension of the U.N. oil-for-food program which allows Iraq to sell oil provided the proceeds go for food, medicine, humanitarian relief and equipment for its oil industry. The current six-month phase of the program expires June 3.

But China's deputy U.N. ambassador Shen Guofang said "we believe that it takes time for the consultations on the draft resolution," so it may be better to just extend the oil-for-food program and then tackle the sanctions issue in another resolution. "I think it will take more time to reach consensus," he said.

If approved by the Security Council, the British proposal would mark the first significant easing of sanctions that have been in place since the Iraqi army invaded Kuwait in 1990.

Under Security Council resolutions, sanctions cannot be lifted until U.N. inspectors certify that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction have been destroyed.

Iraq wants all sanctions lifted immediately but has refused to allow U.N. weapons inspectors back into the country for nearly two years.

In editorials written before the British proposal was discussed, state-owned newspapers in Baghdad said Thursday that Iraq would not accept it.

"All Arab and other neighboring countries are duty bound to realize the dangers entailed in the American game of smart sanctions," Al-Qaddissiya, the armed forces' paper, wrote, referring to focused sanctions rather than wide-ranging trade embargoes.

Bush administration officials are quietly debating which items with potential military use to ban and which to approve for export to Iraq, a senior U.S. official told AP.

Norwegian Foreign Minister Thorbjoern Jagland, whose country chairs the committee monitoring sanctions against Iraq, said the proposal would mean the "Iraqi economy can function quite freely, while making it easier to control weapons and military equipment."

-------- nato

Tomorrow's NATO

May 18, 2001
Sarah Means
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20010518-25994221.htm

BRATISLAVA. -- For the 10 countries gathered here to discuss the road toward membership in NATO on May 10-12, a one-page memo from the Russians passed out to participants at the conference served as a rallying cry. The five poorly written paragraphs from the Russian Embassy in Slovakia advised that it regarded "NATO´s enlargement plans as a grave mistake provoking negative changes of military-strategic landscape and division lines in Europe." The memo came in response to a U.S.-Slovakia Action Commission white paper on "Slovakia´s Security and Foreign Policy Strategy," which the Russians dismissed as "so many fabrications." Slovak Prime Minister Mikulas Dzurinda used the opportunity to thank the Russians for bringing his country´s security and foreign policy strategy to international attention. Slovakia´s neighbors were ignited. If Russia wasn´t ready to embrace democracy by freely allowing its neighbors to join such international bodies as NATO, they were determined to bring democratic change to Russia´s back door.

Now the current NATO members will be waiting for a signal from President Bush when he goes to Brussels next month. So far signals have been vague, even from the U.S. administration, which otherwise is considered the strongest supporter of enlargement. Surprisingly absent from the conference were high-level officials from the current European NATO members, especially France, Britain and Germany. At least Mr. Bush did send Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Marc Grossman to express the administration´s support to the NATO aspirants the first day of the conference. However, in expressing general support for all, Mr. Bush avoided specific commitments.

Not so with Czech President Vaclav Havel, who on the second day of the conference specifically recommended Slovakia, Slovenia and the Baltic states for membership. "The Baltic states," he said, "make it clear that not only geographically, but also through their history and culture they consider themselves to be part of the West and, therefore, have an eminent interest in joining NATO. We all know that they were independent states before the war and the Soviet Union annexed them by force on the basis of the criminal Ribbentrop-Molotov pact . . . There is yet another reason for taking this step: Refusal to invite these states out of consideration for the feelings or the strategic thoughts of the Kremlin would ultimately amount to admitting that Russia´s fears of NATO´s expanding to the three Baltic states are justified and that NATO really harbors aggressive or imperialist anti-Russian intentions." A vote for new members cannot purely be a vote against Russia though.

Unlike the last round of enlargement, in which Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic joined, candidates now have a strict set of defense reforms they must complete by next year´s Prague summit, when official invitations will be extended. They must also assure the integration of ethnic minorities into their society, and show progress in political and economic reform. In these areas, Slovakia and Lithuania are the leading candidates.

Under Mr. Dzurinda, Slovakia ended its dependence on Russian military equipment. During the Kosovo conflict, Slovakia opened its airspace to the United States, but not to Russia. This changed the course set by his predecessor, Vladimir Meciar, who had strengthened ties with Moscow in the mid-1990s. In terms of ethnic minority issues, the Hungarians who were previously surpressed there have now become a part of the government and have been compensated for losses. On defense, Slovakia says it is time to contribute to burden sharing.

"To me NATO, and involvement in NATO these days, means first of all responsibility. It means to be an adult in international relations," State Secretary of Defense Rastislav Kacer said in an interview. "In Slovakia, you don´t pay for your individual beer, but there´s always someone who pays for the beer. And you feel fine ... but there is in the company someone who when it comes time to pay, will always say 'Oh, I forgot my wallet now, or I need to go to the toilet, or I have to rush to meet someone.´ That community would react after a couple meetings . . . They would say 'You are nice, but we will not take you for beer with us.´ "

Lithuanian Prime Minister Rolandas Paskas saw NATO candidacy as the extra injection of motivation that was needed for the newly democratic states to begin reforms sooner. "The work we do in national defense is more needed for ourselves, not NATO. Our preparation does not only mean strengthening our armed forces. It also means the growth of our economy. It also means the enhanced security in our country . . . We want to not only be consumers of security and defense but also equal full fledged partners in the organization."

The 10 candidates Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Albania and Macedonia are new democracies. But Slovakia and the Baltics have fought hard to get where they are, now more than a decade after the first of their anti-communist freedom fighters declared independence. Their path forward is not guaranteed, but if their endurance and determination is anything like that of the Slovakian prime minister who was willing to answer questions of a foreign journalist into the early morning hours, and then run eight kilometers four hours later they will not have a problem finding their way into the NATO fold next year in Prague. That is, if the Bush administration has the fortitude to voice its support often and soon.

Sarah Means is an editorial writer for The Washington Times.

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

State targets plight of rights groups at U.N.

May 18, 2001
By Betsy Pisik and David R. Sands
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20010518-67387512.htm

State Department officials plan a private briefing today on Capitol Hill to discuss the problems private U.S.-based human rights groups have encountered in obtaining accreditation to participate in official U.N. discussions.

The Washington Times reported yesterday that several nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have complained that their efforts to obtain official recognition have been questioned or stalled by U.N. members whose human rights records they have criticized.

Among those targeted have been Freedom House, the Simon Weisenthal Center and the Family Research Council. The accreditation process is controlled by a 19-nation subcommittee of the U.N. Economic and Social Council (Ecosoc), whose membership ranges from democracies such as the United States and Germany to regimes such as China, Cuba and Sudan.

NGOs have played an increasingly influential role in shaping U.N. debates in recent years on such issues as human rights, health and social policy. They have focused attention on Russia´s military operation in Chechnya, China´s policy toward Tibet, and Cuba´s suppression of political dissent.

Longtime U.N. observers say the current membership of the Ecosoc subcommittee has made it increasingly difficult for bona fide human rights advocates to get and keep their accreditation. The accreditation, which must be renewed every four years, permits the private groups to participate in official U.N. discussions and conferences.

A spokesman for U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who is traveling abroad, declined to comment on the situation yesterday.

Although no formal action is currently being planned in Congress, the NGOs´ plight has already attracted the attention of key committees on Capitol Hill.

"We have been working with these groups for a number of years," Senate Foreign Relations Committee spokesman Garrett Grigsby said. "In the past, if we really made a push we were able to get these groups accredited. Lately, the process has clearly been getting much harder."

"We recognize there has to be a process for accreditation, but it unfortunately appears to have become much more politicized," Mr. Grigsby said.

The Senate panel does not plan to take up an $8.2 billion State Department reauthorization bill until after the Memorial Day recess. The House version of the bill, which passed Wednesday evening, would withhold $242 million in promised dues payments to the world body if the United States is not restored to the U.N. Commission on Human Rights.

A secret vote earlier this month ousted the United States from the human rights panel for the first time since its founding in 1947. President Bush denounced the U.N. act as "outrageous," and U.S. officials said the move was in part a payback for American criticisms of the human rights records of fellow U.N. members.

While the Senate still must take up the reauthorization bill, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms said earlier this week that the House action on U.N. dues was "the minimum" Congress should do to protest the human rights vote.

Several human rights groups said yesterday they have not yet appealed for action on Capitol Hill because their accreditation bids are either pending or are not currently up for renewal. Until there is formal action by the Ecosoc committee members, several applicants said, they prefer for now to let the process unfold.

"We know the U.S. government is watching, and we know there are members of Congress who understand our concerns," said Heather E. Cirmo, a spokeswoman for the Family Research Council, a D.C.-based "pro-faith, pro-family" organization that is applying for accreditation to the United Nations for the first time.

The council´s application has been deferred for a third time by the Ecosoc subcommittee, reportedly for "procedural" reasons.

Human rights activists said the accreditation situation began to worsen when Sudan successfully lobbied two years ago to strip the official rights of Christian Solidarity, a group that buys and then liberates Sudanese slaves. U.S. officials have tried to aid the human rights groups but face a large bloc of authoritarian regimes that also serve on the subcommittee.

Among the thousands of NGOs that enjoy accreditation before Ecosoc are groups that range from the National Rifle Association to the International Committee of the Red Cross. Most applications are handled without incident.

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

Ex-Army Chief: Bush Strategy Wrong

By Robert Burns
AP Military Writer
Friday, May 18, 2001
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20010518/aponline173300_000.htm

WASHINGTON -- The man who guided the Army's first post-Cold War cutbacks says the Bush administration appears headed toward the "easy but erroneous" conclusion that space and missile defense, rather than ground forces, should be the main building blocks of U.S. security.

"Diminishing the capabilities of our major ground force to support or finance untested technological solutions and theories for the distant future is, in my opinion, ill-advised," retired Army Gen. Gordon Sullivan said in remarks prepared for delivery Saturday at an Army Reserve conference.

He was referring to indications that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, a leading proponent of large-scale missile defenses, may be considering reducing the size of the Army, both its active duty and reserve units, and scaling back or canceling some of its weapons programs.

Rumsfeld announced last week a major reorganization of the Pentagon's space programs to increase the importance of outer space in strategic planning and to make space a focus of Pentagon spending aff from 1991-95, a period in which all the military services cut back on troops and budgets. It was a particularly tumultuous time for the Army, in part because it pulled tens of thousands of troops out of Europe and began new peacetime commitments in the Balkans and elsewhere.

Sullivan now is president of the Association of the United States Army, a booster group based in Arlington, Va.

In his speech, the text of which was provided Friday to The Associated Press, Sullivan said it is natural that the Bush administration would undertake a review of national security strategy and examine how to make the military more efficient. He said it would be wrong, though, to cut troops.

"We must not simply cast them aside to pursue change for change's sake ... or to accommodate theories of what could be," he said.

The retired general also alluded to Rumsfeld's confidential approach to reviewing U.S. national security needs. Some military leaders have expressed privately misgivings about the secretary's secrecy, and even some Republicans in Congress have complained of being kept in the dark.

"National security is a shared responsibility - the administration, the Congress, the uniformed leaders and the American people," Sullivan said.

While acknowledging that he has no inside information about Rumsfeld's strategy review, Sullivan said he gets the impression that land forces are being "rather cavalierly discounted at the expense of promised technology."

He said Rumsfeld seems headed toward "the easy but erroneous conclusion that by spending hundreds of billions of dollars on weaponizing space, developing a national missile defense and buying long-range precision weapons, we can avoid the ugly realities of conflict."

"It appears there exists a failure to understand that the fundamental nature and objectives of warfare have not changed," he added.

-------

US-Indonesia Military Exercise Opens

By Daniel Cooney
Associated Press Writer
Friday, May 18, 2001
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20010518/aponline120446_000.htm

KALI BARU, Indonesia -- As U.S. Marines and sailors toiled in the heat to refurbish the little schoolhouse in a slum on the outskirts of Jakarta, dozens of laughing children scrambled to touch the visitors.

"This is great to come and give something to this poor community," said Sgt. John Davis, 33, a Marine from Ocala, Fla. "It's a very humbling experience. The children are so poor but so excited to see us."

The arrival of the landing ship USS Rushmore and guided missile frigate USS Wadsworth was the first time U.S. warships have visited Jakarta since 1999. In September that year, Washington cut military ties with Indonesia after Indonesian troops devastated East Timor following an independence referendum.

The visit comes at a crucial time for Indonesia, the world's fourth most-populous nation, as it struggles to hold itself together amid numerous political and social crises.

Alarmed by the prospect of Indonesia's disintegration, U.S. policy-makers have eased the ban on military links to allow for joint humanitarian exercises.

The current mission, involving about 1,000 Americans and hundreds of Indonesian navy personnel, coincides with a sharp escalation in a separatist war raging in Indonesia's westernmost Aceh province.

Meanwhile, parliament is moving ahead with plans to impeach President Abdurrahman Wahid over alleged corruption.

The exercises are part of the annual Cooperation Afloat and Readiness Training mission. Similar exercises are held with other Asian nations, including Brunei, Malaysia and Singapore.

The two U.S. warships are also scheduled to take part in several disaster relief drills with Indonesia's navy. The training is designed to enhance the two navies' ability to work together.

The Indonesian army, which is blamed for most human rights abuses across the archipelago, has been excluded from the joint project.

Not far from the school where the Marines were sawing, sanding and painting, a medical team was treating sick and injured local residents.

Hundreds of people from the shantytown queued up for hours for the free medical care. Working with doctors from Indonesia's navy, the team carried out simple operations, extracted teeth and distributed drugs.

"This mission helps local people form a positive image of the U.S. government and the military," said Lt. Diedrick Graham, 32, a Navy chaplain from Mobile, Ala. "People can see that we are not the ugly American."

----

Possible Military Overhaul Outlined
Personnel Policy May Be Targeted

By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 18, 2001
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A41262-2001May17?language=printer

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said yesterday he is considering some of the biggest changes in military personnel policy in half a century, including doing away with the "up or out" system that requires officers either to be promoted or to retire.

Four months into a top-to-bottom review of the U.S. military, Rumsfeld is stepping up efforts to win support for major reforms, meeting with members of Congress and the media. The effort comes as criticism of him mounts inside the military and on Capitol Hill for the closed manner in which he has conducted the review.

In a wide-ranging interview in which he emphasized that he will include the military and Congress in his future deliberations, Rumsfeld also said:

• He is "pushing" to get U.S. peacekeepers out of Bosnia in the belief that the military mission is finished there.

• He may abandon the principle that the military must be prepared to fight two major regional wars simultaneously, a yardstick that for a decade has been used to determine the size and readiness of U.S. forces.

• There have been "institutional" frictions between the Pentagon and the State Department, but he has good personal relations with Secretary of State Colin L. Powell.

Discussing possible changes in personnel policy, Rumsfeld said the military's traditional practice of moving top officers into new jobs every two years or even sooner is "mindless." He said he wants to consider having "people stay in slots a little longer, and maybe to serve longer." Currently, officers must retire if they fail to achieve steady promotion, with most leaving before they turn 50.

Rumsfeld disclosed that he does not expect the review, which involves about 20 panels mulling how to reshape the military to deal with the new threats of the 21st century, to produce immediate results. Rather, he said, he expects the various recommendations of his panels to be folded into a congressionally mandated Quadrennial Defense Review this year, with the results reflected in the defense budget that will be sent to Congress early next year.

Rumsfeld's revelation of that timetable means most of the results of his review -- which are eagerly and worriedly awaited in the military, Congress and the defense industry -- will not begin to take concrete shape until the defense budget that goes into effect Oct. 1, 2002.

"Everyone will have a chance to participate, which they should," he said, countering criticisms that he has excluded the top brass from his review and hasn't shared his results sufficiently with members of Congress.

He said he hopes to send Congress a request for a supplement to current defense spending by the end of this month, as well as an amendment to the proposed defense budget for this fiscal year by the end of June. He declined to discuss the size of those two requests, but others in the administration have said they expect the current year's supplement to be between $6 billion and $8 billion, and the amendment to the proposed 2002 budget of $310.5 billion to be around $20 billion.

Rumsfeld also distanced himself from the centerpiece of the panels, an examination of U.S. strategy being conducted by Andrew Marshall, a longtime Pentagon official.

Marshall's study is paramount because it creates the context for the conclusions of other panels, which cover everything from conventional weapons to missile defense, personnel issues and space policy. Marshall concluded that the U.S. military needs to focus less on Europe and more on Asia, that it needs to be better prepared to deal with the proliferation of missiles in the Third World and that it should focus more on long-range precision weaponry.

"It's the strategy paper," Rumsfeld said. "It doesn't mean it's the strategy. Think of it not as conclusions, but as part of the process."

Rumsfeld repeatedly took pains to present himself not as coming to hard-and-fast conclusions, but rather as someone raising questions upon returning to the Pentagon after two decades in the pharmaceutical industry. "For some reason, people think I know more than I know," he protested.

In particular, he cited two topics -- the overall organization of the U.S. military and the possible dropping of the "two major war" yardstick for readiness -- as questions that he is "probably going to end up posing" in the Quadrennial Defense Review.

He noted that although the U.S. military still links its troop requirements to the ability to fight two major regional wars at once, it hasn't fought one of those wars for more than a decade. Yet, he said, it has been extremely busy in recent years conducting air strikes, executing peacekeeping missions, enforcing no-fly zones and evacuating U.S. citizens from dangerous situations.

"We haven't had a major regional conflict in 10 years, but we've had a bucket of those things," he said. "What is likely to be the case over the coming decade or two, and how ought we best size the force, and what ought we be ready to do, and how ought we to measure readiness?"

Rumsfeld added, "I'd love to have some different models or alternatives tested" of how to measure the readiness of the U.S. military and calculate its needs for troops, weaponry and transportation.

Rumsfeld also said he wants to cut the number of missions the armed forces are taking on, especially in the Balkans. "The military job was done three or four years ago" in Bosnia, he said.

Dismissing reports that he has been at odds with Powell over withdrawal of the approximately 3,300 U.S. peacekeepers in Bosnia, Rumsfeld said, "I am not having trouble with Colin on it. But is it true that I am pushing it? Yes."

----

CIA China Wars

May 18, 2001
Inside the Ring
Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20010518-1139005.htm

A secret commission sought by Congress to check CIA analyses on China is bitterly divided. The 12-member commission, headed by retired Army Gen. John Tilelli, met yesterday at CIA headquarters to hash out differences.

We were first told the commission is fighting over whether it can reach a consensus for a final report. But Gen. Tilelli said in an interview the panel is only three-quarters finished and has no draft yet.

Asked if the panel is divided, Gen. Tilelli said he could not characterize where the panel members stand because they are working on various aspects of the review. The meeting yesterday was "one of many" held by the commission and "we have a ways to go before we finish up," he said.

Other officials said the commission is divided over whether to endorse CIA analytical reports on China or condemn them.

Critics in Congress said they are concerned about the commission´s work and will legislate a much tougher competitive analysis unless the CIA produces an honest assessment. "If they don´t do it, we will," said one congressional aide.

The CIA panel of outside experts was formed last year under pressure from the Senate Intelligence Committee, whose chairman, Sen. Richard C. Shelby, Alabama Republican, has criticized CIA analysis of China as inaccurate and generally portraying a benign view of the communist state.

Problems with CIA analysis also surfaced during the recent Hainan island crisis, when 24 Americans from a downed U.S. EP-3E surveillance plane were held captive following a collision with a Chinese jet over the South China Sea.

A White House source said senior policy-makers were not happy with CIA reporting during the standoff. Agency analysts made incorrect forecasts on how the Chinese would react.

The Senate committee wanted the CIA to conduct a "Team B" analysis similar to the all-critic group of arms experts formed in the 1970s to second-guess estimates of Soviet strategic forces and the 1998 commission headed by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld that challenged CIA analysis of emerging missile dangers.

Instead, we are told the agency´s senior China analyst, Dennis Wilder, maneuvered to stack half the commission with CIA supporters. One commission member, Davidson College professor Shelley Rigger, identified herself on a Web site as a "CIA consultant" -- undermining her credibility for commission work. Another member, retired Air Force Col. Larry Mitchell, also serves as a paid CIA consultant.

All the commission members were selected by Mr. Wilder, who has a lot riding on the final report, including a promotion from China division chief to head of the Asia-Pacific/Latin America division.

Also, commission members at first were blocked from studying "raw" intelligence -- a key requirement for judging finished reports.

CIA Director George Tenet relented and granted some access to raw reports under pressure from commission members such as former CIA officer James Lilley, Heritage Foundation China hand Larry Wortzel and Peter Rodman, a current nominee for assistant defense secretary.

The commission is being "assisted" by James Harris, head of the CIA´s Strategic Assessment Group. Mr. Harris, like Mr. Wilder, is a former China division chief and has a reputation as a pro-China analyst. Mr. Wilder and Mr. Harris are part of an exclusive group of ideologically motivated analysts who insist that all views of China must lean toward making Beijing a strategic partner, while playing down or ignoring all threatening activities by the Chinese.

Words and deeds

President Bush is backing up his promise to build a global missile defense system with deeds as well as words. Just look at the people he is appointing to influential Pentagon policy jobs.

At the top are two true believers, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz.

But underneath those two are a gang of pro-missile defense policy-makers who will shape the programs and write the memos to get things done.

They include:

* J.D. Crouch as assistant defense secretary for international security policy. Mr. Crouch was a lower-level Pentagon aide in the elder Bush administration. Since then, he has worked at Southwest Missouri State University, where he has taught graduate students at the Department of Defense and Strategic Studies.

* Stephen Cambone as a top adviser to Mr. Rumsfeld´s transition and nominated as deputy undersecretary of defense for policy. Mr. Cambone headed the Rumsfeld Commission study group on missile defense that helped forge Mr. Bush´s accelerated program to field a limited global missile defense for the United States and its allies.

The panel concluded that rogue nations will have the ability to hit U.S. soil with an intercontinental missile sooner than intelligence agencies are predicting.

* John Young as the Navy´s top acquisition official. Mr. Young has handled space and missile defense programs for the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on defense. Mr. Bush has suggested the Navy, largely ignored in the Clinton administration plan, will play a large missile defense role.

Beret battles

Just when it seemed the Pentagon was rectifying problems in buying 4.7 million Army black berets, a problem has cropped up with the one U.S. supplier who makes berets to Army specifications, Bancroft Cap Co. in Cabot, Ark.

A federal law known as the Berry Amendment dictates that military uniforms must be bought from American suppliers and made of 100 percent U.S. products.

The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), which got a tongue lashing from a House committee two weeks ago for buying millions of black berets overseas, is now checking to see if Bancroft is using foreign-made components.

We obtained a May 8 memo from Bancroft to the DLA that states, "We are now using 100 percent domestic wool in all of our yarns."

The letter goes on, "The leather is imported as tanned item from Pakistan and finished in the United States. There is no leather market available in the United States."

Critics of the Army´s decision to equip virtually all soldiers with black berets tell us there are "several" U.S. leather producers.

The Bancroft snafu follows a series of Pentagon stumbles in trying to find enough berets to put on the heads of every soldier by June 14, the Army´s birthday.

The Army won´t make that deadline after rejecting more than 600,000 berets made in communist China, and after rejecting over a million defective berets made in Third World countries.

NIMA under fire

The director of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, the Pentagon´s photographic intelligence service, is under fire from Congress over questionable privatization efforts. Eleven House members wrote to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld earlier this month to question the photo spy agency´s program of directly converting government employees to private contractors -- often at greater expense to U.S. taxpayers.

NIMA´s director, Army Lt. Gen. James C. King, was supposed to carry out a cost-benefit study as part of the privatization program. But Gen. King instead exercised an option allowing the agency to forgo the cost study if the agency selects a contractor that is 51 percent owned by an American Indian tribe.

An Alaska native-owned company, NJVC, is expected to get the contract for computer support and other services in September.

The congressmen, including House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt, Missouri Democrat, and Rep. James P. Moran, Virginia Democrat, said in their letter that the process is unfair because it prevents NIMA employees from having the opportunity to "compete in defense of their jobs."

NIMA´s conversion of government employees to contractors also is expected to increase taxpayer costs, not reduce them, we are told by an agency source.

A NIMA statement said the agency estimates it will save 20 percent to 30 percent over the long term. The agency said privatization will be done in phases over seven years and will use early retirement incentives to avoid firing workers.

The agency also defended its choice of the Native American company, which it said has been certified by the Small Business Administration.

* Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough are Pentagon reporters. Gertz can be reached at 202/636-3274 or by e-mail at bgertz@washingtontimes.com. Scarborough can be reached at 202/636-3208 or by e-mail at rscarborough@washingtontimes.com.

-------- OTHER

-------- alternative energy

Nevada - Solar Energy

May 18, 2001
USAToday
http://www.usatoday.com/news/states/nvmain.htm

Boulder City - The city and the Nevada Test Site Development Corporation signed a 40-year lease for a business park showcasing solar energy production technology from around the world. Some City Council members expressed concern about turning over 320 acres at just a $1 a year, but officials said the park wouldn't compete with the city's efforts to attract energy production companies.

----

Sweden's energy agency advocates more windpower

SWEDEN: May 18, 2001
REUTERS
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=10871

STOCKHOLM - Sweden's energy agency recommended this week that windpower production should be expanded to 10 terawatt hours (TWh) annually in 10-15 years to boost green energy sources and cut greenhouse gas emissions.

"The environmental advantages with windpower-produced power are great...The energy agency advocates that the expansion of windpower be focused to southern Sweden and at sea," Thomas Korsfeldt, chief executive of the agency, said in a statement.

The agency said the project to expand the subsidy-dependent industry would cost the state about four billion crowns ($389.8 million) per year and involve building 2,000 wind turbines, compared with Sweden's already existing 500 plants that produce 0.6 TWh of total annual electricity production of 150 TWh.

Building 1.5-2.0 megawatt turbines would boost Sweden's 0.6 TWh of windpower-produced electricity and an enlargement of the industry would not affect wildlife significantly, it said.

The agency also suggested the windpower stations would be built in the southern regions of Halland, Blekinge, Gotland, Skane and Boshusland.

In a reaction to the agency's report, the Industry ministry later said in a statement that an expansion of the industry required continued development of cheaper technology.

Industry Minister Bjorn Rosengren said he would discuss with representatives of windpower industry future co-operation for the development of windpower in Sweden.

----

Germany's MVV to invest in more biomass plants

GERMANY: May 18, 2001
REUTERS
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=10865

FRANKFURT - German utility MVV is to invest 500 million marks ($226.9 million) in biomass power plants over the next few years in a bid to benefit from renewable energy subsidies, the company said yesterday.

Spokesman Heinz Egermann told Reuters that MVV, which says it is Germany's ninth largest utility, was currently plannning four timber-based, wood-burning projects of 20 megawatts (MW) capcity each.

"We believe biomass power has a secure future after the recent ruling of the European Court of Justice in favour of Germany's law on subsidising renewable energies (EEG)," he said.

"The four new plants will become operational by 2003."

The new plant projects in Mannheim, Wiesbaden, Koenigs-Wusterhausen and Misburg would complement MVV's existing biomass plant in Ruhpolding and two others in Bad-Endorf and Dannenberg, which were scheduled to start this year.

Germany's EEG law in a landmark ruling in March was declared in line with European Union law, securing producers generous prices sety by the state, but payable by energy consumers.

Because renewable energy avoid greenhouse gases emissions which are linked to climate change, the Court ruled that commonly shared environmental goals justified the subsidies.

MVV said in a statement the biomass section within EEG secured producers of power from biomass prices around 20 pfennigs per kilowatt hour (kWh) for the next 20 years.

"This is a solid economic basis for the operation of such plants," it said.

MVV, the only listed municipality of hundreds in Germany's energy distribution sector, has invested in a range of innovative technologies, including cogeneration plants and the powerline technology for internet access via power sockets.

-------- energy

A Misguided Energy Proposal

May 18, 2001
New York Times Editorial
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/18/opinion/18FRI1.html?searchpv=nytToday

President Bush's long-awaited energy plan is as flawed and one-sided as its advance notices suggested it would be. Its 105 separate provisions include several potentially useful proposals aimed at improving energy efficiency and modernizing the country's power grid and pipelines. It also challenges Congress and the country to a long-overdue debate about nuclear power. But on the whole it is an alarmingly unbalanced piece of work whose main objective seems to be to satisfy the ambitions of the oil, gas and coal industries, either by easing environmental rules or by opening public lands for aggressive exploration.

The plan fails on an even more fundamental level. It warns that the nation is in the midst of an energy crisis that "will inevitably undermine our economy, our standard of living and our national security" - a point repeated yesterday by Mr. Bush as he took his energy campaign on the road. But nowhere does the report persuasively make the case that such a crisis exists.

True, California is in obvious trouble, and rising gasoline prices at the pump are discomfiting. But that is not by any stretch a "crisis" like those confronted by Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter. California's problems arise mainly from a deregulation plan gone awry, and gasoline prices are actually lower, in real terms, than they were in the early 1980's. The acute shortage of natural gas that the report complains of is beginning to disappear as more wells are drilled in response to rising prices. Finally, the report's alarming estimates of the growing gap between consumption and production of oil and natural gas over the next 20 years - bedrock data on which Mr. Bush's drilling strategy depends - do not take into account any important new programs aimed at increasing efficiency, even though such programs have confounded official predictions in the past by greatly reducing the country's energy use.

The report is not without value. Though the document was hatched in secret, it could well stimulate an open debate on the country's energy future. More specifically, it proposes some long-overdue capital spending on the country's transmission lines and natural-gas pipeline system. In a nod to the conservationists whom Vice President Dick Cheney has been belittling, it offers hefty tax credits for hybrid cars that run on gasoline and electricity. In addition, the report promises to study possible increases in the fuel economy of the nation's fleet of cars and light trucks - though nobody really expects Mr. Bush to risk any political capital on changes that the automobile industry opposes and Congress itself has refused to make.

The plan also urges a new look at the potential value of nuclear power, which currently generates about 20 percent of the country's electricity but whose growth has been stalled for decades by legitimate safety concerns over waste disposal as well as by the high cost of building new plants. The plan makes a case for increasing nuclear power to diversify the country's energy base and to reduce the emission of global warming gases, which are a byproduct of plants burning fossil fuels but not of nuclear energy. But it ducks for now the troublesome issue of waste disposal, and it seems almost cavalier in calling for the reconsideration of a quarter-century ban on reprocessing the spent fuel from nuclear plants, a technique that can simplify waste disposal but produces plutonium that can be used to make bombs.

Apart from the tax credits for hybrid cars, however, the plan does little for efficiency or renewable energy. But by far the most controversial of Mr. Bush's proposals are those that would ease environmental regulations and open public lands for more drilling. Although Congress is unlikely to approve his misguided plan to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the president has asked his Interior secretary, Gale Norton, to inventory other federal lands that can be made available for exploration. These include ecologically significant wilderness areas in the Rocky Mountains and part of the outer continental shelf that has been off-limits to the oil companies for a decade. Meanwhile, Mr. Bush has asked his Environmental Protection Agency to review clean air rules that, in his view, have placed undue burdens on coal-fired power plants.

The history of most overarching energy strategies is that a few good ideas survive and most of the bad ones disappear. One can only hope that the same fate will befall the Bush program. But it will be up to an attentive Congress to make sure that happens.

----

Bush's new plan has a lot of waste gas

May 18, 2001
Staff Editorial The Lantern
Ohio State U.
http://news.excite.com/news/uw/010518/university-16

(U-WIRE) COLUMBUS, Ohio -- President Bush laid out his energy plan Thursday, proposing (among other things) opening new federal protected lands for gas and oil exploration, an increase in funding for alternative and renewable energy sources, an increased reliance on nuclear power and a change in federal law controlling pollutants from electric generation plants.

The plan would link money from leases by energy companies on protected federal lands to funding for alternative energy resources. The projected $1.2 billion increase for research into wind, biomass, solar and geo-thermal would come from bids on land like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. In essence, the president is saying you can either have nature or alternative fuels -- not both.

Nuclear power figures prominently in the proposed plan. Currently, nuclear power generates 20 percent of the electricity used in the United States. Bush's plan would raise that percentage by building new plants, heavily funding research in fusion power and reviewing the 23-year ban on reprocessing nuclear fuel.

Problems abound with nuclear reprocessing, including substantial economic costs and a proliferation of waste materials and plutonium. Spent uranium fuel cells cannot be made into bomb grade materials, but reprocessing involves plutonium for fuel. This increases concerns over nuclear weapons proliferation -- plutonium being the fuel of bombs.

Bombs aside, the large increase in waste products could cause horrific environmental damage. A prime example is the Hanford Nuclear Facility in Washington. Adjacent to the Columbia River, dangerous levels of radioactive seepage from its old storage areas are within 100 yards of the river ... and getting closer each year. Even here in Ohio, there is the need for massive clean-up around the Piketon plant. People have come to realize that there is no safe storage of nuclear wastes.

Finally, the plan calls for legislation to loosen controls over emissions from electric power plants. Under current guidelines anytime a plant wishes to change its fuel source, a study has to done by the government to explore effects on the environment. The proposal would loosen the study guidelines and grant quicker (but not necessarily informed) consent.

Overall, Bush's energy package lacks any short term relief for Americans who need it. In the long run, it has several dangerous flaws. Congress will have a hard time crafting any useful plans from the mess the president handed it.

----

OPEC Addresses Bush's Energy Plan

The Associated Press
Friday, May 18, 2001
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20010518/aponline153252_000.htm

CARACAS, Venezuela -- The secretary-general of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries said Friday that U.S. President George W. Bush's energy plan won't hurt nations that export oil to the United States.

Bush's plan, announced Thursday, would reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil by boosting domestic gas, oil and nuclear energy production. Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, two OPEC key members, are among the top four suppliers of crude oil and refined products to the United States.

"They predict a boost from domestic production, but they aren't going to satisfy completely their demand," Rodriguez, formerly Venezuela's oil minister, said in an interview with Union Radio.

"In any case, U.S. oil imports (from OPEC countries) will remain high," said Rodriguez.

Washington and OPEC both blame limited refining capacity and transportation bottlenecks for high gasoline and heating oil prices in the United States.

Rodriguez said he anticipated no changes in OPEC production when OPEC ministers meet in Vienna on June 5-6.

OPEC's 11 members decided in January to slash their official production by 5 percent. They followed in March by cutting output by an additional 4 percent. Both moves were part of an effort to keep crude prices within a $22-$28 per barrel range.

The group pumped an average of 27.9 million barrels of oil per day before the second round of cuts took effect, according to the Paris-based International Energy Agency.

OPEC's basket of crude oil prices averaged $26.36 per barrel on Thursday.

----

Oil, Gas Drillers Welcome Bush Plan

By Brad Foss
AP Business Writer
Friday, May 18, 2001
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20010518/aponline154432_000.htm

NEW YORK -- The Bush administration's energy proposal is packed with so many features that everyone in the industry expects to benefit financially, though oil and gas drillers clearly stand to make out better than, say, builders of wind farms.

Top executives from the petroleum, coal and nuclear industries have embraced the plan's emphasis on increasing America's domestic fuel supply and improving the infrastructure needed to move it around.

Companies that produce and sell wind and solar energy, however, remain less sure about their lot.

E. Linn Draper, chairman of Columbus, Ohio-based American Electric Power Co., the nation's biggest coal burner, lauded the policy because it will "keep coal in the energy mix in a big way." Coal accounts for more than 50 percent of all electricity produced in the United States, though cleaner-burning natural gas has gained importance in recent years.

Draper said he is glad the plan included incentives for people interested in using energy from renewable sources, such as solar panels and fuel cells. But he said those interests were properly given less weight than more traditional sources of power.

"It looks to me like it was written by people who really know something about energy," Draper said.

Jesper Michaelsen, sales manager for wind turbine manufacturer NEG Micon USA of Rolling Meadows, Ill., couldn't disagree more.

Michaelsen was disappointed the plan did not set any specific goals for increasing the amount of power generated from renewable sources. Wind and solar account for just 2 percent of the nation's total electricity market.

"If the government is not taking renewable energy seriously, then why should a utility take it seriously? At the end of the day, if they don't feel the need to buy that power, then there is no market for it," Michaelsen said.

The thrust of the Bush plan is to give petroleum and coal companies easier access to public lands, to speed up the review process for proposed refinery and power plant expansions and to renew the nation's long-term commitment to nuclear power.

These steps and a commitment to a mix of fuels, the plan states, are necessary to provide Americans with abundant energy and stable prices over the long term.

The net benefit for providers of renewable energy was less clear. On the one hand, tax incentives were proposed for people who purchase solar panels, but the policy gave no indication that the $200 million for clean energy research cut from the federal budget would be restored, as some renewable energy executives had sought.

Allen Barnett, who heads solar panel maker AstroPower Inc. of Newark, Del., said he is thankful that any attention at all was given to "green" energy companies, given the fact that many Bush advisers previously held top positions at oil and gas companies.

"It's the most we could hope for," he said. "I didn't expect them to abandon their roots."

The Bush administration has set a goal of building up to 1,900 new power plants over the next 30 years to keep pace with demand.

With the federal government promising power plant manufacturers everything from tax breaks to relaxed regulatory procedures, perhaps the biggest challenge for the industry, executives say, will be finding enough pipefitters, boilermakers and electricians to get the work done.

"Within this specialized work force, it'll result in increased wages," said Ron Barnes, who oversees power plant construction for a joint venture between California's Fluor Corp. and North Carolina-based Duke Energy Corp.

The report's overall content was lambasted by Democrats and environmentalists, but was expected to be a boon to state governments that depend on taxes and royalties from drilling operations, such as Oklahoma, Texas and Louisiana.

John Rowe, president of Chicago-based nuclear power provider Exelon Corp., said the plan will make it easier to get license extensions for nuclear plants and speed up the federal review of Yucca Mountain, the Nevada site being considered as a repository for radioactive waste.

The nuclear industry also expects help from the Bush administration in renewing a 1957 law set to expire in 2002 that limits corporate liability from a nuclear accident.

----

Energy Plan Winners & Losers

The Associated Press
Friday, May 18, 2001
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20010518/aponline161453_000.htm

Some of the groups who consider themselves winners or losers under the Bush administration energy plan, and why:

Winners:

Coal: National Mining Association

-The plan would provide $2 billion over a decade to fund research of "clean coal" technology that turns coal into a clean-burning gas for use by power plants.

-It would offer a new credit for power produced using both biomass and coal.

-It asks the Environmental Protection Agency or Congress to examine letting coal-burning power plants conduct routine maintenance, including anti-pollution upgrades, without facing environmental reviews as currently required.

-It would establish a flexible, market-based program to reduce and cap emissions of mercury, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides from power plants.

Electric: Edison Electric Institute

-The plan seeks to expand energy transmission systems, in part by ordering federal agencies to expedite permits.

-It seeks establishment of a national nuclear waste disposal site.

-It would streamline and speed relicensing process for hydroelectric facilities.

Labor: Teamsters

-The plan would help energy-based companies to succeed and avoid job cuts due to higher energy prices.

-It would create more union jobs, in part through increased oil exploration on federal land such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Natural Gas: American Gas Association

- The plan would speed approval of pipeline construction.

- It would not impose price caps.

Nuclear: Nuclear Energy Institute

-The plan would extend legislation due to expire next year that sets the minimum liability coverage nuclear power plants must carry in case of an accident.

-It would make sure decommissioning funds - money nuclear plant owners must set aside to handle any contamination if their plants eventually close - are not taxed when plants change hands.

-It seeks establishment of federal nuclear waste site.

Oil: American Petroleum Institute

-The plan would speed permitting, including providing access to nonpark federal land for oil exploration and production, in the Rockies and other areas in the lower 48 states, offshore in areas still available and in Alaska, including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

-It would diversify the nation's sources of crude oil by increasing the supply from abroad, in part by re-examining countries now under U.S. economic sanctions.

-It would expand the nation's refining/pipeline/distribution infrastructure to meet demand for gasoline, diesel and home-heating fuel, in part by making environmental permitting more flexible to encourage faster expansion.

---

Losers:

Energy Efficiency: Alliance To Save Energy

-Energy efficiency is not a major part of the plan.

-The plan doesn't abandon a proposed cut in federal funding for energy efficiency-related research and development.

Environmentalists: Natural Resources Defense Council

-The plan fails to recognize energy efficiency as the largest, fastest, cleanest, cheapest resource.

-It would not reduce smog and global-warming pollution.

-It focuses heavily on increased production of fuels such as coal and oil.

----

Bush Signs Executive Energy Orders

By Sonya Ross
Associated Press Writer
Friday, May 18, 2001
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20010518/aponline155357_000.htm

CONESTOGA, Pa. -- As Congress and the public began to choose sides in the energy debate, President Bush marched forward Friday with some plans that don't need congressional approval.

Bush ordered all federal agencies, before they issue any kind of regulations, to consider their impact on energy supplies, and to expedite permits so that energy projects don't get "snarled in bureaucratic tangles as local governments or entrepreneurs seek permit after permit from agency after agency."

"The statement of energy impact is not a red light preventing any agency from taking any action. It is a yellow light that says pause and think before you make decisions that squeeze consumers' pocketbooks, that may cause energy shortages or that may make us more dependent on foreign energy," Bush said.

Bush signed the executive orders after checking out a fish elevator designed to minimize the habitat disruption at a hydroelectric project along the Susquehanna River - a trip outside Washington meant to underscore his argument that conservation is compatible with his call for massively increased oil, coal and nuclear energy development.

"This dam is a symbol of the new age of environmental possibilities," Bush told an assembly gathered outside the Safe Harbor Corporation project at the river's edge.

"It's powering Pennsylvania's economy while at the same time restoring Pennsylvania wildlife. It goes to show that economic growth and a good environmental policy do not have to be zero sum. I doesn't have to be either-or."

Even as Bush highlighted hydroelectric power, he admitted his own doubt that such so-called renewable energy sources, including solar and wind power, can ever replace oil and gas.

"I hope someday that these renewables will be the dominant source of energy in America. I'm not so sure how realistic that is," Bush said.

As Bush travels the nation trying to build support, signs of deep divisions on energy are abundant, foreshadowing a bitter debate in Congress on the many items in Bush's plan that will require lawmakers' approval.

The Sierra Club was rallying at a nearby park on Friday. "Wouldn't a trip to Three Mile Island be more honest?" read an ad the club ran in local newspapers, referring to the site of a reactor accident two decades ago.

Some 200 protesters demonstrated outside Bush's speech Thursday in St. Paul, Minn., criticizing him for underemphasizing alternative energy sources such as solar power. Another 50 stood outside a remote energy research facility he visited in Nevada, Iowa; One person hoisted a sign that read, "Bush-Cheney: Fossil Fools."

In Washington, House Democratic leader Dick Gephardt said Bush's plan "really looks like the Exxon Mobil annual report."

In power-strapped California, Democratic Gov. Gray Davis accused Bush of "turning a blind eye to the bleeding and hemorrhaging that exists in this state."

Environmental groups denounced the plan too. "The Bush plan is a recipe for higher energy bills and more pollution," said David Hawkins, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's Climate Center.

Bush sought to defuse the criticism in a pair of speeches Thursday, each stressing that he intends to strike a balance between the environment and exploration.

He forcefully defended what is perhaps the least popular element in his plan, a call to open up a portion of Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, insisting the exploration can be done safely.

"In Arctic sites like ANWR, we can build roads of ice that literally melt away when summer comes, and the drilling then stops to protect wildlife," he said.

Bush's ANWR proposal has already met fierce resistance on Capitol Hill, even among some fellow Republicans.

But Bush aides believe they can seize the upper hand, now that his long-awaited plan is public. They say the pressure is now on Democratic critics to address the nation's energy problems.

Any delays in consideration of Bush's plan "risk leaving lights off and risk high gas prices," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said.

Nevertheless, he said, "The Congress is going to put its stamp on this proposal."

Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham called environmental critics "alarmists," during an appearance on NBC's "Today."

And, turning to criticism from former President Carter, Abraham said Carter "presided over probably the worst era in terms of energy policy in American history. We don't want to repeat those mistakes."

----

Environmentalists say US energy plans disastrous

UK: May 18, 2001
Story by Paul Casciato
REUTERS
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=10852

LONDON - International environmental groups slammed energy plans unveiled by U.S. President George W. Bush as disastrous, saying they would distance the United States from the rest of the world.

Bush laid out a plan of attack yesterday against "the most serious energy shortage" since the 1970s, calling for heavier reliance on oil, coal and nuclear power, and $10 billion in tax credits for conservation measures.

Greenpeace described the conservation measures as "window dressing" and fellow campaigners Friends of the Earth were particularly scathing about the plans for increasing nuclear power and opening an Alaskan wildlife refuge to oil and gas exploration.

"Today's plan threatening a new generation of nuclear power stations, destruction of the Alaskan wilderness and other environmentally disastrous proposals will distance the United States even further from the main strain of environmental concern across the rest of the planet," said Charles Secrett, Executive Director of Friends of the Earth in Britain.

The long-awaited report on national energy policy was developed by a task force led by Vice President Dick Cheney and presented by Bush during a speech to local business leaders in St. Paul, Minnesota. As he spoke, hundreds of activists protested outside.

In the face of rolling power blackouts across the state of California and increasing shortages, Bush said the plan was an answer to a call for action.

"If we fail to act, we could face a darker future, a future that is unfortunately being previewed in rising prices at the gas pump and rolling blackouts in California," Bush said.

Initial international reaction to the U.S. plans from most governments was quiet, but Jan Pronk, head of the U.N. forum on climate change, dubbed it a "disastrous development" for international efforts to slow output of greenhouse gases.

Pronk, also the Dutch environment minister, told Dutch television the Bush plan would "undoubtedly" lead to increased output of carbon dioxide, although he still awaited proposals from the world's biggest polluter on how to cut emissions.

"In terms of the possibility of forming an integrated policy (to cut emissions), this is a disastrous development," he said.

INCREASE IN GLOBAL WARMING GASES

Greenpeace said the call to increase fossil fuels use ran counter to efforts in other industrialised states to reduce the output of so-called greenhouse gases.

A United Nation's scientific body has said greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide produced by the burning of fossil fuels, will contribute to warming of the earth's surface. That in turn will lead to higher ocean levels, dramatic changes in weather patterns and greater frequency of severe storms.

"This plan is going to substantially increase U.S. greenhouse gas emissions at a time when most of the industrialised countries are trying to reduce them," Greenpeace climate policy director Bill Hare told Reuters.

And in a sign that some other European allies have been angered by U.S. policies affecting the environment, Bush's top economic adviser Glenn Hubbard was lambasted at a meeting of industrialised nations in Paris yesterday for rejecting the Kyoto protocol on global warming.

U.S. DEFENDS ITSELF

Hubbard was forced to defend U.S. policies after some ministers among the 30 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries at the meeting accused the U.S. of turning its back on efforts to clear up planetary pollution.

"I do not think the U.S. is disengaging from the problems of the planet. It's more a case of changing the conversation," Hubbard told reporters at a news conference yesterday.

The Kyoto accord commits developed countries to a five percent cut of greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels by 2008-2012.

But French Finance Minister Laurent Fabius was adamant that the U.S. rejection of Kyoto in March could damage Kyoto's success.

"The U.S. withdrawal from the Kyoto protocol endangers the entire process," Fabius said.

In a statement under the headline "Bush to Planet Earth: Drop Dead", Friends of the Earth also accused the energy plan of being a handout to the oil industry.

"The U.S. administration will face protests at home and across the world if it ever tries to put this plan into action," it said.

-------- environment

News Analysis: A New Focus on Supply

May 18, 2001
By DOUGLAS JEHL
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/18/politics/18ENVI.html

WASHINGTON, May 17 - Under federal law, anyone wanting to drill oil wells, lay pipelines or build power plants has for decades been required to prepare an environmental impact statement clearing the project on environmental grounds.

Now, as a central part of his new energy plan, President Bush is calling for attention to the flip side of that approach. Under an executive order that Mr. Bush is to issue on Friday, any federal agency considering steps that might adversely affect the nation's energy health would have to issue a new kind of impact statement, this one on energy grounds.

Together with the calls the administration makes in the report on energy policy it issued today to "streamline," "expedite" or even remove obstacles to energy production, the new directive represents an important shift of emphasis.

Instead of "why drill?" for example, the basic presumption of the Bush team seems to be "why not?" Under that approach, the interior secretary, Gale A. Norton, is being instructed "where opportunities exist" to review and modify restrictions that stand in the way of oil and gas leasing across America's public lands, the report says, adding parenthetically, "consistent with law, good environmental practice and balanced use of other resources."

In the 170-page report, the administration dismissed as old-fashioned the idea that any tension existed between environmental protection and energy production.

Such a distinction, it said, represented a "false choice" because "an integrated approach to policy can yield a cleaner environment, a stronger economy and a sufficient supply of energy for our future."

But in the swirl of praise and criticism that surrounded the report today, there was considerable debate concerning whether the administration was injecting a much-needed balance into deliberations over new projects or courting environmental risks with can-do rhetoric and recommendations.

Jerry Jordan, who represents the companies that drill roughly 85 percent of the country's oil and gas wells, defended the Bush plan, saying he believed it would put the country on the right track by interpreting environmental rules in a less restrictive way.

"The net effect, from our viewpoint, will be that things become more reasonable," Mr. Jordan, president of the Independent Petroleum Association of America, said.

But David Alberswerth, who served in the Interior Department during the Clinton administration and now works for the Wilderness Society, an environmental advocacy group, offered a different interpretation.

"The language throughout the report conveys the idea that environmental protections equal impediments and we have to find a way to surmount them," Mr. Alberswerth said. "But we view these protections as necessary to protecting the wildlife, water quality and scenic quality of public lands."

Except for repeating a call to go forward with oil and gas exploration in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a plan that Congress is not likely to approve, the Bush report offers little guide to where the administration might aim in seeking to accelerate energy development. Among the leading targets, though, have been the gas-rich public lands in the Rocky Mountains and the Gulf of Mexico.

While the administration deferred a decision related to the Clean Air Act, it made clear that it wants the Environmental Protection Agency to soften its interpretation of a provision that coal-fired power plants and oil refineries say has limited their capacity to expand.

The Bush policy is vague about exactly what changes the administration will embrace on projects involving the construction of oil and gas pipelines, hydroelectric and nuclear plants. But the report's tone is consistently bullish and implicitly critical of past approaches that it suggests have been overcautious.

To help bypass "overly burdensome" restrictions on the construction of power plants, transmission lines, pipelines and refineries, the report says, President Bush plans to issue a separate executive order "directing federal agencies to expedite permits and coordinate federal, state and local actions necessary for energy-related project approvals on a national basis in an environmentally sound manner."

That overall approach drew an objection today from David Hayes, who served as deputy interior secretary during the Clinton administration. "I'm very skeptical about the extent to which environmental regulations have held back any appropriate energy production," Mr. Hayes said.

Bush administration officials emphasized today that nothing in what the president was proposing would take away from the power of environmental impact studies, which have been required since 1970 under the National Environmental Policy Act for virtually any major project that might disrupt natural habitats.

The studies, which must address a broad range of economic and environmental issues, have been the main forum for critics within the government and the public to challenge oil drilling and other projects.

On the other hand, the incorporation of a new energy-impact statement into the Office of Management and Budget's reviews would give energy issues a kind of symbolic parity with environmental ones.

"This would provide us with the kind of voice in the federal policymaking process that we haven't had before," said R. Skip Horvath, president of the Natural Gas Supply Association.

Some environmental lawyers and others who have fought to protect public lands from development said they viewed the broad thrust of the administration's policy as a plan to open doors that have been closed since Ronald Reagan was president.

"The signal is, let's turn back the clock, get the oil leasing done, get the mining approved and have a holiday of exploitation on public lands," said Todd True, a Seattle lawyer for the Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund, an environmental advocacy organization.

-------- genetics

German President Urges Caution on Genetic Research

May 18, 2001
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/health/science-health-german.html?searchpv=reuters

BERLIN (Reuters) - Germany's head of state, President Johannes Rau, issued a stern warning on Friday against putting economic or health benefits above moral considerations in genetic engineering and biotechnology research.

His keynote speech provoked reaction across the political spectrum as Germany struggles to reconcile restrictions on gene research -- partly in reaction to Nazi abuses -- with pressure from business, which feels its competitiveness is compromised.

``Economic developments are legitimate and important. But they cannot outweigh human dignity and the protection of life,'' Rau said.

The president, whose authority is largely symbolic, is a member of Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's Social Democrats, and his comments were seized upon by the opposition Christian Democrats as criticism of government discussions on easing research rules to help German companies compete internationally.

Even within the center-left coalition, ministers have been at odds over calls from industry and scientists for more scope to research with human stem cells in order that Germany, with its strong industrial tradition, can better compete globally.

``I believe there are things we cannot do no matter what the actual or imagined benefits are,'' said Rau, 70, a practicing Protestant Christian and son of a pastor.

``Eugenics, euthanasia and selection -- these are terms that are linked to dreadful memories in Germany,'' he added, referring to Nazi theories of racial supremacy and the wholesale murder of those considered to be racially or otherwise inferior.

However, history alone should not be a reason for Germany not to take part in examining advances in genetic science:

``The argument that we Germans cannot do things because of our history is mistaken. If we think something is unethical and immoral, it is because it is unethical and immoral everywhere.''

Schroeder said this week it was important to take advantage of the economic and health benefits offered by gene technology.

Easier laws could enable more research into killer diseases like leukemia, Parkinson's disease and cancer.

Easing the laws would help Germany's top biotechnology firms catch up with their European rivals, such as Britain, whose government has allowed limited cloning of human embryos.

But Rau said the enthusiasm surrounding developments in biotechnology reminded him of similar enthusiasm in the 1950s and 1960s for nuclear energy, which Germany is now giving up.

-------- spying

Russian Accuses Aid Groups of Spying

MAY 18, 16:37 EST
By ANDREW KRAMER
Associated Press Writer
http://wire.ap.org/APnews/main.html?FRONTID=EUROPE&STORYID=APIS7C4G3T00

MOSCOW (AP) - A Russian intelligence official claimed Friday that foreign spies are working under the cover of humanitarian relief groups in and around the warring province of Chechnya, news reports said.

Gen. Vladimir Bezugly, chief of Russia's Federal Security Service branch office in the southern city of Vladikavkaz near Chechnya, said five aid workers were expelled from the region last year, the Interfax and ITAR-Tass news agencies reported.

He did not say which organizations they worked for or name the individuals, and the Federal Security Service in Moscow would not comment on the reports. The Vladikavkaz office of the agency - a successor to the KGB - could not be reached for comment.

Aid workers familiar with work in Chechnya said they had not heard of the cases, but said accusations of spying are part of the job for humanitarian workers in wars all over the world.

``There have been some vague reports (of spy accusations), but I think that is part and partial to humanitarian aid work in war zones,'' said Diederik Lohman, director of the Moscow office of New York-based Human Rights Watch. ``There are two warring parties, and they are both going to be somewhat unhappy with what you are doing.''

Bezugly said his agents were also worried by humanitarian groups active in neighboring Georgia, which borders Chechnya to the south.

``There are several international organizations that are covered by the CIA. Through them Chechen rebels get food and medicines,'' he was quoted as saying by Interfax.

Russia has been awash in spy accusations in recent months. Human rights groups say agents of the Federal Security Service have been emboldened since last year's election of a former KGB officer, Vladimir Putin, to Russia's presidency.

The director of Russia's Glasnost Fund, which monitors rights abuses, said he was not surprised by the allegations because foreigners in other fields have already been targeted.

``Russia is caught in spy hysteria, spy mania. In all areas, there's an intensified search for spies,'' said Sergei Grigoryants.

Currently 12 known espionage cases are in the courts or under investigation in Russia, he said. Environmentalists, journalists and scientists are among those accused.

In unconfirmed reports in Russian media, Russian officials had hinted earlier this year that Kenneth Gluck, a relief worker with Doctors Without Borders who was kidnapped by unidentified gunmen in Chechnya for about a month, might have been a spy.

Russian officials were also quoted as saying Frederick Cuny, an American aid worker who disappeared in Chechnya in 1995 and is presumed dead, was a CIA agent. Cuny's family has said Russian secret police deliberately spread the rumor that Cuny was a spy among Chechen rebels so they would kill him, in retaliation for an article he had written that was critical of the Russian war effort.



------- OneList (submissions from subscribers)

------- Depleted Uranium Keeps On Killing!