Archive By Date | Today's Links to Search By
Activists' News | Nuclear | Depleted Uranium | Military | Police
Alternative Energy Etc. | From Subscribers
NUCLEAR
Today in History
Canadian NB Power Utility to Be Restructured
Nuclear conflict could break out in 3 weeks: US
Report: S. Asia Nuclear War Could Kill 12 Million
Americans in India Not Worried
A Token for Russia
U.S. Resumes Making Nuclear Triggers
DOE Pledges Millions to Cleanup Cold War Sites
Calif. Power Operators Issue Alert
At Meeting, U.S. Agency Says Indian Point 2 Safety Has Improved
Penn. Lawmaker: Guard Guns Are Empty
Trust in Government Declines
Ashcroft defends taking of new powers
MILITARY
Bulgaria, U.S. Sign to Destroy Arms
FDA Acts To Speed Bioterror Medicines
Bulgaria, U.S. Sign to Destroy Arms
Developer Was Warned on Crusader
Airships May Help Homeland Security
US Delegation Visits Embattled Shchuchye Chemical Weapons Storage Depot
State Dept. Issues India Advisory
India: Border With Pakistan Stable
U.N., Iraq to Focus on Inspections
Iraq Says U.S. Attacks Iraqi Air Defenses
Anger over paramilitary industries on kibbutz
Settlements Expanding Under Sharon
Israel Moves Into West Bank City as Envoys Start New Peace Bid
Powell Wants Proof of Pakistan Militants Clampdown
Chinese finalize design for manned spacecraft
National Defense & National Offense
Bring back the Crusader system
Bush Seeks to Shift Crusader Funds
Ruling Junta Hires Lobbying Firm of GOP Strategist
Army Closing Peacekeeping Office
POLICE / PRISONERS
An Erosion of Civil Liberties
Ashcroft promotes initiative for volunteers to aid police
FBI Monitored Militants in Italy Before 9/11
Ashcroft: Old Rules Aided Terrorists
Ashcroft Permits F.B.I. to Monitor Internet and Public Activities
Ashcroft defends taking of new powers
Lawmakers Say Misstatements Cloud F.B.I. Chief's Credibility
The (revised) FBI story
Missiles smuggled into U.S.
Mexicans say cyanide found
Former U.S. Defense Chief Sees New Terror Threat
ENERGY AND OTHER
UK green power firm EPRL aims for 2003 listing
Calif. Power Operators Issue Alert
European Union Ratifies Eco Treaty
New Panel Will Advise EPA About Superfund
Anti-Terror Drugs Get Test Shortcut
Most in U.S. at Higher Cancer Risk
ACTIVISTS
Kyrgyzstan Picks Top Official
China Sentences Democracy Activists
Delegates Close in on Earth Summit Plan, NGOs Livid
-------- NUCLEAR
Today in History - May 31
May 31, 2002
By The Associated Press
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020531/ap_on_to_in_hi/history_1
... In 1994, the United States announced it was no longer aiming long-range nuclear missiles at targets in the former Soviet Union....
-------- canada
Canadian NB Power Utility to Be Restructured
Thu May 30, 2002
Reuters
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020530/wl_canada_nm/canada_utilties_newbrunswick_nbpower_col_1
FREDERICTON, New Brunswick - The New Brunswick government said on Thursday it plans to reorganize provincial-owned utility NB Power and seek private investments to help pay for energy upgrades.
The government of Premier Bernard Lord said in a statement that the money-losing utility, which exports electricity to the New England states, will remain under provincial ownership as a Crown corporation.
New Brunswick said it welcomes private investment in major projects, including upgrades of the 680 megawatt Point Lepreau nuclear power plant and the 1,006 MW Coleson Cove oil-fired generating station.
The goal is to reduce the financial burden on utility customers and taxpayers, the government said.
The utility plans a $2 billion program to improve the power plants, which provide about one third of New Brunswick's electricity, to meet new environmental rules and to keep them operating for a few more decades.
NB Power has about 340,000 customers in the province and has lost money for four of the past five years; it has about $3 billion of debt.
"This decision is a balanced and practical approach to ensure NB Power will remain a publicly-owned utility which will operate more efficiently," said Lord.
"Rates and the value of the utility and its impact on the provincial finances were key considerations," he added.
Under the reorganization plan, NB Power would become a holding company with four subsidiaries to handle nonnuclear power generation, nuclear power, transmission, and local distribution-customer service.
The transmission unit would be a common carrier providing open access to the power grid for delivery of electricity within the province, for exports, or for carrying power through New Brunswick.
The government said it expects the reorganization, to be completed by April 2003, will help each subsidiary to work more efficiently to maintain competitive energy rates.
-------- india / pakistan
Nuclear conflict could break out in 3 weeks: US
2002-05-31
Pakistan News
http://www.paknews.com/main.php?id=7&date1=2002-05-31
Fears are growing that the small but heated conflict between Pakistan and India could spiral into a big one that could go nuclear without warning in three to four weeks, a US TV News Network citing US officials said Thursday.
According to US officials, either side could be prepared to launch a large-scale conventional attack in three to four weeks, but the real fear is that the conflict could escalate into nuclear warfare.
"The major league concern is that both sides still see nuclear weapons as an option," one US official told NBC.
Pentagon officials told NBC News that India's military is arming its medium-range missiles with conventional, high-explosive warheads that can also carry nuclear warheads.
Indian army is also positioning tanks a few dozen miles from the border, moving ammunition and some of its warplanes forward, calling up reserves and canceling all military leave. India also has moved ships into the Arabian Sea, closer to Pakistan.
NBC-TV said that the Air Force is preparing plans for a massive evacuation of American and allied nationals in the event a war is breaking out. It will require the evacuation of 250,000 people, according to NBC's estimate.
Pakistan who is following the policy of restraint however has signaled it might use nuclear weapons first, if India were to strike first with its regular army.
U.S. analysts said they see in both India and Pakistan a steady preparation for a limited war along the Line of Control in the disputed territory of Kashmir.
In Washington, the State Department again urged restraint, also underscoring the danger. "The climate is very charged and a serious conflagration could ensue if events spiral out of control, " spokesman Richard Boucher said.
A US intelligence report estimated a full-scale nuclear exchange between the two countries would kill up to 12 million people.
----
Report: S. Asia Nuclear War Could Kill 12 Million
May 31, 2002
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-southasia-usa-nuclear.html
WASHINGTON - All-out nuclear war between India and Pakistan could kill as many as 12 million people and injure as many as 6 million, a Pentagon official said Friday, citing a classified report.
Worries about a possible nuclear war in South Asia took center stage in Washington Friday as the United States urged more than 60,000 U.S. citizens to leave India and Britain warned its nationals to consider getting out.
If the two neighbors disputing the territory of Kashmir unleashed all their nuclear weapons, the Defense Department report estimated it could cause between 9 million and 12 million deaths and between 2 million and 6 million injuries. That would make it the second most deadly war ever after World War Two. ``That's the worst-case scenario, if we have correctly guessed the number of weapons each side has, and their targets, and presuming they're all ground bursts versus air bursts,'' the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
A nuclear warhead that explodes on the ground instead of in the air would create more fallout, the official said. But he said an air burst would have a wider footprint and cause more damage and injuries.
``The fatalities if they were air bursts would be slightly smaller by maybe a million, but ... that's still a very significant number,'' the official said.
The U.S. official estimated Pakistan has ``several dozen'' nuclear warheads and India has ``a couple dozen'' but declined to be more specific.
``In conventional military power, India probably has a two-and-a-half to one advantage over Pakistan,'' the official said. ``Pakistan developed nuclear weapons to counter India's conventional power.''
Even in a ``limited'' war, with 10 bombs exploding in the major cities of each country, more than 3 million people could die in the immediate blasts and fire and from radiation, according to calculations announced last week by Princeton University nuclear researchers.
The United States has been leading international pressure to bring India and Pakistan from the brink of war. Washington, which used its nuclear arsenal as a mutual deterrent with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, signed this month a treaty with Russia to slash the number of deployed nuclear warheads.
The United States is the only country that has used such warfare, dropping two atom bombs on Japan and killing more than an estimated 100,000 people almost immediately with many more dying in the following years. That attack came toward the end of World War Two, in which historians believe more than 30 million people may have died.
CLASSIFIED U.S. REPORT
The classified Defense Department report was issued in May, the official said, noting the report must be continually updated to reflect changing conditions.
``(This report is) something that we've had on the shelf but it needs to be updated with weather patterns, which would affect distribution of fallout and number of casualties,'' the official said.
The official said the coming monsoon season in South Asia would have to be taken into account, but did not specify what effect the winds and rain would have on the U.S. estimate of nuclear war damage in the region.
Death and injury estimates may be unrealistically high, the official said, because they are based on the assumption that every nuclear weapon would perform as designed and hit its target.
Pakistan would probably deliver its nuclear weapons aboard F-16 aircraft or on ballistic missiles, the official said, while India would be likely to use MiG-27 aircraft or ballistic missiles.
If Pakistan used its F-16s, it would encounter India's integrated air defense, the official said, adding, ``To say that every F-16 would get through -- I don't know of any war planner who would make that assumption.''
Asked whether Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld would be taking the classified report with him when he travels to South Asia next week to try to defuse tensions, the official would say only, ``He certainly has the information.''
----
Americans in India Not Worried
Fri May 31, 2002
By DIRK BEVERIDGE,
Associated Press Writer
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020531/ap_on_re_as/india_pakistan_americans_6
Sipping drinks by the pool at their private club, several Americans said Friday night they aren't overly worried about war between India and Pakistan - much less a nuclear one.
But Washington warned the 60,000 U.S. citizens now in India that they should go home, and some are taking off, even if it's only on vacations booked weeks ago to coincide with summer break at their children's schools.
"It's hard to believe anything would really happen," said Barbara Richard, who acknowledged war worries prompted her to push up her travel plans by two weeks out of concern for her children, aged 12, 10 and 4.
Richard, a Washington native, said that without the kids, she'd be fine staying here with her husband, who works in India for a multinational corporation.
"Maybe that's stupid," she said. "Maybe that's naive. I've never been in a war. I don't see anything coming, but what about the Jews in Germany in the 1930s? Some of them said they saw something coming and they didn't get out."
Locals have for months been dismissing war talk between New Delhi and Islamabad as just that.
On Friday, Lalit Mansingh, India's ambassador to Washington, said the U.S. action was unnecessary.
"I don't think the situation justifies asking Americans to leave India," he told The Associated Press in an interview in Raleigh, N.C.
But the U.S. government warned Americans on May 24 to go home and Secretary of State Colin Powell decided Friday that "nonessential" embassy personnel would be asked to fly home - at taxpayer expense. Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada have issued similar warnings.
A New Delhi stockbroker who has been an American citizen for a decade said the government shouldn't tell people what to do.
"They should be left on their own," Anil Batra said. "If they think the risk is more than normal, they can leave. I don't think there's much of a risk here."
Batra noted that New York, where he used to live, experienced a far worse terror attack on Sept. 11 than anything ever seen in Delhi, although the current tensions with Pakistan broke out when Muslim extremists staged a deadly assault on the seat of India's government in December.
Pakistan's stance that it won't rule out a first use of nuclear weapons are nothing more than "blackmail," Batra said.
The State Department warning cited artillery exchanges between Indian and Pakistani troops - which are taking place daily in the disputed Kashmir region and have killed dozens of people, albeit far away from Indian cities where most Americans live.
Kimberley Manno, a 29-year-old American aid worker who has been in Bombay for nearly five months, said she had not yet made up her mind about leaving.
"It's so hard to tell about a situation like this," said Manno, who comes from Medford, N.J. and works for the GIVE foundation charity. "But it clearly seems to be more serious than any time before this. I hope cooler heads will prevail.
"This still seems like a relatively safe place to be and when you look around you - the world just isn't safe," she said.
Chicago resident Vipin Goyal said he already had his bags packed - just in case he had to rush out of Bombay - and he was paying close attention to the government warning although it hadn't convinced him to leave.
"These guys have more information than I do, so things are serious," said 26-year-old Goyal, a consultant with MTV. "I'm not going to jump on a plane. But I actually do have my stuff ready in case I have to leave in a hurry."
New Delhi travel agents said Friday they'd seen no flood of people scurrying to get away - but they'd be happy to sell some of the plentiful airline seats that were up for grabs.
"There is nobody trying to flee India," said Sanjay Dang, at the Travel World shop. "I've been in touch with all the airlines across town - seats are available on British Airways, Air France, Lufthansa, Air India, KLM. All of them have seats available in every class.
"If there was a problem with Americans or Europeans wanting to flee India there would be a mad scramble and there's no such thing," Dang said.
At Sadhana Travel Services, which has a number of U.S. clients, agent Ashutosh Sharma said he hadn't gotten any calls from worried Americans.
"There are a lot of people who are going away anyway because the holidays at their kids' school," Sharma said. "That has nothing to do with the current scenario."
-------- russia
[To reply - mailto:OPED@washpost.com]
A Token for Russia
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, May 31, 2002
Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A36764-2002May30?language=printer
At a dinner last year at the Russian Embassy, a senior Russian official expressed deep dismay that the Bush administration was preparing to eliminate large numbers of nuclear missiles without any coordination with Russia. I was astonished. "Mr. Minister," I said, "I never thought I would live to see the day when a representative of Moscow would complain that Washington is reducing its nuclear arsenal."
Most striking was the Russian's tone. It was not at all bellicose. It was plaintive. The fact that we were prepared to make unilateral arms cuts, whether or not Russia followed suit, was deeply disturbing to him. And everyone in the room understood why. It showed how little Russia mattered.
In the heyday of Soviet power, Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko once defined a superpower as a country that has a say in every corner of the globe and without whose say nothing substantial can be achieved in any corner. The Soviet Union met that definition. In the Congo, Cuba, Germany, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Angola, Czechoslovakia, the Middle East -- everywhere -- Russia had a say, often a decisive say.
It was not only that it had the largest land army in the world or the largest nuclear arsenal. We tend to forget the kind of "soft power" the Soviets possessed. For decades, they offered the world an ideology that held extraordinary sway among the intellectual classes. Not just in the Third World. The power of the communist idea extended deep into the heart of the Western alliance, led by communist parties in France and Italy that had enormous followings.
Today communism has about the same cachet as alchemy. Yet at the height of its power, communist and socialist governments ruled half the world. The wonder of the post-Cold War era is that Russia could have suffered a collapse to strategic irrelevance without revolution or revanchism.
The Russians are not angry. They are simply hurt. And they were quite humiliated when we were preparing to unilaterally cut our nukes without even asking them for a quid pro quo. In the end, we acceded to Russia's paradoxical request and allowed it to give us that quid pro quo. Hence the Moscow treaty just signed by Presidents Bush and Putin.
It was a wise concession to Russian sensibilities. The agreement was three pages, shorter than your average high school term paper. It cost us nothing. And it gave Putin a magnificent signing ceremony and a place at the table. Even better, Putin and Bush then traveled to Italy and signed an agreement creating a strong Russia-NATO Council -- another milestone in easing Russia into the sphere of the West.
But for this to succeed we must understand that our relations with Russia are less a form of power politics than of psychotherapy. We are dealing with a country that has suffered the most cataclysmic loss of power by any country not defeated in battle. The goal of our Russia diplomacy is not strategic stability -- strategic stability is only an issue when dealing with enemies, and Russia is no enemy -- but the management of sensibilities.
When the Bush administration announced that it would be withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the usual chorus of reactionary liberals warned that this would be dangerous. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin said it could trigger "Cold War II." Clinton national security adviser Sandy Berger predicted a "more paranoid environment with Russia." The ever-reliable New York Times warned of the dark possibility of "a dangerous new arms race with Russia."
What predictable nonsense. Russia does not threaten the United States. The United States does not threaten Russia. Russia is not in military competition with the United States. It would therefore have no reason to enter into a ruinous arms race that would in any event be rather one-sided.
The critics were totally wrong. Russia's response to our withdrawal from the ABM Treaty was not to increase its nuclear weapons but to decrease them.
Why? Because, strategically speaking, the U.S.-Russian nuclear balance no longer matters, except psychologically. These nuclear weapons are not really military devices but tokens. During the Cold War, they were tokens of grandeur. Today they are tokens of parity -- a phony parity to be sure, but one whose appearance is worth preserving. Hence the treaty, hence the ceremony, hence the seat at the NATO table -- costless magnanimity in the service of the most important international realignment since the opening to China: strategic partnership with Russia.
-------- u.s. nuc weapons
U.S. Resumes Making Nuclear Triggers
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
May 31, 2002
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Nuclear-Triggers.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A42033-2002May31?language=printer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The government plans to resume making plutonium triggers for nuclear warheads and is beginning design work on a manufacturing plant, the Energy Department said Friday.
The department halted the production of plutonium ``pits,'' or triggers, for warheads in 1989. The pit is a critical component of a nuclear weapon.
``We need to have the capacity to manufacture certified pits to maintain the safety, security and reliability of the U.S. nuclear deterrent into the future,'' Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham said in a statement.
The manufacturing plant is expected to cost $2.2 billion to $4.4 billion, depending on the production capacity, said a statement from DOE's National Nuclear Security Administration.
The plan would start the new plant's production by 2020. While the plant will be at an existing Energy Department weapons facility, the announcement said no decision has been made on a site. The site-selection process begins in September.
Currently the department relies on refurbishing triggers from disassembled warheads when they are needed. That limited production capability at the Pantex facility in Texas cannot meet long-term needs, officials said.
The administration's recent nuclear posture review urged construction of a pit-production plant, and some members of both the House and Senate have expressed worry that the lack of such a facility could jeopardize future readiness of the country's nuclear weapons stockpile.
The plutonium pit, about the size of a softball, is the trigger that allows modern nuclear weapons to operate properly. They were last produced at the DOE's Rocky Flats facility in Colorado. That facility has been closed and now is in the midst of being cleaned of radioactive waste.
The posture review said the ability to produce pits ``is important to ensure the future viability of the nation's nuclear stockpile.'' Members of Congress, the Defense Department and outside advisory groups for some time have urged resumption of pit production.
On the Net: National Nuclear Security Administration: http://www.nnsa.doe.gov/
-------- u.s. nuc facilities
DOE Pledges Millions to Cleanup Cold War Sites
May 31, 2002
ENS
http://ens-news.com/ens/may2002/2002-05-31-09.asp#anchor6
WASHINGTON, DC, The Department of Energy (DOE) has signed three agreements aimed at accelerating cleanup at four DOE laboratories and test sites.
In Nevada, the DOE has agreed to spend an additional $33 million to speed cleanup at the Nevada Test Site. Under the agreement, the DOE, National Nuclear Security Administration and Nevada officials will work to complete cleanup operations at the site by 2010, instead of the previously planned 2020.
"This agreement provides the framework necessary to accelerate cleanup and it is a major step to effectively reduce health risks and expedite the environmental cleanup of the Nevada Test Site," said Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham. "Working with the states and other regulatory agencies, DOE is proposing a new way of doing business, leading to greater accountability, responsibility, and opportunities for both the Department and the states."
In New Mexico, the DOE pledged to complete cleanup at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque by 2006, and finish cleanup at Los Alamos National Laboratory by 2015. The plan also includes increased funding for accelerated shipment of transuranic waste from Los Alamos to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in Carlsbad, which would be completed by 2010.
The DOE plans to spend an additional $11 million at its New Mexico field office, $54 million for Los Alamos, $8 million to $25 million for Sandia and $14 million to $210 million for WIPP.
In Idaho, the DOE will set aside an additional $110 million for cleanup at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL), and work to complete cleanup operations at INEEL by 2020.
All of the cleanup agreements were reached under the agency's Environmental Management Accelerated Cleanup Program, whose goal is to streamline operations by working with states and regulators to target and reduce the greatest health and environmental cleanup risks at the country's Cold War nuclear weapons production facilities. The DOE has also signed agreements with the Hanford Site in Washington state and the Oak Ridge sites in Tennessee.
The DOE has now pledged a total for $759 million out of the $800 million dedicated to the accelerated cleanup account. Secretary Abraham has requested additional funds from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for future cleanup projects.
"Accelerated cleanup agreements will accomplish results in a manner that is safe, protective of human health and the environment, and in compliance with state and federal environmental laws," Abraham said.
-------- california
Calif. Power Operators Issue Alert
The Associated Press
Friday, May 31, 2002
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A38798-2002May31?language=printer
FOLSOM, Calif. -- California power grid operators issued their first alert in nine months, saying energy supplies were low because of a heat wave in the Southwest that forced out-of-state wholesalers to divert electricity elsewhere.
The California Independent System Operator declared the alert Thursday. It was the lowest level of warning used by the agency and called on power generators to avoid unnecessary outages.
The alerts were almost a daily occurrence in the summers of 2000 and 2001 when California was strapped for energy and threatened with rolling blackouts.
Thursday's warning came as a heat wave swept through Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico. Two large nuclear power plants in California were closed for routine maintenance, and there was a disruption in a north-south transmission line, said ISO spokesman Gregg Fishman.
State power grid operators predicted last month that there was enough power to avoid rolling blackouts this summer. Fishman said the alert issued Thursday did not change that, although it also could serve as a reminder that consumers still need to conserve.
"I don't think we ever said we're completely out of the woods," he said.
-------- new york
At Meeting, U.S. Agency Says Indian Point 2 Safety Has Improved
New York Times
May 31, 2002
By WINNIE HU
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/31/nyregion/31NUKE.html
VERPLANCK, N.Y., May 30 - Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials said today that they had seen significant improvements at the troubled Indian Point 2 reactor, but added that they would reserve final judgment about safety at the nuclear power plant until on-site inspections could be held in June and July.
Hubert J. Miller, a regional administrator for the commission, cited positive changes in management and employee training since the Entergy Corporation took over the plant in nearby Buchanan from Consolidated Edison in September. But he cautioned that the complexity of the problems would take time to resolve.
"We're not looking for this plant to be problem-free," he told Entergy officials during a public meeting at the Verplanck Fire Department that drew about 70 people, including Indian Point employees and nuclear opponents. "With the inspections done to this point and this meeting, the best we can say is, `You're heading in the right direction.' "
In recent years, the reactor - about 40 miles north of Midtown Manhattan - has been plagued by a series of minor leaks and safety lapses, including a February 2000 radiation leak that closed the plant for nearly a year. As a result, the N.R.C. heightened its scrutiny of Indian Point 2, and assigned it the worst performance rating of any reactor in the nation. Next month, a half-dozen inspectors are expected to visit Indian Point 2, and their findings over the next two months will help determine whether the plant's rating will improve.
Fred Dacimo, vice president of operations for Indian Point 2, said Entergy had spent millions of dollars to repair or upgrade pumps, electrical systems and other equipment that has increased the reliability of the plant's everyday operations. To date, he said, the plant has been generating electricity for 152 days without interruption.
In addition, he said, a backlog in routine maintenance work has been reduced by 55 percent, and new training and education programs have been put in place to encourage employees at every level of the workforce to identify and report potential problems at the plant. "Entergy is committed to the safety and reliability of the Indian Point Energy Center for the long term," he said.
But some people who attended today's meeting said they remained concerned about the safety of the plant. "I know they've only owned it for nine months, but to me, I think there should have been even more progress," said Linda Puglisi, supervisor for the town of Cortlandt.
-------- pennsylvania
[I'm shocked that Associated Press published this. What are they trying to achieve? My apologies for re-publishing it, but since it's public knowledge, people need to know. et]
Penn. Lawmaker: Guard Guns Are Empty
The Associated Press
Friday, May 31, 2002; 8:36 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A38648-2002May31?language=printer
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Power-Plant-Security.html
YORK, Pa. -- Pennsylvania National Guard troops have been patrolling the state's five nuclear power plants with unloaded weapons, according to a state lawmaker.
House Minority Whip Mike Veon's comment in Friday's York Daily Record followed statements from guardsmen last week that they had been banned from carrying loaded weapons while on patrol at Pennsylvania airports following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
The Pennsylvania National Guard would not confirm either report or comment on its staffing.
"Our soldiers are armed and fully capable of defending themselves and carrying out their assigned missions," said guard spokesman John Maietta.
State police who also patrol the nuclear plants carry loaded weapons, said state Rep. Bruce Smith, who requested National Guard troops at Three Mile Island. He said he was comfortable with that arrangement.
Veon said he was trying to get Gov. Mark Schweiker and the guard to change its policy on loaded weapons.
"I don't understand their philosophy on security, quite frankly," Veon said. "Those precious seconds could cost some of them dearly."
Earlier this month, Schweiker announced that troops and state police would continue to provide additional security at the nuclear power plants through the end of the year.
Dave Hixson, a spokesman for Schweiker, said appropriate action would be taken if someone tried to breach security at the plants.
"If somebody comes up to the plant gate and starts firing, I don't think they're going to ask questions," Hixson said. "They're going to start firing."
Guard units in Arkansas and Massachusetts also stationed soldiers at their nuclear power plants following the Sept. 11 attacks, but their guns were loaded, officials in those states told the Daily Record.
At the state's airports, The Philadelphia Inquirer reported Sunday that guardsmen had carried loaded magazines on their belts but not loaded weapons. The Inquirer based its report on interviews with several guardsmen who said they had been banned from carrying loaded weapons while patrolling at 16 airports in the state, including Philadelphia International Airport, which the guardsmen left May 10.
-------- us politics
Trust in Government Declines
Post-9/11 Jump in Americans' Confidence in Washington Is Fading
By Claudia Deane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 31, 2002; Page A29
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A36238-2002May30?language=printer
The post-Sept. 11 romance between the public and the federal government is fading fast, according to a survey released yesterday by the Brookings Institution's Center for Public Service.
While polls conducted in the weeks after Sept. 11 found that long-languishing trust in government had increased dramatically, a survey conducted this month suggests that confidence in government is headed back down.
Forty percent of Americans say they trust the federal government to do what's right at least most of the time. That's down 17 percentage points from a survey conducted for the center in October, but it is higher than the 29 percent recorded in July.
Government favorableness ratings followed the same pattern. The percentage of people viewing the government favorably rose from 50 percent last summer to 78 percent in the fall, only to drop 18 percentage points since then.
"The simple answer to why trust in government rose is the rally-round-the-flag effect: We love government more when government is threatened," said G. Calvin Mackenzie, a professor at Colby College and co-author of the center's report. "But that's like desert rain, it evaporates very quickly."
Others at the news conference releasing the survey pointed to recent, highly publicized missteps by federal agencies such as the INS and FBI as factors causing the decline in trust.
"The heightened focus on government after September 11th initially created a heightened respect, because government did good things and showed leadership. But in succeeding months, significant issues surfaced and people rightly concluded the government has serious problems," said Constance Horner, a former head of the Office of Personnel Management who is serving on the center's new National Commission on the Public Service.
Social scientists have been consistently measuring the public's faith in Washington for nearly half a century. Trust reached its peak of 76 percent in the early 1960s, before the Vietnam War, Watergate and a series of corrosive scandals sent ratings plummeting to low levels from which they have not recovered.
Experts disagree on whether this is a problem. Some say that a healthy skepticism about excessive government runs throughout American history. Others say these attitudes may hinder any administration's ability to react to events.
"When government is trusted, it has broad latitude to take bold actions. When trust is low . . . everything is a harder sell for leaders," Mackenzie said.
An additional problem is that dim views of the federal government get in the way of attracting talented workers. "We're in a vise where in recent years trust has gone down and we've gone from a healthy skepticism to a pervasive cynicism, which affects the kind of people you can get in government," said commission head Paul Volcker, former chairman of the Federal Reserve Board.
"There were some people who thought the surge in trust in government would mean an end to recruiting difficulties, that there would be people lining up," said Brookings Vice President Paul Light. "I think there has been some improvement in agencies that can directly articulate a link to the war on terrorism, such as the CIA, FBI and Defense, but I'm not hearing much about a surge in other agencies."
Unlike trust in government, public ratings of the president and key Cabinet officials have not eroded as substantially since their spike after Sept. 11. This may even be a reason why trust has not receded to last summer's levels.
"The high levels of trust in President Bush, Vice President Cheney and the Cabinet members might be holding up trust in government," Mackenzie said.
Other measures relating to the government never experienced an increase, however, including negative perceptions of government efficiency and cynical views of federal employees, according to Light.
Yet while some Americans may say they don't trust the government, their actions show implicit faith, Mackenzie said.
"When we go get meat at the stores, and the government labels say it is safe, we believe we won't get trichinosis from it. . . . When we send a big check through the mail we assume it will get there," Mackenzie said. "We do, in our actions, express trust in government."
----
Ashcroft defends taking of new powers
By Jerry Seper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
May 31, 2002
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020531-70566090.htm
The Justice Department yesterday gave the FBI expanded authority to monitor terrorism, including the ability to search Internet sites and to target any public place or event - religious and political gatherings among them - in the hunt for terrorist suspects.
Attorney General John Ashcroft defended the assumption of vast new powers, calling it a move to change the FBI from "reactive to proactive." The guidelines allow agents to pursue leads in terrorist investigations without evidence of a specific crime and without having to get approval from FBI headquarters.
"Today, I am announcing comprehensive revisions to the department's investigative guidelines," Mr. Ashcroft said during a Justice Department press conference. "The guidelines emphasize that the FBI must not be deprived of using all lawful, authorized methods in investigations, consistent with the Constitution to pursue and prevent terrorist actions."
The attorney general, countering criticism yesterday about the new guidelines from civil rights groups and in response to a question about "domestic spying" by the FBI, insisted the guidelines would be used only for "detecting and preventing terrorism."
The FBI will not be allowed to build files on individuals or organizations, he said.
Mr. Ashcroft said searches and seizures of information or documents still must be conducted under the authority of a warrant signed by a judge and that no information obtained from any visit to a public place or event can be retained unless it relates to potential criminal or terrorist activity.
"The abuses that have been alleged about the FBI decades ago would not be allowed," he said, referring to the widespread FBI gathering of information on prominent people and political groups through the 1970s. Mr. Ashcroft said the guidelines provide limitations and guidance "over and above all requirements and safeguards imposed by the Constitution." He said they conform with federal law.
The new guidelines were challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union, which said they could result in a loosening of restrictions on domestic spying and a renewal of the abuses of the past. The guidelines also were criticized by the Center for Constitutional Rights, which said history had shown that the "FBI won't stop at passive information gathering."
Laura W. Murphy, director of the ACLU's Washington office, also charged that the government was "rewarding failure," saying the administration's response to apparent FBI intelligence failures before September 11 was to "give itself new powers rather than seriously investigating why the failures occurred."
Jason Erb, governmental affairs director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, questioned whether the openness of mosques and other holy places should be "abused by using tactics of deception to spy on a religious minority engaged in lawful activities."
A senior Justice Department official added that the guidelines allow the FBI to do "what any other law-enforcement organization, or in fact any public citizen, can do - go online, go to public places or events and see what's going on."
Mr. Ashcroft said FBI field agents have been frustrated in the search for terrorist suspects because of internal restrictions that hamper their ability to conduct investigations. He said the old guidelines contributed to that frustration, barring agents "from taking the initiative to detect and prevent future terrorist acts."
He said the old guidelines created restrictions that resulted in a "competitive advantage for terrorists" who use sophisticated techniques and modern computer systems to compile information for "targeting and attacking innocent Americans."
Mr. Ashcroft said the guidelines outline four "overriding principles":
•The war against terrorism is the central mission and highest priority of the FBI, and the bureau "must not be deprived of using all lawful, authorized methods in investigations to pursue and prevent terrorist actions."
•Terrorism prevention is the key objective under the revised guidelines, and the Justice Department will intervene early and investigate aggressively, not waiting to "sift through the rubble following a terrorist attack."
•Unnecessary procedural red tape must not interfere with detecting, investigating and preventing terrorist activities, and agents in charge of FBI field offices will have the authority to approve and renew terrorism probes rather than waiting for approval from Washington.
•The FBI must draw proactively on all lawful sources of information to identify terrorist threats and activities, and agents cannot be kept from obtaining public information that "everyone else is free to see."
FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III, criticized by Congress for the bureau's failure to respond to indications of terrorism before September 11, said the new guidelines were necessary to combat terrorism.
President Bush endorsed the new guidelines and a wide-ranging FBI reorganization announced Wednesday. He said the administration will "honor our Constitution and respect the freedoms that we hold so dear," adding that the new guidelines seek to make sure "we do everything we can to prevent a further attack, to protect America."
-------- MILITARY
-------- balkans
Bulgaria, U.S. Sign to Destroy Arms
May 31, 2002
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Bulgaria-US-Missiles.html
SOFIA, Bulgaria (AP) -- Bulgaria and the United States signed an agreement Friday to destroy the Balkan country's Cold War-era missiles.
Bulgaria, which hopes to join NATO, agreed to scrap more than 100 Soviet-made SS-23, Scud and FROG missiles, U.S. Ambassador James Pardew said after signing the accord with Defense Minister Nikolai Svinarov.
In a statement, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher praised the Bulgarian government and said the agreement was ``a significant step forward in its strategic goal of joining Western security and economic structures.''
Pardew said the missile destruction will improve Bulgaria's standing with Western alliances.
``They no longer have regional military value, they are an unnecessary cost to Bulgarians and they represent an obstacle to Bulgaria's strategic goals of joining Western defensive and economic structures,'' Pardew said.
Svinarov said the weapons to be destroyed ``no longer correspond with the missions and the tasks of our armed forces, which have a defensive character.''
The U.S. government will pay for the destruction, likely to cost several million dollars, Pardew said.
Bulgaria's SS-23 missiles are the last of that type known to exist, Pardew said. The medium-range surface-to-surface missiles can carry both conventional and nuclear warheads, but Bulgaria has consistently denied having nuclear weapons. The Scuds are short-range missiles, and the short-range FROGs are meant for surface-to-surface use.
Bulgaria hopes for an invitation to join NATO during an alliance summit later this year in Prague, the Czech capital. NATO has urged Bulgaria to scrap the old missiles, saying they pose a safety risk.
The destruction of the missiles is expected to be completed by November, Boucher said Friday in Washington.
-------- biological weapons
FDA Acts To Speed Bioterror Medicines
By Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 31, 2002; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A36345-2002May30?language=printer
Responding to the threat of anthrax and other forms of chemical and biological terrorism, the Food and Drug Administration adopted new rules yesterday that will speed the approval of drugs that could protect people from attacks.
In a major change from past practice, the agency said that in some unusual circumstances it would allow companies to base their new drug applications on animal testing alone when assessing whether a drug is effective. Previously, a drug's effectiveness had to be tested on humans before the FDA would give its approval and allow it onto the market.
"The terrorist attacks of last fall underscored the acute need for this new regulation," said Lester M. Crawford, the FDA's deputy commissioner. "Today's action will help make certain essential new pharmaceutical products available much sooner -- those products that because of the very nature of what they are designed to treat cannot be safely or ethically tested for effectiveness in humans."
The new rule, which was first proposed in 1999 and took on a new urgency last fall, was likened yesterday to the FDA's landmark decision a decade ago to approve new HIV and AIDS drugs that had not been fully tested by previous standards. At that time, the FDA concluded that its standard review process was standing in the way of making potentially lifesaving drugs available to infected people.
Some consumer advocates said yesterday that they are wary of the animal-testing rule, contending that its use could expand to other less pressing concerns -- just as the FDA's "fast track" approval process for AIDS drugs was later used for many other medications.
But Janet Woodcock, director of the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said use of the new rule, which the agency considers "urgently needed," would be limited.
Woodcock said the FDA has "been struggling in a number of cases to persuade applicants to go forward" with drugs to treat biological, chemical and nuclear attacks. "When they couldn't ethically do human trials, it has been very difficult to move forward," she said. "This rule addresses that obstacle."
She said that it would still take a year or more for companies to design, undertake and complete their animal studies, and that she "would not expect a flood of products based on the rule. But it does provide a path, and some companies will respond."
The new standard will only be allowed when tests of a drug's effectiveness on humans would be unethical. Some vaccines have been approved without full human testing, but traditionally, drugmakers conduct human trials to determine whether a medication is more effective than a placebo by giving some patients the medicine and some an inactive pill.
It is considered unethical to expose a test subject to a potentially lethal or permanently disabling agent, making it impossible to test a drug's effectiveness against biological, chemical and radiological threats.
Woodcock called the new rule "narrowly drawn," saying that it would usually require two or more animal tests, and that it could be invoked only when all other FDA testing standards are inappropriate. In the text of the new rule, the agency estimates that it will be applied infrequently, probably less than once a year.
Woodcock said that in most cases, drugmakers would still have to prove that their products were safe in humans. That determination, she said, can generally be done without exposing patients to unethical risk.
The FDA has already approved one drug for use against bioterror attacks, the antibiotic Ciprofloxacin, which was widely used among victims of a series of anthrax attacks last fall. That drug, also used to treat a variety of other infections, received accelerated approval for use against inhaled anthrax in 2000 based on both animal tests and human studies of how it behaved in the bloodstream.
Sidney Wolfe, of the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, questioned why the new rule is needed if Cipro could be approved without it, and voiced concern that it could be abused by the FDA and industry. "There's been a lot of slipping and sliding in the past on this kind of speeding upthe review process," he said.
Drug and biotechnology industry spokesmen welcomed the new rule yesterday, calling it an important advance.
"This is a very important and valuable development because it offers some consistent rules for how products will be evaluated," said Michael Friedman, a former acting FDA administrator who nowhelps coordinate the drug industry's bioterrorism efforts for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.
"That's been the big difficulty for years: You have diseases that are untestable in humans," he said. "There are medicines out there that we have every expectation would be effective against anthrax, for example, but there's been no consistent way to test them."
Friedman said that the new rule did not, however, mean that testing would speed ahead. He said another pressing problem is the limited number of rhesus monkeys available to test for the bioterror drugs. While the new rule allows testing in a range of laboratory animals, monkeys are most like humans in the ways they respond to drugs and have traditionally been the standard for assessing the effects of a new medication.
According to Steve Lawton, chief lawyer for the Biotechnology Industry Organization, the new rule is an "absolutely appropriate and necessary tool to combat terrorism." He said that a recent BIO conference on bioterrorism was "packed with an extraordinary number of young companies working in the lab to find products against anthrax and other biological agents."
He predicted that the ability to avoid the costly and time-consuming process of conducting human clinical trials would likely make the drugs more attractive to venture capital companies. "It's a terrific combination of patriotism and opportunity," he said, "and there are a lot of people out there ready to respond."
-------- bulgaria
Bulgaria, U.S. Sign to Destroy Arms
The Associated Press
Friday, May 31, 2002; 4:05 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A40772-2002May31?language=printer
SOFIA, Bulgaria -- Bulgaria and the United States signed an agreement Friday to destroy the Balkan country's Cold War-era missiles.
Bulgaria, which hopes to join NATO, agreed to scrap more than 100 Soviet-made SS-23, Scud and FROG missiles, U.S. Ambassador James Pardew said after signing the accord with Defense Minister Nikolai Svinarov.
In a statement, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher praised the Bulgarian government and said the agreement was "a significant step forward in its strategic goal of joining Western security and economic structures."
Pardew said the missile destruction will improve Bulgaria's standing with Western alliances.
"They no longer have regional military value, they are an unnecessary cost to Bulgarians and they represent an obstacle to Bulgaria's strategic goals of joining Western defensive and economic structures," Pardew said.
Svinarov said the weapons to be destroyed "no longer correspond with the missions and the tasks of our armed forces, which have a defensive character."
The U.S. government will pay for the destruction, likely to cost several million dollars, Pardew said.
Bulgaria's SS-23 missiles are the last of that type known to exist, Pardew said. The medium-range surface-to-surface missiles can carry both conventional and nuclear warheads, but Bulgaria has consistently denied having nuclear weapons. The Scuds are short-range missiles, and the short-range FROGs are meant for surface-to-surface use.
Bulgaria hopes for an invitation to join NATO during an alliance summit later this year in Prague, the Czech capital. NATO has urged Bulgaria to scrap the old missiles, saying they pose a safety risk.
The destruction of the missiles is expected to be completed by November, Boucher said Friday in Washington.
-------- business
Developer Was Warned on Crusader
Pentagon Leak Told Firm Before Announcement That System Would Be Dropped
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 31, 2002; Page A04
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A36285-2002May30?language=printer
A leak from the Pentagon detailing the decision to cancel the Crusader mobile artillery system was passed to United Defense Industries, the company developing the weapon, and then to retired Gen. J. Binford Peay III, a member of the company board.
Peay then sent a fax outlining the decision to the office of Gen. John M. Keane, the Army vice chief of staff, on the morning of April 30, more than seven hours before Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz told Army Secretary Thomas White about it. Peay wanted to give a "heads-up to the Army," a current colleague of Peay's said.
In the fax, Peay warned Keane, a booster of the Crusader, of the "seriousness" of the move to cancel the $11 billion artillery system and said, "We are prepared to assist the Army by any means that seem appropriate in reversing this decision."
A copy of the fax was obtained by The Washington Post from the Pentagon under the Freedom of Information Act. Peay's name had been deleted from the copy.
The advance release of the decision helped lead to an immediate lobbying campaign in Congress by the Army on behalf of the system. The lobbying angered Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, and White ordered an investigation by the Army inspector general. The investigation resulted in the resignation of a civilian employee in the Army's legislative office.
Late Wednesday, President Bush sent Congress a formal request that the $475 million for the Crusader in the proposed 2003 defense budget be reallocated to other weapons programs. Rumsfeld views the battle over the Crusader -- designed to fight a major ground war -- as a key test of efforts to revamp the military for the 21st century. But the Crusader, in development since 1994 to replace the Army's Paladin howitzer, retains strong support on Capitol Hill.
At a news conference yesterday, Rumsfeld said he remained "hopeful" that Congress would go along with the president's request.
The weapon also has powerful backers at United Defense Industries. The company is controlled by the Carlyle Group, a Washington investment firm headed by former defense secretary Frank C. Carlucci. Carlucci and other Carlyle partners are members of the United Defense Industries board. Peay received a $160,000 performance bonus last year as a member of the UDI board.
Peay's fax was marked "Personal, Please hand carry to the executive, VCSA," meaning the senior aide to Keane. Keane succeeded Peay eight years ago as commander of the 101st Airborne Division.
Before receiving the fax, "the Army was unaware of any proposed change to the Crusader program," according to the inspector general's report.
Peay said in a statement Wednesday that his fax "relayed a company concern to the Army." But he would not disclose who at United Defense Industries received the original leaked information, according to retired Maj. Gen. John G. Meyer Jr., executive vice president of Allied Research Corp., where Peay is president.
The leak on April 30 apparently came from the highest levels of the Pentagon, two former senior defense officials said, because it accurately described in detail the decision made the night before by Wolfowitz and E.C. "Pete" Aldridge, undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, to replace the Crusader.
Peay's fax also said Wolfowitz would provide the "assessment and decision memorandum" to White that afternoon, and correctly predicted that Rumsfeld would announce the decision "within the next 7 to 10 days."
The leak to United Defense Industries was passed to members of Congress, so that even before the Army officially learned of the decision, the office of Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) called the White House to find out what was going on. The Crusader was being developed in Oklahoma.
"A violation of trust," said Jacques S. Gansler, who was Aldridge's predecessor in the Clinton administration. "Someone was doing a favor or didn't agree with the decision."
Rumsfeld has repeatedly condemned leaks of Pentagon information, but he has not tried to find out who disclosed the decision, according to Victoria Clarke, his chief spokeswoman.
At a May 16 hearing on the Crusader by the Senate Armed Services Committee, Rumsfeld recalled that before he spoke to Bush about the cancellation, "it was in the press. It had leaked to the contractors. The contractors had called the Congress. The old iron triangle worked in real-time, just magic."
Meyer said Peay "had done nothing wrong" in sending the fax. He said defense contractors "are all the time calling services to give them a heads-up on what they learn."
A Pentagon veteran, Meyer said the Defense Department's senior leadership looks on it as a matter of trust that subordinates will not leak. But, he added, "they can't tell employees to shut up and then leak things yourself."
----
Airships May Help Homeland Security
By David Rising
Associated Press Writer
Friday, May 31, 2002; 10:25 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A39142-2002May31?language=printer
BERLIN -- As the gleaming white-and-blue airship takes off from a freshly mown field at Berlin's Tempelhof airport, the notion of using the 150-year-old technology in defense of the United States seems as impossible as Count Ferdinand von Zeppelin's dream of using his cumbersome creations as fighting machines.
But with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the U.S. military has been forced to reassess threats, and two major defense contractors are pitching the zeppelin as a potential piece in the homeland security puzzle. Military planners envision unmanned airships as high-altitude radar platforms keeping watch for anything trying to penetrate U.S. airspace.
"What Sept. 11 proved is the ability of a group of people being able to outwit a sophisticated country by using unconventional methods," said Nick Cook, a London-based aerospace consultant for Jane's Defense Weekly. "You can put as much into an SDI (Strategic Defense Initiative) Star Wars type thing as you want and a cruise missile would sneak under, but an airship could plug the gap."
The surface radar arrays that currently watch U.S. borders cannot see into valleys and ravines, and surveillance satellites are limited to glimpses because of the earth's rotation, Cook said. The zeppelins would provide essentially the same view as radar-equipped planes, but could be kept aloft for months at a time.
Two of the largest companies developing dirigibles are Boeing, through its partnership with Germany's CargoLifter AG, and Lockheed Martin's business unit Lockheed Martin Naval Electronics & Surveillance Systems in Akron, Ohio. They say they have airships ready to be built should the government need them.
CargoLifter has plans to make a dirigible and already has a prototype "tethered balloon" designed to lift heavy cargo. Zeppelin has two prototypes, one at Bodensee for tourists and a prototype for pilot training. A third one is in production. Goodyear only has blimps but has designs for dirigibles.
Critics worry that the big airships might interfere with air traffic and have to be grounded during storms, but North American Aerospace Defense Command, or NORAD, is looking at stratospheric ships that would float at 70,000 feet - well above weather systems and commercial air traffic, said Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Rivers Johnson.
Modern materials allow today's airships to hit altitudes that would have been unimaginable when the first ones flew in France in 1852.
Also, airships are now filled with nonflammable helium instead of the explosive hydrogen that made the Hindenburg catch fire in 1937 in Lakehurst, N.J., killing 35 of the 97 people on board.
"They're marvelous," said pilot Hans-Paul Stroehle, using a joystick to maneuver the zeppelin Bodensee over Berlin on a recent sunny spring day, with a dozen tourists aboard. "The only thing similar to the 80- or 90-year-old airships is the shape - otherwise it's all modern materials and technology."
The U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Customs Service use radar on low-altitude tethered balloons to look for drug smugglers. Israel used a similar balloon carrying cameras to monitor Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity during its recent standoff with Palestinian militants.
This month NORAD asked for U.S. government funding to build a prototype high-altitude airship, with the idea of stationing 10 ships to cover all the continental borders of the United States, said Maj. Ed Thomas, a NORAD spokesman. Canada, the United States' partner in NORAD, is looking separately at airship technology, but might participate in a U.S. program, Thomas said.
"They would look for anything that traditional radar looks for ... ICBMs, cruise missile threats, air threats," Thomas said.
CargoLifter, which sold its first tethered balloon in March, entered an agreement this month to collaborate with Boeing's Phantom Works. Chief financial officer Karl Bangert said plans for the largest piloted airship ever built could be adapted to be an unmanned radar platform.
CargoLifter, which has been maneuvering in recent weeks to stave off bankruptcy, just needs a contract to get the project started, Bangert said. He estimated the airships would cost around $100 million each.
Lockheed Martin Naval Electronics & Surveillance Systems - maker of the Goodyear blimp - also already has "an engineering concept" to the stage that the company can start building as soon as there is a contract, said Lockheed spokesman Cary Dell.
The zeppelin that Stroehle flies for tourists is too small for use as a high-altitude radar platform, but the Friedrichshafen manufacturer is also looking at another military application - to detect mines.
Trials done in Kosovo for the United Nations have demonstrated that the ability to fly low and slow without the downwash and vibrations of a helicopter make the airship suited for mine detection, Stroehle said.
"It saves years for the ground sweepers," he said.
On the Net:
CargoLifter: http://www.cargolifter.com/2002/repository/splash-e.html
Boeing Phantom Works: http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/phantom/phantom.htm
Lockheed Martin: http://www.lockheedmartin.com/
Zeppelin NT: http://www.zeppelin-nt.com/
-------- chemical weapons
US Delegation Visits Embattled Shchuchye Chemical Weapons Storage Depot
Bellona Foundation,
May 31, 2002
Charles Digges
http://www.bellona.no/en/international/russia/nuke-weapons/nonproliferation/24383.html
MOSCOW - Russia's largest chemical weapons storage facility, whose destruction hinges on US funding provided by the Cooperative Threat Reduction Act (CTR), is springing leaks of lethal compounds at the rate of several times a year, according an administration official in the Urals town of Shchuchye, where the plant is located.
A group of US Congressmen led by Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana visited the chemical weapons disposal site Wednesday in the Ural Mountains, 1,560 kilometres southeast of Moscow, US Embassy officials said Thursday.
"We have three to five accidents a year" caused by leaks from corrosion, Yuri Mamontov, a Shchuchye administration official in charge of chemical disarmament told Bellona Web in a telephone interview Thursday. "Many munitions have been stored here for more than 50 years. We would be better not to tempt fate."
Mamontov added that these accidents are quickly contained without harm to personnel and cause no serious harm to the surrounding environment. He also asserted that such accidents were not uncommon in similar sites in the United States.
But the dilapidated state of the weapons dump holding corroding chemicals from the world's largest known chemical weapons programme points to disturbing bureaucratic snags in US and Russian efforts to contain the threat to world security.
Each year, the Pentagon must "certify" Russia to be committed to non-proliferation, or else roughly one-third of CTR activities controlled by the US military shuts down. (Other CTR programmes, for example, to improve security around Russia's weapons-grade uranium and plutonium stocks-are unaffected.)
This spring the Pentagon told Russia not to expect certification because it was refusing to share information about a bio-engineered strain of anthrax it had long promised the United States, refusing to provide access to biological institutes run by the Russian Defence Ministry, and failing to own up to decades of secret work on biological and chemical weapons.
In part, this lack of certification means - rather embarrassingly for the Pentagon - that the weapons cuts Presidents George Bush and Vladimir Putin agreed on at last weeks summit cannot begin in Russia until US Congress approves a waiver to that certification procedure.
This certification problem has also caused the Pentagon to block construction of a plant in Shchuchye to destroy the nearly 2 million shells, missile warheads and other munitions carrying nerve agents like Russian VX gas and sarin, the gas released in 1995 into the Tokyo subway. All told, the Shchuchye stockpiles constitute about 14 percent of Russia's 40,000 to 44,000 tonnes of chemical weapons - the world's largest arsenal.
Zinovy Pak, head of Russia's Federal Munitions Agency that oversees chemical and biological weapons destruction, told the Associated Press Wednesday that the US accusations were groundless and said he hoped that US assistance for Shchuchye would resume soon.
But Washington sources say that - beyond certification and alleged information sharing problems - the Pentagon is holding up the construction of the Shchuchye CWD plant for two other reasons. First, the Pentagon has asked for rights to inspect any facility anywhere in Russia for chemical weapons on 24-hour notice. Second, the Russian side has promised to build so called "outside-the-fence" infrastructure for the plant - such as housing for plant workers and kindergartens for their children - and the Americans have committed to building the plant itself. Neither side, these sources say, wants to start before the other.
Indeed, by some reports, the Russian side has started construction on its side of the agreement, the Global Security Newswire (GSN) quoted Russia's Federal Munitions Agency as saying Wednesday. After Wednesday's official visit, the Agency told GSN it hopes the United States will resume its financing.
Several European nations - including Britain, Italy and Norway - have also pledged to help build the Shchuchye site but are holding off until US financing resumes.
Lugar, who co-authored with former Sen. Sam Nunn the decade-old CTR effort - also known as the Nunn-Lugar Act - to help contain the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the former Soviet Union, pledged to continue championing weapons dismantling efforts, AP reported.
The visit to Shchuchye followed a Moscow conference where Nunn, Lugar and other US and Russian officials and experts discussed new safeguards that should prevent terrorists obtaining nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and ways to speed up dismantling projects.
Lugar and his delegation also visited the Mayak facility near Chelyabinsk to inspect the progress of a plutonium storage facility that CTR has been financing for the last 10 years, US Embassy officials said Thursday. According to Mayak officials, the storage facility should open this August.
Earlier this week, the delegation witnessed the destruction of a strategic missile silo in the nearby Chelyabinsk region, the Embassy officials said.
-------- india
State Dept. Issues India Advisory
By Barry Schweid
AP Diplomatic Writer
Friday, May 31, 2002; 10:17 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A39107-2002May31?language=printer
WASHINGTON -- The State Department on Friday advised all but essential American diplomats in India to leave and urged about 60,000 Americans there to depart as well because of a rising risk of conflict between India and Pakistan.
"Tensions have risen to serious levels" and those Americans who chose to remain should steer clear of all border areas between the two countries, the State Department said.
About 60,000 U.S. citizens in India also were urged to depart. "Conditions along India's border with Pakistan and in the state of Jammu and Kashmir have deteriorated," the State Department said in its travel warning.
The warning cited artillery exchanges between Indian and Pakistani troops and said terrorist groups linked to the al-Qaida network and implicated in attacks on Americans have attacked and killed civilians.
It was not clear how many Americans would take the State Department's advice.
The departures will be on commercial flights, which are plentiful, a senior U.S. official said.
Dependents of nonessential U.S. personnel in the embassy in New Delhi and U.S. consulates in Calcutta, Mumbai and Chennai also were encouraged to depart at U.S. government expense.
India regularly warns the State Department of preparations for war with Pakistan because of the influx of Islamic extremists into the Indian side of disputed Kashmir, said a senior U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity.
While India has not indicated a timetable, the administration takes the warnings seriously.
On Thursday, President Bush took a tough line toward Pakistan, a major ally in the U.S. war against the al-Qaida terror network, demanding that President Pervez Musharraf "live up to his word" and crack down on Islamic extremists' cross-border attacks in Kashmir.
While the State Department said it still had no assessment whether Musharraf was making good on his promise last winter to deny Pakistani territory to terrorists, Bush took the initiative as India and Pakistan teetered on the brink.
He also deployed top American officials in the region - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld is due there a week from Sunday - and said: "We are making it very clear to both Pakistan and India that war will not serve their interests."
Locked in a dispute over the Kashmir border district, and with 1 million troops in a standoff at their frontier, India and Pakistan continued to alarm the world with their troop movements and their rhetoric, their nuclear armaments looming always in the background.
Secretary of State Colin Powell will send his deputy, Richard Armitage, to India and Pakistan for talks next Thursday and Friday, with Rumsfeld to arrive shortly afterward, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said.
"We have no desire to make ourselves the mediator," Boucher said. He said any solution to the dispute over Kashmir depends on dialogue and taking into account the wishes of the people of the territory, he said.
Under rules guiding the 1947 partition of British India, overwhelmingly Muslim Kashmir went to Indian control because its Hindu maharajah wanted it. The first India-Pakistan war over Kashmir resulted in a cease-fire line, which became a "line of control" under a 1972 agreement, with Hindu India controlling three-fifths of the fertile, predominantly Muslim Himalayan region.
The United Nations has been on record since the late 1940s that Kashmir's political status should be decided by its people, including a series of Security Council resolutions demanding plebiscites. Pakistan's position is that the resolutions should be implemented.
India has rejected the resolutions, for reasons including that no test of the people's will was required in other British India principalities divided because of their leaders' wishes and that Pakistan has not withdrawn from territory it controls.
The Bush administration has focused its diplomacy on trying to pry the two armies apart.
Powell said Thursday "there is nothing active" for the two sides to discuss in the way of a settlement. And, he said on PBS' "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," he did not think there was a role for the United States or another outside mediator at this point.
Asked if nuclear weapons would be used by India or Pakistan if conflict came, Powell said: "I can't answer that question, but I can say this: In my conversations with both sides, especially with the Pakistani side, I have made it clear that this really can't be in anyone's mind."
"We are making it very clear to both Pakistan and India that war will not serve their interests," Bush said after a Cabinet meeting. "We are part of an international coalition applying pressure to both parties."
In particular, he said, Musharraf must keep his promise to stem attacks across Kashmir's internationally established dividing line.
"He must stop the incursions across the line of control. He must do so. He said he would do so," the president said. "We and others are making it clear to him that he must live up to his word."
Despite Pakistan's assertion that it already has begun moving troops away from the Afghan-Pakistan border because of the tensions with India, Rumsfeld said U.S. officials had as yet seen no signs of a redeployment.
On the Net: State Department's South Asian desk: http://www.state.gov/p/sa/
U.S. Embassy, New Delhi: http://usembassy.state.gov/posts/in1/wwwhmain.html
U.N. Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan: http://www.un.org/Depts/DPKO/Missions/unmogip/body-unmogip.htm
--------
India: Border With Pakistan Stable
May 31, 2002
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-India-Pakistan.html
NEW DELHI, India (AP) -- India's defense minister insisted Friday the border with Pakistan was stable, even as Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz warned that a war between the South Asian rivals would be ``somewhere between terrible and catastrophic.''
Diplomatic pressure grew to avert another war between the nuclear-armed rivals, and the United States, Britain, New Zealand, Canada and Australia urged their citizens to consider leaving India.
Indian officials played down fears of a conflict over disputed Kashmir, even as Pakistan pulled soldiers away from the Afghan border, where they had been helping the U.S.-led war on terrorism. Pakistani officials said they were considering moving the soldiers toward India.
``There isn't any change on the ground,'' Indian Defense Minister George Fernandes told The Associated Press in Singapore, where he was attending an Asian defense conference. ``The situation is stable.''
Wolfowitz, who was also at the conference, said U.S. efforts to prevent war include both promises of incentives and warnings of punishments. He did not say what the incentives or punishments would be.
``I don't think we believe in exhortation alone,'' Wolfowitz said. He said a war between the nuclear rivals would be ``somewhere between terrible and catastrophic'' and would destroy hard-earned improvements in U.S. relations with both countries.
A top Indian military officer said Friday on condition of anonymity that the diplomatic pressure on both countries was unprecedented and playing a major role.
President Bush announced Thursday that he would send Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to the region next week. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage also is scheduled to visit Islamabad and New Delhi next week. Shelling continued Friday across the tense frontier separating India and Pakistan in Kashmir, the divided Himalayan region both nations claim and have fought two wars over.
Pakistan's military said Indian shelling killed one Pakistani and injured two others Friday. India said Pakistani shelling killed one border guard and four soldiers. In another incident, five Indian police were injured when suspected Islamic militants lobbed a grenade.
Stock markets in India and Pakistan appeared to be taking the war fears in stride. The Bombay exchange's key Sensex index has dipped by about 4 percent this year, while Pakistan's KSE-100 index was actually up by 31 percent in the first five months of 2002.
The rivals have about 1 million soldiers on high alert along their border, and Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf said he was considering moving more troops to Kashmir.
``The entire Pakistani nation will be behind the armed forces who are ready to defend the motherland in the event of war,'' Pakistani Information Minister Nisar Memon said.
Pakistan was believed to have about 6,000 troops along the Afghan border. They were deployed to help U.S.-led forces track down al-Qaida and Taliban fighters who took refuge in the mountains on both sides of the frontier.
Rashid Quereshi, a spokesman for Musharraf, confirmed a pullback of troops Friday and said their deployment depended ``on how the threat continues to increase from India.''
A leaflet circulated outside mosques in Pakistan's capital on Friday urged the faithful to overthrow Musharraf, calling him a ``corrupt policeman'' for the United States.
Memon called the leaflet ``the work of extremists who wish to take advantage of the situation'' between India and Pakistan.
Musharraf and Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee will attend a summit in Kazakhstan next week, where Russian President Vladimir Putin hopes to organize face-to-face talks.
Pakistan has agreed. But an Indian Foreign Ministry official reiterated that Vajpayee had no intention of attending private talks with Musharraf until cross-border infiltration by Islamic militants ends.
With no sign that either India or Pakistan was offering a diplomatic solution in Kashmir, concern mounted about a broader military conflict. Both India and Pakistan tested nuclear weapons in 1998, raising the stakes in their long-standing rivalry.
India regularly informs the United States through diplomatic channels that it intends to go to war over Kashmir if attacks by extremists are not curtailed, a senior U.S. official told The Associated Press. But India has not advised the Bush administration how it would conduct such a conflict, said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity.
India accuses Pakistan of supporting Islamic militant groups waging an insurgency in the Indian-ruled portion of Kashmir, and has demanded it stop cross-border infiltrations. Pakistan says it provides moral support for the insurgents, but denies funding or training them.
-------- iraq
U.N., Iraq to Focus on Inspections
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
May 31, 2002
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-UN-Iraq-Talks.html
UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- A new round of U.N.-Iraq talks seeking the return of U.N. weapons inspectors to the Mideast nation will be held in Vienna on July 4-5, a U.N. spokesman said Friday.
Since March, Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan have held two rounds of talks at U.N. headquarters in New York on the return of the inspectors, who left Baghdad before U.S.-British strikes in December 1998 and have been barred from going back.
The return of the inspectors is a key demand of the U.N. Security Council and especially of the United States, which has accused Iraq of trying to rebuild its banned weapons programs and of supporting terrorism.
U.N. sanctions imposed by the Security Council against Iraq after its 1990 invasion of Kuwait cannot be lifted until U.N. inspectors certify that Iraq's programs to build nuclear, chemical and biological weapons have been dismantled, along with the missiles to deliver them.
Iraqi Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan and U.N. spokesman Fred Eckhard announced the site for the third round of talks last week and the time frame, but the dates were not disclosed.
President Bush has warned Iraqi President Saddam Hussein that he faces unspecified consequences if he fails to heed American demands that inspectors be allowed into Iraq to verify whether it has dismantled its weapons of mass destruction. Bush has also made clear that the United States wants Saddam removed from power.
When the last round of talks ended on May 3, Annan reported progress but no breakthrough and said he hoped that in the next round of talks Iraq would have ``some positive news.''
Iraq wants sanctions lifted, saying it has complied with all U.N. requirements.
``Iraq will continue holding talks with the U.N. secretary-general in order to reach a working mechanism aimed at lifting the unjust embargo and ending the suffering of the Iraqi people,'' Iraq's Ramadan said in comments aired by Iraqi satellite television late Sunday.
During the second round of talks, Annan was accompanied by chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix and the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei. Eckhard said they will also take part in the upcoming Vienna talks.
--------
Iraq Says U.S. Attacks Iraqi Air Defenses
By REUTERS
May 31, 2002
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-iraq-usa-attack.html
BAGHDAD - Iraq said on Friday three people were wounded when U.S. and British planes struck targets in the south of the country, while Washington said it had launched a raid after Western jets were threatened.
U.S. official said attack aircraft had bombed a radar system in southern Iraq on Thursday in the latest incident involving warplanes patrolling a no-fly zone over the Middle Eastern country.
The U.S. Central Command in Tampa, Florida said aircraft from the force of U.S. and British planes used precision-guided weapons to hit ``components of an offensive radar system.'' It did not say whether U.S. or British planes were involved.
An Iraqi military spokesman said in a statement carried by the official Iraqi News Agency (INA) that the planes carried out 30 sorties from bases in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia at 23:30 p.m. (1930 GMT) on Thursday and flew over provinces and cities in the south of the country.
``The enemy attacked our civilian and service installations in Thi qar province, wounding three people'' the spokesman said.
He added that Iraq's ground air defenses fired at the planes and forced them to return to their bases.
The attack followed a series of bombings on Iraqi air defenses in response to what the U.S. military says are attacks on the patrolling aircraft from the ground.
It was the fourth such attack reported by the U.S. military since May 19. While such tit-for-tat strikes have increased in recent weeks, the pattern has gone up and down since no-fly zones were imposed in north and south Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War.
Iraq does not recognize the no-fly zones, set up to protect the areas' Kurdish and Shi'ite population from what the allies describe as military threats from Baghdad, and vowed in 1998 to challenge the patrols with anti-aircraft installations.
There has been recent speculation Washington may be planning military action to remove President Saddam Hussein from power. Washington says Iraq is trying to make chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.
-------- israel / palestine
Anger over paramilitary industries on kibbutz
BEN LYNFIELD IN KIBBUTZ BEIT ALFA, ISRAEL
Fri 31 May 2002
http://www.news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=587962002
WITH its haystacks, rusting ploughs and scent of livestock, Kibbutz Beit Alfa seems an unlikely place to affect the future of far-away Zimbabwe.
For much of the kibbutz's 81-year history, members prided themselves on their idealism and defined themselves as a vanguard of Zionist socialism. But now, Beit Alfa is an ally of despotism in the eyes of some liberal Israelis and Zimbabwe's opposition, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC).
The state-of-the-art crowd control water tankers supplied by the kibbutz this month promise to boost President Robert Mugabe's efforts to suppress the opposition, the MDC says.
Zimbabwe was suspended from the Commonwealth over its conduct of the March election, in which Mr Mugabe declared victory over the MDC in a contest that international observers found to be neither free nor fair.
In recent weeks, the regime has stepped up efforts to silence the opposition, including the arrest of journalists from the Standard newspaper after it reported on the arrival of Beit Alfa equipment.
The Zimbabwe deal was reported by Haaretz newspaper to include 30 riot control vehicles to be supplied in exchange for $14 million (Ł9.70 million). The Standard reported that five vehicles had arrived and were part of a package including gas masks and what it described as microscopic laser guns.
On the kibbutz, David Nahum, a painter who is a veteran member, argued that it is better that Beit Alfa's equipment be used in Zimbabwe than that demonstrators be shot by police, as happened during October 2000 protests by Arab citizens of Israel. "Lives could have been saved with our equipment," he said.
Beit Alfa's journey from a model of socialist agriculture to a profit-driven exporter of paramilitary hardware parallels Israel's change in values from collectivism to capitalism and its development of a market economy stressing a huge defence industry, analysts say.
"Like many utopias, when Beit Alfa was implemented, in practice it became part of an economic and political framework," said Yisrael Bartal, a Hebrew University historian. "It adjusted itself to concrete reality."
The sale follows supplies by the kibbutz to countries including Angola, Uganda, and Sri Lanka. In the Israel Defence Directory, published by the defence ministry, Beit Alfa advertises its "armoured personnel carriers" and other vehicles that have been "proven in combat".
The impression is that vehicles equipped with a "front bulldozer" can do a lot of damage. The company's web site advertises a chemical additive that can be injected into water streams to "demobilise" inmates in prison disturbances.
It was not always this way. According to the ideology of HaShomer HaZa'ir, the "young guard" movement to which Beit Alfa's founders belonged, the kibbutz was meant to be an archetype of a utopian socialist society. The key to transforming both the individual and the land was agricultural work.
"The principle was to work the land, that a [Jewish] nation of merchants and men of air [in Europe] would return to the soil," said Ely Avrahamy, a historian of kibbutzim.
The principle was dented during the Second World War, when kibbutzim served as suppliers to British troops. Beginning in the 1960s, Beit Alfa, like kibbutzim throughout the country, began turning in earnest to industry, in line with the needs of the national economy and for its own economic well-being. "Every kibbutz developed a niche," Mr Avrahamy said.
At first, debates wracked kibbutzim about whether to hire outside labour for their plants. Then the debates subsided. Beit Alfa employs about 40 residents of nearby Beit Shean and Nazareth in the factory that makes the armoured personnel carriers. The plant, built in 1969, first produced fire-fighting equipment, Mr Nahum recalled.
"That was where the idea of riot-dispersal equipment came from, since it also uses water spraying," he said. Then came diversification. Much of the factory's current work is bullet-proofing vehicles.
Not everyone is happy with Beit Alfa's links to the Mugabe regime. "I am absolutely against any sale of military or paramilitary equipment to countries that abuse human rights," said Celso Garbarz, international secretary of HaShomer HaZa'ir. "It goes against the values of humanism."
Mr Avrahamy, the kibbutz historian, said: "Instead of the kibbutz influencing the society, we on the kibbutz have become ruled by a wave of brutal capitalism and Americanisation. It certainly is no cause for happiness."
----
Settlements Expanding Under Sharon
By Daniel Williams
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, May 31, 2002; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A36458-2002May30?language=printer
AVIGAIL, West Bank -- The government of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has steadily continued the expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank during the 20-month-old conflict with the Palestinians, in which control of the land is a main point of contention.
In the past few months, Israeli settlement agencies and settler organizations have set up the nuclei of three dozen new settlements, according to two Israeli groups that monitor construction and oppose the program. A Western diplomat estimated the number at 40. The rolling West Bank landscape is dotted with more water towers, more electrical generators and more mobile homes inhabited by small clusters of armed Jewish settlers under Israeli army guard, the groups reported.
The continued colonization builds on a 30-year-old national project that has progressed without letup since Israel captured the West Bank from Jordan and the Gaza Strip from Egypt in the 1967 Middle East war. Land confiscations and construction have continued no matter who ruled the country -- coalitions of the left or right, cabinets in favor of or against peace talks.
A government spokesman, Ranaan Gissin, said Sharon's policy expands existing settlements to meet the demands of natural population growth, without building new communities. "These may seem like new settlements, but they are not. They are old decisions," he said. If an unapproved settlement appears, he added, it will be removed.
Previous governments also have said they were following that policy. Since Israeli-Palestinian peace talks began with the 1993 Oslo accords, the number of formally designated settlements in the West Bank has remained steady at about 120, with an additional 10 in the Gaza Strip. But during the same period, the population of Jews in the West Bank has grown by more than 70,000 as the settlements have expanded, according to a recent report by B'Tselem, an Israeli human rights group.
But since Sharon took power, it appears that increasing the number of settlements has also become a priority, even though his government qualifies their creation as expansion of existing communities.
Avigail, the name of a collection of four mobile homes on a hilltop about 10 miles southeast of Hebron, is typical of the new thrust. Jewish settlers established Avigail on land claimed by a Palestinian family. Three weeks ago, the Israeli Supreme Court ordered the army to evacuate the settlers, but nothing has been done.
Avigail is one of a small cluster of encampments in the southern West Bank that Israeli planners believe will become thriving communities. "If we don't take this land now, it will be lost to the Arabs," said Ido Beckerman, an employee in the Israeli government water department who moved to Avigail from another West Bank settlement.
Beckerman, four other men and a woman live at Avigail, along with four soldiers and two dogs. A partially paved road winds from a main north-south highway to the hilltop. A plastic cistern sits atop the scaffold of a water tower, and saplings dot the perimeter.
"It doesn't look like much now, but Tel Aviv once looked like this," Beckerman said, in reference to Israel's largest city.
A Source of Rage
Such settlement activity is one of the roots of Palestinian frustration with the peace talks that followed the Oslo accords, Palestinian analysts say. The creation of settlements required the confiscation of private and communal land and a permanent stationing of Israeli troops to protect settlers from hostile Palestinians, which in turn led to checkpoints and more friction with the Palestinians.
Bypass roads built to segregate Palestinian and Israeli travelers also have meant more confiscations and further division of territory set aside for Palestinian rule under the Oslo agreements. This has helped turn Palestinian-run areas into an archipelago of unconnected islands. In the Arab view, the settlements and the Israeli army activities they bring nourish the rage that has fueled the bloodshed of the last 20 months.
Since capturing the West Bank, Israel has claimed large tracts for settlements and state land preserves. About 200,000 Israelis live among 2 million Palestinians in the West Bank, in addition to 175,000 who live on West Bank territory annexed to the Jerusalem municipality after 1967.
In Gaza, a sandy coastal area, 1 million Palestinians are squeezed into about 60 percent of the land, while 3,000 Jewish pioneers have settled on the rest in heavily guarded communities.
Sharon's predecessor, Ehud Barak of the Labor Party, appeared willing to withdraw from many settlements as part of a proposed handover of large parts of the West Bank in a final peace deal. Yet during Barak's last year in office, his administration built more than 4,000 houses in the West Bank, the most in any year since the 1993 accords. The drive was meant to shore up Israel's hold on areas near the old 1967 frontier and close to Jerusalem.
Sharon has vowed never to withdraw from any of the West Bank or Gaza Strip settlements, whether close to the Israeli border or deep inside the territories. He has spent the better part of his political career pushing their construction, citing the Jews' biblical roots in what is now called the West Bank and the area's role as a buffer in defending against an Arab attack from the east.
"We're on the threshold of something big. It is not clear what the final extent of settlements will look like, but annexation of much of the West Bank seems certain," said Yehezkel Lein, a researcher at B'Tselem.
B'Tselem, in line with international rights organizations, the International Committee of the Red Cross and most world governments, regards settlement development as a breach of war rules in the Geneva Conventions. The conventions forbid a country to transfer "parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."
Successive Israeli governments have contended that the Geneva Conventions do not apply because the world did not recognize the rule of Jordan and Egypt in the West Bank and Gaza. The land is not occupied, they have argued.
The Carter administration was the last U.S. government to label the settlements illegal. The Bush administration has criticized settlement expansion as unhelpful to renewing peace talks but has not dealt with their legality. In doing so, President Bush has followed a pattern established under Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton, whose administrations referred to the settlements as an obstacle to peace but not illegal.
A freeze on settlement construction formed part of a series of measures outlined by former senator George J. Mitchell more than a year ago to ease tensions. But those proposals have been eclipsed by the absence of a cease-fire agreement, Israeli efforts to crush armed Palestinians and terrorist groups, and pressure on Yasser Arafat to reform the Palestinian Authority.
This week, a regional council that administers an area in the West Bank announced a plan to place 1,000 families in existing settlements and new outposts.
Avigail lies outside the municipal bounds of Maon, the nearest existing settlement, but is within the jurisdiction of the local regional council. Maon contains 45 houses, of which 20 are occupied, according to residents. There is room for about 250 more on Maon's land.
"Everything is legal," said Beckerman, the Israeli water department employee. "We didn't kick anyone off this land."
The creation of new settlements, however, is sometimes murky, and the Supreme Court's ruling suggested that Avigail's legality is open to question under the Israeli government's declared policy.
'Relatively Legal'
The force behind Avigail's development appears to be the Mount Hebron Regional Council, one of 23 local governing bodies for Israelis in the West Bank.
Municipalities and local and regional councils in Gaza and the West Bank receive government grants to fund their activities, on average more than double the amount of subsidies and tax breaks given to their counterparts in Israel proper, according to a recent B'Tselem report. In conjunction with the Civil Administration, the military government for areas of the West Bank and Gaza controlled by Israel, the councils plan new settlements and supply them with water and electricity, and provide other necessities.
Tsviki Bar-Hai, head of the Mount Hebron Council, said Avigail was established less than a year ago on state land with the permission of the Civil Administration, which provided the water tower. The army sent soldiers "because they have to protect Jews wherever they live." Bar-Hai called the settlement an "agricultural community."
"We are here to protect state lands. Our neighbors try to move in," he said in reference to the Palestinians. "It's a process. I came to this area 20 years ago and there was no road, no water. Now we've made something. It's natural. You don't just sit tight. You expand."
The concrete foundation for Avigail's water tower was laid in September, and local Palestinians sued to have construction stopped. In October, an army major ordered the settlement evacuated, according to Shlomo Lecker, a lawyer for the Palestinians.
But nothing happened, so Lecker went to the Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of the evacuation. He wrote a letter Wednesday asking the army to enforce the order.
Noam Haba, a spokesman for the Civil Administration, said that Avigail is "located within the planning for an existing settlement, but it is not intended to be a new settlement."
"It is relatively legal," Haba said. "It is a problem, since there is no permit to establish a settlement there. Certainly, before it could become a real settlement, it would require additional permits and approvals. It is currently under consideration by the minister of defense, who decides whether any such points are to be expanded, or evacuated."
This week, Defense Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer denied that he was authorizing new settlements. Officials at the Defense Ministry, which controls the Civil Administration, said Avigail is "not new" but the result of a decision made by a previous government. "The Civil Administration is closely monitoring the activities at Avigail," said a spokesman, Peter Lerner. "And we will act according to policies set by the Defense Ministry."
"The settlers may think they are setting up a new settlement, and organizations like B'Tselem and Peace Now think they are new, but we know we are just completing plans made in the past," said a Defense Ministry spokesman, Yarden Vatikay.
Avigail is in the rudimentary stages of construction. When they are finished, settlements often become large, tract-like communities that would look at home in Southern California. Most Jews in the West Bank live in such settlements, which hug the internationally recognized border.
These built-up areas account for only about 1 1/2 percent of the territory, not including the large neighborhoods annexed to Jerusalem. But land claimed by Israel for future construction commands much more. The boundaries of Israeli municipalities cover about 7 percent of the West Bank, while another 35 percent is set aside as state land.
B'Tselem, in its report, said the percentage of land that settlements occupy belies their role in undermining the potential for a viable Palestinian state. In some cases, settlement frontiers and connecting roads divide the West Bank into enclaves, B'Tselem pointed out. For instance, Avigail, a half-dozen nearby new outposts and 10 other older settlements complete a ring around the Palestinian town of Yatta and its nearby villages.
In other cases, oddly shaped city limits separate large chunks of the West Bank from one another. For instance, Maale Adumim, a community of 30,000 people just east of Jerusalem, extends from just outside Israel's capital almost to the Palestinian city of Jericho, 12 miles east. The finger of land effectively separates the major Palestinian cities of Bethlehem in the south and Ramallah in the north.
The populated area of Maale Adumim fills less than half of its designated territory. The rest is reserved for use as an industrial park, future tourist development and open spaces. "What's the problem?" said Mayor Benny Kasriel. "There's no one living there anyway."
There to Stay
Once settlements are established, they have proved difficult to uproot, even on the few occasions when the government has tried.
In 1998, Arab shepherds shot and killed Dov Dribben, a settler from Maon who tried to set up a ranch on grazing land outside his community. His associates continued the project, but in 1999, the Barak government decided to evict them. Dozens of soldiers descended on the isolated house, shut off the electricity and closed the outpost. But the renegades returned later that year, this time establishing a few wooden houses in a small forest near Maon. Maon residents helped by stringing electrical wiring to the camp. They named the place after Dribben.
Some people in Maon later grew alarmed that the new settlers were extremists. One settler was implicated in a plot to blow up Palestinian civilians in Jerusalem. Maon community leaders wanted to have a say in who lived at the Dribben camp, but the newcomers refused.
"We've cut off all connection to them," said Michal Kadmon, an herbal medicine therapist in Maon. "However, we are against evacuation."
Concurrently, the government pressured a clan of Palestinian shepherds to abandon their traditional cave dwellings and tents in a valley below Maon. The Israelis said the Palestinians were squatting on state land. Settlers from the Dribben camp came and cut down scattered fields of wheat. Regional officials ordered the dismantling of a tent-mosque.
Mahmoud Hamamdi, clan head and father of 11 children, has asked an Israeli court to block eviction. "I am not new here. I was born in these caves," Hamamdi said.
But now Hamamdi is faced with a new irritant. Although Avigail's mobile homes sit on only a fraction of an acre, soldiers prohibit Palestinians from entering a much larger area, to keep them away from the settlers. And the army has fenced off Hamamdi's plot of wheat inside the now-forbidden area, which also blocks the direct road to other communities of cave dwellers. Soldiers have declared the area a closed military zone, meaning Hamamdi and his donkey must take a roundabout way to market.
----
Israel Moves Into West Bank City as Envoys Start New Peace Bid
New York Times
May 31, 2002
By JOHN KIFNER
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/31/international/31CND-MIDE.html
JERUSALEM, May 31 - Israeli tanks and troops stormed into Nablus and its neighboring Balata refugee camp before dawn today, rounding up around 100 Palestinians, in the largest of the daily raids since its virtual occupation of most West Bank cities in April.
Even as a tentative flurry of diplomatic activity was underway here, the army imposed a curfew on Nablus, took over houses for snipers' posts, surrounded the Balata camp, birthplace and stronghold of the Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade, a militant Palestinian group. Soldiers also called over loudspeakers for all males between 15 and 45 to come out with their hands up.
Local reporters glimpsed hundreds of Palestinians gathered in the streets before being ordered away by the army. The army appeared ready to settle in for some time.
Israeli officials said the raid was launched "in the wake of recent murderous attacks," a wave of suicide bombers and other attacks, including a gunmen who killed three teenage yeshiva students at a nearby settlement, nearly all of which have been claimed by the Aksa Brigade.
The Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat told reporters that the raid was aimed at "bringing our people to their knees." Speaking from his headquarters in Ramallah, under repair from the April siege, he added, "It's as if they are saying to the world that we do not want to reach any agreement."
In a second attack on an Israeli West Bank settlement in three days - a possible sign of hotly debated Palestinian tactics - an armed Palestinian cut through the wire fences this morning around Shavei Shomron, north of Nablus, and threw several hand grenades, including one at a kindergarten class, before being shot dead by settlers.
The American envoy, Assistant Secretary of State William J. Burns, who saw Mr. Arafat Thursday night, met today with the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon. Mr. Sharon, predictably enough, told him there could be no deal, no peace and no Palestinian Authority reform as long as Mr. Arafat was in charge.
Mr. Sharon's office issued a statement saying that he re-emphasized Israel's position that progress in the peace process "is conditional on the cessation of terror and incitement and on comprehensive reforms in the Palestinian Authority."
Mr. Sharon also met with Osama el-Baz, a top political adviser to the Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak, who insisted Mr. Arafat was a reliable negotiator. The visit of Mr. el-Baz, ahead of a pending trip to Washington by Mr. Mubarak, was seen as a move by Egypt to shore up its position as the main Arab interlocutor and second-ranking recipient, behind Israel itself, of American aid.
Israeli today also announced the appointment of Mr. Sharon's foreign policy adviser, Danny Ayalon, as ambassador to Washington, one of the most coveted government posts here.
During the raid into Nablus and the Balata camp, the army blew up the home of Jihad Tibi, the suicide bomber who killed a grandmother and the baby for whom she was buying ice cream.
-------- pakistan
Powell Wants Proof of Pakistan Militants Clampdown
May 31, 2002
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/politics/politics-southasia-powell.html
LONDON - Secretary of State Colin Powell said Friday there were indications Pakistan was trying to stop militants crossing the disputed border in Kashmir and launching attacks on the Indian side.
But he told BBC World Service radio in an interview that he needed absolute proof of the clampdown.
``Instructions have been given to cease this kind of activity, but it is too early to say that it has stopped. If it does stop it must also stop permanently.
``I think that what we are expecting (Pakistan's) President (Pervez) Musharraf to do is to use all the authority he has to stop it and to keep it stopped so that we can get this crisis behind us,'' Powell said.
The United States and other members of the international community have urged Pakistan and India to pull back from the brink of war over disputed Kashmir.
The two nuclear-armed South Asian powers have massed nearly 1 million men along their border following attacks in Indian territory by militants New Delhi said were based in Pakistan.
Pakistan has denied fomenting violence across the border and Musharraf said last week there was no infiltration of militants into Indian Kashmir.
Powell said there were welcome signs that both sides were trying to avoid war and were searching for a diplomatic solution to defuse the crisis.
``What I am impressed with right now is that both sides seem to be looking for a political solution. Both sides realize that little can be gained from a war,'' Powell said.
He said the most horrific thing that could happen in 2002 would be if for the second time in history nuclear weapons were used.
``The whole world would condemn whoever does that. That is a sobering reality that both understand,'' he said.
-------- space
Chinese finalize design for manned spacecraft
05/31/2002
Associated Press
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/05/31/china-space.htm
BEIJING (AP) - A leading Chinese spacecraft designer was quoted Friday as saying China has perfected its design for a manned spacecraft to carry the first Chinese astronauts into orbit in "the near future."
The country's first manned flight will use a craft "technically identical" to an unmanned prototype that returned to Earth on April 1 after a one-week flight, Qi Faren told the official Xinhua News Agency.
Qi, chief designer at the government-run Chinese Research Institute of Space Technology, said the newest Chinese rocket, the Long March II-F, successfully launched the prototype.
Qi reportedly said the successful test flight of the Shenzhou III (pronounced "shen-jo") spacecraft showed life support and landing systems were ready for manned orbit and re-entry.
China has kept its manned space program secret, refusing to publish launch dates of its previous three unmanned test flights, or the names of the dozen fighter pilots now in astronaut training.
Foreign experts have said China may attempt a manned flight as early as the end of this year. China would become only the third nation to put humans in space, after Russia and the United States.
-------- us
National Defense & National Offense
by Harry Browne,
May 31, 2002
Antiwar.com editorial
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/browne19.html
You might think I never advocate an expansion of any government function.
Not so. I'd like to see a greater national defense. In fact, I'd like to see a national defense - period.
Today our government spends virtually nothing on defense. Instead, it spends over $300 billion per year on offense - the most intimidating national offense in the history of the world.
The U.S. has the ability to destroy any country in the world - or even the entire world. But it can't defend us from any two-bit dictator who gets his hands on a nuclear missile - or from a dozen amateurs with box-cutters.
Isn't there something wrong with this picture?
The Constitution authorizes Congress to "provide for the common defense." But it says nothing about running the world.
Method to the Madness
Because the country is virtually defenseless against "terrorist states" and terrorist individuals, the politicians have a ready excuse for depriving us of our civil liberties.
They have to monitor our bank accounts. After all, one of us might be helping to finance terrorism.
They have to tap our telephones. After all, two of us might be plotting the next attack.
They have to monitor our email. After all, three of us might be terrorists conspiring to overthrow the government.
And since the country is virtually defenseless against such attacks, the only recourse is to impose police-state measures - right out of George Orwell's 1984.
How convenient.
But it's even worse than that. Because we can't defend ourselves, the politicians feel justified in launching "preemptive" attacks against Iraq, Panama, Libya, Grenada, Afghanistan, the Sudan, Serbia, and just about any other country run by someone our President of the moment doesn't happen to like.
What Did the President Know?
The big issue currently is the question of how much the government knew in advance of September 11.
But that's almost irrelevant.
If some people in the government did have advance warnings, the government was too bureaucratic to respond. On the other hand, if no one knew anything, you have to wonder what they do with our money.
Either way we're paying the government $2 trillion a year and getting nothing in return. With all that money, the government should have been able to defend us from the box-cutter terrorists.
And after all the new invasions of our civil liberties and all the bombs dropped on Afghanistan and all the people killed by our military and all the bullying George Bush has done to make other governments join the crusade against terrorism, Vice-President Cheney says another terrorist attack is "almost certain."
So what are we getting for our $2 trillion, for our lost civil liberties, and for the ill will being created worldwide?
With $2 trillion the government ought to be able to come up with a better approach than by conducting military invasions that will just provoke more terrorist attacks.
For $2 trillion someone in government could at least explore the possibility that American foreign policy has made America an unsafe country.
Not a chance. We're expected to pay our taxes, wave the flag, and keep our mouths shut.
Defending the Country
When will America have a real national defense? It shouldn't cost more than $50 billion a year.
It requires only two essential elements.
The first is the ability to repel foreign missiles.
Ronald Reagan proposed such a missile defense in 1983. But he gave the job to the Defense Department, a bureaucratic government agency, and 19 years later we're not one step closer to the protection we need.
The government should simply post a reward - say, $25 billion - to be given to the first private company that produces an actual functioning, fool-proof missile defense. Not a prototype, not a plan, not a cost-plus contract - but a demonstration of the actual system bringing down missiles. If such an offer were made, we'd probably have a missile defense within five years.
Remember all the reasons given in 1997 that the Y2K computer problem couldn't possibly be solved by 2000? Even computer experts said there wasn't enough time, there weren't enough programmers, and there were too many lines of computer code to be examined, altered, and tested. But somehow, people in search of profits found ways to overcome all the barriers that stymie bureaucrats, and they reduced the problem to a minor inconvenience.
In the same way, private firms competing to win a huge reward will achieve missile-defense goals that bureaucrats (and even scientists) working for the government might consider impossible.
And then the politicians would no longer have an excuse to intimidate anyone - foreign or American.
The second essential element is to get the U.S. government out of the affairs of other nations. No more troops stationed in other countries. No more foreign aid - military or financial - to other governments. No more demanding that foreign countries change their ways.
If you want to be the world's policeman, telling everyone else how to run their lives, expect to be hated - and even attacked.
But if we restore America to the peaceful beacon of liberty that once provided light and hope and inspiration to the entire world, we can expect to be loved again - as America once was.
All we really want from the government is to be defended against missiles, bombers, and terrorists.
For $2 trillion, is that too much to ask?
----
[To reply: mailto:letters@washingtontimes.com]
Bring back the Crusader system
Barry McCaffrey
May 31, 2002
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20020531-91496656.htm
The Department of Defense's cancellation of Crusader is a madcap, thoughtless effort to junk a needed weapon system by branding it as "Cold War" and "pork."
However, experienced combat leaders strongly support full fielding of the Crusader artillery system to the Army. I asked CEO Tom Rabaut of United Defense LP to let me work as a consultant with his team in the coming months to explain the enormous contribution that this technologically powerful weapon will make to our ground combat capability. The perspective I bring to this debate is one of a battle leader with four combat tours. I have been wounded in combat three times. My son is an infantry major. We need this weapon.
Crusader will give us long-distance (50 kilometers) precision engagement with the most rapid-fire artillery weapon in history. The system is crewed by three soldiers with an enormous computerized, automated firing capability that can put more than six rounds simultaneously on a distant target. Two Crusaders can be loaded on a C17 and flown into a remote base to emerge immediately ready to fire.
This weapon will deliver Excalibur precision munitions to a distant target or fire high explosives, smoke, incendiary, illumination, or other munitions in close proximity to a U.S. infantry unit trapped in violent, close combat - even those engaging possibly hundreds of enemy attackers.
These enemy forces may be attacking in the dark and during raging storms where U.S. air power cannot effectively provide close air support. The Crusader will also reach out and engage multiple enemy artillery or mortar weapons that might be hammering U.S. forces or innocent civilians. The Crusader artillery rounds can respond to enemy fire and be on target in minutes.
This Crusader artillery weapon also has triple the effectiveness of the current U.S. artillery. In addition, Crusader is the first artillery system in the world with the mobility to keep up with the Abrams tank moving at nearly 50 kph across rough terrain in the dark. Congress should exercise its right to field and equip the Army with this vital Crusader weapon system. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz are brilliant men and dedicated to transforming the armed forces. However, they are wrong on this issue. In addition, the Department of Defense decision process has been bypassed. The Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC), the Defense Acquisitions Board (DAB) and the Joint Chiefs did not adequately consider this unilateral and unwise decision.
We have spent nearly $2 billion getting Crusader ready to go into battle. In the coming decade, we may have to fight the North Koreans with their 10,300 artillery weapons, or the Iraqis with 2,100 guns, or fight in a heavy enemy air defense environment, where B52s cannot do Joint Direct Attack Munition close air-support missions in daylight loiter patterns over U.S. forces.
We almost lost the superb Bradley Fighting Vehicle to goofy thinking just as it was being fielded in the late 1980s. Thankfully, Congress stayed firm. Our ground fighting forces now need the Crusader's cutting-edge technology. The Army also needs Crusader because it is fast and much lighter than the U.S. and enemy battle tanks whose battle environments it will operate in.
Most of my adult life has been spent studying, training or carrying out combat operations. In my judgment, the Army must keep a balanced, lethal ground and aviation capability as part of the joint force. Crusader is one of three central pillars of this transformed Army.
Barry McCaffrey was U.S. national drug policy director, commander of the U.S. Southern Command and adviser to Colin Powell at the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
--------
Bush Seeks to Shift Crusader Funds
May 31, 2002
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Crusader-Money.html
WASHINGTON (AP) -- In an attempt to drive a stake through the heart of the Crusader artillery system, President Bush proposed to Congress new ways to spend the $475 million he initially sought for Crusader next year.
``I ask the Congress to consider the enclosed request for a ... budget amendment for the Department of Defense reflecting my decision to cancel the Army's Crusader artillery system,'' Bush wrote late Wednesday to House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill.
Precision-strike weapons and other artillery systems would get almost all the money under the plan developed by the Pentagon, outlined by White House budget chief Mitchell Daniels and endorsed by Bush.
``This proposal will produce a substantial boost to the long-term capabilities of the Army, reflecting lessons learned from recent military operations where the accuracy and responsiveness of precision weapons have been critical,'' Daniels wrote Bush on May 17.
Critics contend the Crusader is too big and unwieldy to fit in with the Army's plans for a lighter, faster and more mobile force.
Supporters say it would save soldiers' lives by hitting enemy forces before they are within striking range of U.S. troops.
Proponents include some powerful members of Congress, including Sen. Don Nickles, the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, and Rep. J.C. Watts, chairman of the House Republican Conference. Both are from Oklahoma, where the Crusader would have been assembled.
The Army, which fought to keep the Crusader, has accepted the decision, Army Capt. Amy Hannah said Thursday. She recalled Army Secretary Thomas E. White's words of May 8, when Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld announced he would terminate Crusader: ``The Army will work hard to execute that decision -- period, full stop.''
Despite administration objections, defense spending bills for 2003 approved by the full House and the Senate Armed Services Committee included the $475 million the administration originally sought for Crusader. And the House added nonbinding instructions that the administration not cancel the Crusader until it completes a report on alternatives. The Senate panel delayed any such action until it heard from Rumsfeld on May 16, and has still not made any decisions on it.
The Army still needs the ability to fire on enemies beyond the direct line of sight, she said, and is ``working to satisfy that requirement through a variety of programs.''
Under Bush's plan, $310 million of the $475 million would go to accelerate the Army's Future Combat System, which envisions using communications networks to connect airborne and ground-based weapons, manned and unmanned.
About $57 million would be used to develop prototypes of a precision attack missile, and $57.5 million for its command and control technology.
Quicker development of the Excalibur precision artillery projectile, a shell guided by the same type of global positioning satellite technology that guided many ``smart'' bombs dropped on Afghanistan, would get $48 million.
Such shells could be fired from modified versions of current 155mm artillery guns and would be accurate within about 10 yards of their target, compared with more than 370 yards for current 155mm shells, Michael Wynne of the Pentagon's procurement office said recently.
In addition, they could have a range of more than 35 miles, compared with Crusader's projected range of more than 25 miles, enabling artillery units to be stationed safely behind mountains or other barriers while firing rounds that destroy enemy positions, he said.
Separately, $45 million would go to the Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System, a battery of precision rockets mounted on a tank-like vehicle, with a firing range of more than 35 miles and Excalibur's accuracy.
-------- propaganda wars
Ruling Junta Hires Lobbying Firm of GOP Strategist to Press for Normalization
Burma Moves to Improve Relations With U.S.
By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 31, 2002; Page A22
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A36780-2002May30?language=printer
Burma's ruling military junta earlier this month agreed to pay more than $450,000 a year to a lobbying firm with ties to President Bush to help push for the normalization of relations between the United States and the impoverished Southeast Asian nation.
The Burmese government began negotiating an agreement with DCI Associates in April, including making a $100,000 deposit, shortly before authorities agreed to release from house arrest the Nobel Peace Prize-winning activist Aung San Suu Kyi, according to documents filed by DCI with the Justice Department.
DCI was established by Thomas J. Synhorst, a well-known GOP strategist who specializes in building grass-roots support through extensive use of phone banks. His firm's clients included Bush when he was governor of Texas, as well as the tobacco industry and the National Rifle Association. Burma is DCI's first foreign client.
The signing of the contract comes as the Bush administration is considering sending $1 million in humanitarian aid through United Nations agencies and nongovernment organizations located in Burma to assist in battling an HIV epidemic that affects one out of 50 adults, one of the highest rates in the world. Burma's official AIDS budget in 1999 was $30,000, which was supplemented by about $3 million from international organizations.
The State Department describes Burma, also known as Myanmar, as "one of the world's poorest countries," with a history of repression, extrajudicial executions and forced labor. "The quality of life in Burma continues to deteriorate," the department's most recent report on Burma said. "Poverty is widespread, and the economy has continued to show the effects of a growing government deficit, rising inflation, shortfalls in energy supplies and continuing foreign exchange shortages."
Despite the release of Suu Kyi, the Bush administration has said more concrete actions must be taken by the military leadership, including the release of more than 1,500 political prisoners, before economic and other sanctions could be lifted. Earlier this month, however, the State Department granted a visa to a high-ranking military official for talks on drug issues, even though that official was specifically banned from traveling to the European Union.
In a news release, DCI trumpeted the visit by Col. Kyaw Thein as the "highest level meeting in Washington" between the State Department and the Burmese regime since 1988.
The hiring of DCI appears to suggest the Burmese are eager to build on the release of Suu Kyi to improve relations, and that the military leaders believe that political affiliations are important to a lobbying firm's success. During the Clinton administration, the Burmese used intermediaries to briefly hire lobbying firms with Democratic connections, including a former State Department official.
Charles Francis, a DCI official, said the company was approached by the government through "mutual relationships" he declined to identify. "We thought long and hard about accepting this representation," he said. But he said the release of Suu Kyi was "a very significant and substantive act of good faith," and company officials decided "this is a moment in history that calls for taking a new look."
He said that DCI would first focus on winning greater assistance for Burma to fight HIV and narcotics. He said Burma now spends "just nothing" on the surging HIV epidemic, but government officials "are ready to kick off a much more aggressive effort."
Suu Kyi's party, the National League for Democracy, won a landslide election victory 12 years ago but was barred from assuming power by the military. The United States is committed to delivering humanitarian funds though nongovernmental organizations, in consultation with Suu Kyi's party, thus sidestepping the regime.
Francis said he understood that. "Let's take this step by step by step," he said. "This will start the ball rolling as political reconciliation proceeds."
Documents filed last week with the Justice Department show that DCI's contract was made directly with the State Peace and Development Council, the official name for the military junta that rules by decree. DCI's main contact in the government is listed as intelligence chief Khin Nyunt, a key member of the triumvirate at the top of the junta.
In addition to the $100,000 deposit, the government agreed to pay DCI a monthly management fee of $35,000 and any expenses, with the contract set to run through May 15, 2003.
In its filings, DCI said it would meet with congressional and administration officials to improve relations between the United States and Burma, focusing especially on "trade policy, the war on drugs, war on terrorism, human rights, public health, HIV/AIDS and promotion of democracy."
Human rights experts said the Burmese regime increasingly has stressed its crushing economic woes, health problems and illicit-drug industry as leverage to gain greater international recognition and cooperation.
The filings also state that DCI will "work with members of Congress and the administration to begin a dialogue on political reconciliation and humanitarian issues . . . with the goal to ultimately normalize relations."
Specialists in Burmese issues and human right activists found the language significant because the premise of the discussions between the regime and Suu Kyi's party, the NLD, is "national reconciliation," diplomatic code for tripartite talks among the junta, the NLD and ethnic groups leading to political reform.
After Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage met with Razali bin Ismail, the U.N. special envoy for Burma, this month, the State Department released a statement that three times referred to the need for "national reconciliation" before relations could improve. Francis said he did not make a distinction between political and national reconciliation.
--------
Army Closing Peacekeeping Office
May 31, 2002
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-US-Peacekeeping.html
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Army has decided to close its Peacekeeping Institute, the only arm of the military devoted entirely to developing principles of how to conduct peacekeeping missions, officials said Friday.
The unannounced decision came after months of deliberation. It is part of a move to cut staff positions at the Army War College in Carlisle, Pa., where the institute is based.
Col. Tom Begines, an Army spokesman at the Pentagon, said he was unaware of any decision. Other Army officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the decision was made this week.
The Peacekeeping Institute is to be closed by September 2003. Some of its functions probably will be absorbed by the Center for Army Lessons Learned at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., officials said.
The institute was created in July 1993 to guide the Army's thinking on the conduct of peacekeeping missions, to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of specific missions and to promote Army exchanges with international organizations involved in peace operations.
Three months after its creation, a peacekeeping effort in Somalia that had evolved into a manhunt turned suddenly bloody on the streets of Mogadishu. Two Army Black Hawk helicopters were shot down, 18 U.S. soldiers were killed and the Clinton administration quickly ended the mission.
William Nash, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, said he was disappointed by the Army's decision but not sure of its long-term effect. Nash, a retired Army major general, was commander of NATO-led peacekeeping forces in Bosnia during the first year after the civil war ended in 1995.
``It's too soon to tell if it's good or bad,'' he said in an interview.
The Partnership for Effective Peacekeeping, a nonpartisan group that includes nongovernmental organizations, academics and others interested in peacekeeping issues, said in a statement that military commanders have come to rely on the Peacekeeping Institute.
``Since its establishment PKI has maintained an outstanding reputation among our allies, the United Nations secretariat and within the U.S. government,'' the group said. ``Eliminating this function will be a setback in U.S. foreign policy. It will send a clear message that the U.S. has disengaged from peace operations.'' Kenneth Bacon, president of Refugees International and a former assistant secretary of defense for public affairs, said the Army stands to lose an important resource at a time when peacekeeping is of growing importance.
``They're dismantling an office that has brought real expertise and perspective'' to peacekeeping, he said.
Closing the Peacekeeping Institute does not mean the Army will stop doing peacekeeping missions.
On the Net:
Peacekeeping Institute:
http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usacsl/divisions/pki/default.htm
-------- POLICE / PRISONERS
An Erosion of Civil Liberties
May 31, 2002
New York Times Editorial
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/31/opinion/31FRI2.html?ei=1&en=fb3aefa771397f5c&ex=1023867266&pagewanted=print&position=bottom
Attorney General John Ashcroft has a gift for making the most draconian policy changes sound seductively innocuous. He was at it again yesterday, describing new domestic spying powers for the Federal Bureau of Investigation as nothing more than the authority to surf the Internet or attend a public gathering. That is profoundly misleading. In reality Mr. Ashcroft, in the name of fighting terrorism, was giving F.B.I. agents nearly unbridled power to poke into the affairs of anyone in the United States, even when there is no evidence of illegal activity.
Americans understand the need to be vigilant against terrorism, but they also want to preserve the civil liberties and investigative safeguards that make America a free nation. Overturning the domestic security guidelines issued by the Ford administration to rein in investigative abuses promises to upset the delicate balance between security and liberty that the nation has been struggling to maintain since Sept. 11. Before it was brought under control, the F.B.I. routinely infiltrated peace groups, electronically monitored civil rights leaders, including Martin Luther King Jr., and generally engaged in spying against Americans who were critical of the government.
The Justice Department is insisting that the guidelines unduly tied the hands of the F.B.I. Field offices, for example, were required to get approval from Washington before they could begin investigations. Undercover agents could not be sent into churches, synagogues or mosques unless agents could produce probable cause to believe someone there had committed a crime. There were also restrictions on F.B.I. agents conducting searches of public information, including Internet searches, without probable cause.
Clearly, F.B.I. agents should not be barred from conducting Internet searches, even just to pursue hunches. But if agents were routinely to do searches for Web sites and chat room comments critical of the war in Afghanistan, and follow up with personal visits, the rights of law-abiding Americans would be infringed. Similarly, the government wants more freedom to use "data mining," even without probable cause. That could mean that F.B.I. agents will show up at the doors of people who order politically unpopular books on Amazon.com or make phone calls to organizations critical of the government.
Lifting the ban on monitoring religious institutions raises similar issues. Houses of worship need not be off-limits to F.B.I. investigators, any more than public meetings of secular organizations should be. But there will be an inevitable temptation to target organizations - whether mosques, synagogues or political groups - simply because of government antipathy. Loosening the rules for recruiting confidential informants, another step announced yesterday, could easily lead to a resumption of questionable practices.
At a press conference Mr. Ashcroft promised that the new rules would be put in place with "scrupulous respect for civil rights and personal freedom." The sentiment is welcome, but unconvincing. Mr. Ashcroft and his colleagues have missed no opportunity since Sept. 11 to expand the investigative powers of the federal government and to stampede Congress into supporting the changes by suggesting that opposition is disloyal.
In this latest case, Americans are entitled at the very least to hear from the Justice Department what it considers to be the limits of its "scrupulous respect" for their civil rights and personal freedom - and what oversight procedures will be used to keep the F.B.I. in check.
----
[Ashcroft and his cronies must have access to Hitler's notebooks, or perhaps they are devotees of the Holocaust Museum's exhibits on how Hitler took over Europe. When neighbors start policing neighbors, look out. et]
Ashcroft promotes initiative for volunteers to aid police
By Jerry Seper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
May 31, 2002
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020531-69566678.htm
Attorney General John Ashcroft yesterday kicked off the Citizen Corps' Volunteers in Police Service program, an initiative aimed at challenging all Americans to dedicate time to serving the nation and its communities.
Mr. Ashcroft called the program one of "several opportunities emerging through the new Citizen Corps initiative" to enhance local homeland-security efforts and make emergency preparedness "a part of our daily lives."
"The efforts of these volunteers enable officers to stay on the front lines, where they are needed most," he said in a speech at the Nannie J. Lee Community Center in Alexandria.
"Through programs such as Volunteers in Police Service, volunteers can assist police in performing routine duties, which are necessary to the efficient operation of their departments," he said. "Though the work may not be glamorous, it is essential."
Mr. Ashcroft said volunteers who participate in the program will assist departments by performing non-sworn duties, such as answering phones, compiling crime data, preparing incident reports and facilitating crime-prevention programs.
He said Volunteers In Police Service (VIPS) is the first program to bring together law-enforcement volunteer programs nationwide to share resources and support each other's efforts.
This national initiative, he said, will assist state and local law-enforcement agencies by increasing the number of law-enforcement volunteers, expanding or improving various components of existing programs, and helping agencies without volunteer programs to establish them.
"President Bush created his USA Freedom Corps initiative to help Americans respond to the terrorist attacks of September 11 with acts of kindness and compassion," said John Bridgeland, director of the USA Freedom Corps, the White House coordinating council that oversees the Citizen Corps and its programs.
"Programs like VIPS create new opportunities for citizens to get involved," Mr. Bridgeland said.
Mr. Ashcroft also promoted a Web site (www.policevolunteers.org) developed by the International Association of Chiefs of Police to support the VIPS program.
"The Web site coordinates information from VIPS programs in our local communities to create a nationwide resource," said William Berger, the association's president.
"It provides information about all VIPS programs, and allows law-enforcement agencies and volunteers alike to communicate in order to improve their programs and create more opportunities for volunteer services."
----
FBI Monitored Militants in Italy Before 9/11
Bureau, Local Police Suspected Anti-American Activity, Court Document Shows
By Sarah Delaney
The Washington Post
Friday, May 31, 2002; Page A23
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A36296-2002May30?language=printer
MILAN, May 30 -- The FBI and Italian police worked closely together in Italy as early as October 2000 to monitor Islamic militants who were deemed a danger to Americans, a document from an Italian court shows.
Top personnel from the U.S. Embassy in Rome met with Italian police officials that month to coordinate efforts against the militants, who Italian investigators believed were providing logistical support to members of Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda terrorist network in Europe, according to the document. The FBI later assigned a special agent to the effort and two Arabic-speaking translators were provided.
According to the memo, the meeting grew out of an earlier meeting between then-FBI Director Louis Freeh and Italian Police Chief Gianni De Gennaro. The memo said De Gennaro expressed his fears to Freeh about the existence of a logistical support group in Italy.
The memo was drafted by the U.S. Embassy in Rome in March 2001 and sent to Italian authorities as a review of the cooperation. An Italian translation has been introduced as evidence in a terrorism trial in Milan; that document was translated back into English by The Washington Post.
A U.S. State Department spokesman declined to comment on the document, marked "secret," but said that Italy, other European countries and the European Union have shown cooperation "in a uniquely rapid way since September 11."
FBI agents are working in several countries in the counterterrorism effort. The Milan document provides rare details of how the cooperation was set up and proceeded in Italy.
It recounts how Italian authorities in Milan tapped phones, followed suspects and raided possible safe houses. U.S. and Italian officials examined evidence in search of links between militants in Italy and Germany. An FBI agent helped identify a suspect based on Italian surveillance material.
In January 2001, the U.S. Embassy in Rome was closed temporarily as a security measure. The memo said the precaution was taken because of a tip from the Algerian secret service that the U.S., Tunisian and Algerian embassies in Rome might be the targets of a terrorist attack. The plan was attributed to Abu Doha, a militant who is in jail in London and fighting extradition to the United States.
The memo says Italian authorities were concerned about activities around the Islamic Cultural Institute of Milan. Last year, the U.S. Treasury Department publicly labeled the institute an al Qaeda "station house," a claim disputed by the institute and local Italian police.
Investigations headed by the Milan prosecutor into the so-called Milan cell have resulted in the conviction of nine Arab men. Three others, arrested in November 2001, are to be tried in July. Italian authorities have issued an arrest warrant for a fourth, Abdelkader Mahmoud Es Sayed, and considered him to be the most important member of the cell. Some accounts suggest he died in a U.S. bombing raid in Afghanistan.
Es Sayed, an Egyptian, obtained political asylum in Italy in the late 1990s and, according to Italian authorities, proceeded to construct a network that provided aspiring Islamic militants, principally from Algeria, Tunisia and Egypt, with ways to act on their beliefs. The Italian link to al Qaeda, investigators say, specialized in providing false passports, a place to stay and help in arriving at training camps in Afghanistan. Italian investigators have recently produced translations of secretly recorded conversations that police say refer to planned terrorist strikes against American targets.
In the conversations, Es Sayed is heard talking to a Yemeni associate, Abdulsalam Ali Abdulrahman, who predicts a "surprise" strike, "one of those strikes that will never be forgotten." Abdulrahman tells the other man to "remember the word 'overhead' " and that "the danger is in the airports."
An Italian police official said the recorded material was analyzed again and again, but that the cryptic conversations make sense only now with respect to the attacks of Sept. 11.
A Yemeni official described Abdulrahman as a trader and confirmed Italian reports that he used a Yemeni diplomatic passport. But the official said that that did not mean he was connected with the Yemeni government. Such passports are frequently issued to private citizens, the official said, to facilitate travel. Yemeni authorities are searching for Abdulrahman, the official said.
Correspondent Howard Schneider in Cairo contributed to this report.
----
Ashcroft: Old Rules Aided Terrorists
FBI Agents Get Freer Hand; Civil Liberties Groups Criticize New Guidelines
By Bill Miller
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 31, 2002; Page A13
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A34880-2002May30?language=printer
Saying that the FBI's own rules have provided terrorists with a "competitive advantage," Attorney General John D. Ashcroft unveiled new guidelines yesterday that will permit agents to more freely conduct surveillance at political rallies and religious gatherings, surf the Internet and mine commercial databases for information.
The changes give the FBI -- whose primary mission now is preventing terrorist attacks -- greater ability to gather the intelligence it needs, Ashcroft said. They loosen guidelines imposed after FBI domestic spying scandals of the 1960s and 1970s.
"Men and women of the FBI in the field are frustrated because many of our own internal restrictions have hampered our ability to fight terrorism," Ashcroft declared. "The current investigative guidelines have contributed to that frustration."
But the rule changes, which take effect immediately, quickly drew sharp criticism from civil liberties groups, political activists and some members of Congress, who said they could encourage snooping without cause and a return to the kind of abuses for which the regime of then-FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover became infamous.
"Americans have not forgotten the abuse of civil liberties which took place in the '60s and '70s under the name of law enforcement," said Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio). "We have to make sure that civil liberties are not placed in jeopardy."
Laura W. Murphy, director of the national office of the American Civil Liberties Union, contended that the FBI already has enough authority to develop terrorism cases. "They are taking advantage of the public's concern about 9/11 . . . and they are rushing in a whole new set of powers," she said.
Ashcroft said the new guidelines include safeguards limiting domestic surveillance to matters involving terrorism and barring the retention of nonrelevant information. President Bush also vowed that civil liberties would be protected, telling reporters earlier in the day that "the initiative that the attorney general will be outlining today will guarantee our Constitution, and that's important for the citizens to know."
Just a day after FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III announced plans to broadly reorganize the bureau to improve its ability to thwart terrorism, Ashcroft said his goal was to provide agents with new tools to do the job. He also gave the FBI's 56 field offices more latitude to launch counterterror investigations without approval from headquarters.
Specifically, he said, the new guidelines replace rules that bar "FBI field agents from taking the initiative to detect and prevent future terrorist attacks or act unless the FBI learns of possible criminal activity from external sources."
The new rules give FBI agents the power to attend public events open to any other citizen to seek signs of terrorism. Ashcroft noted that state and local police already do this.
Ashcroft said he also was removing a barrier that kept agents from developing leads by surfing public Internet sites unless the work was tied to an individual criminal investigation. In addition, he said, he was changing guidelines so that agents can use commercial databases even if they are not working on a particular case.
Ashcroft's announcement came after weeks of increasing criticism over whether FBI agents and supervisors mishandled clues that a terror attack might be in the works. On Wednesday, Mueller acknowledged that investigators might have been able to uncover part of the Sept. 11 terror plot had the FBI connected two key warnings last summer with other clues that Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda terrorist network was keenly interested in aviation.
Those warnings included a Phoenix agent's July memo that terrorists might be training at U.S. aviation schools and the Aug. 16 arrest of Zacarias Moussaoui, who had aroused suspicions at a Minnesota flight school. Moussaoui has since been indicted as a conspirator in the attacks.
Laurence H. Tribe, a constitutional scholar at Harvard Law School, said the changes do not appear to violate speech or privacy rights. But the FBI must be careful not to attempt to surreptitiously infiltrate groups that gather in public, eavesdrop on private conversations, or attempt to read e-mail without legal authority, he said.
Added former deputy attorney general Eric H. Holder Jr.: "It's a difficult thing to try to strike the balance between the increased vigilance that we clearly need and at the same time not fall back on the patterns that led to the reforms of the 1970s."
The FBI has a long and checkered history of spying and harassing domestic groups, dating to 1950s activity against alleged Communist sympathizers and later investigations of the personal lives of civil rights leaders such as Martin Luther King Jr.
The current guidelines were crafted in 1976 after revelations that the FBI had conducted counterintelligence programs aimed at discrediting and disrupting the Ku Klux Klan, black militants and antiwar groups.
In the 1980s, the FBI generated more criticism after the CISPES probe, a broad investigation of liberals suspected of ties to Latin American communists that resulted in no criminal charges.
"Intelligence investigations don't necessarily result in what you desire, but they can result in information being used in a different way," said Athan Theoharis, a history professor from Marquette University who has studied the FBI for years. "What they're doing now is sweeping away that past history, as if it has no relevance."
The new guidelines do not specifically mention religious institutions. But Justice Department officials confirmed that agents now would be able to enter houses of worship to look for signs of terrorist activity without probable cause or evidence leading them to believe that someone in the group has broken the law, a departure from past practice.
Jason Erb, director of governmental affairs for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said he fears agents will waste resources on broad sweeps that threaten civil rights instead of focusing on actual evidence of crimes. He said he feared that the net result would be to threaten religious freedoms and quell political dissent.
Others said they understood the need for changes in a new world climate. Roger Pilon, a vice president of the Cato Institute, which promotes principles of limited government and civil liberties, credited Ashcroft with acting to clear up ambiguities about what agents can and cannot do.
"The idea that agents cannot do what ordinary Americans can do strikes me as very odd," he said.
Staff writer Mike Allen and staff researcher Lynn Davis contributed to this report.
--------
Ashcroft Permits F.B.I. to Monitor Internet and Public Activities
New York Times
May 31, 2002
By NEIL A. LEWIS
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/31/national/31INQU.html
WASHINGTON, May 30 - Attorney General John Ashcroft said today that he was stepping up the fight against terrorism by expanding the F.B.I.'s authority to monitor the World Wide Web, political groups, libraries and religious organizations, including houses of worship like mosques.
Mr. Ashcroft said guidelines restricting the bureau, imposed a quarter of a century ago in response to abuses by federal law enforcement officials, were outdated and left investigators at a disadvantage in fighting terrorism today.
"Men and women of the F.B.I. in the field are frustrated because many of our own internal restrictions have hampered our ability to fight terrorism," Mr. Ashcroft said to reporters.
"In many instances," he added, "the guidelines bar F.B.I. field agents from taking the initiative to detect and prevent future terrorist attacks, or act unless the bureau learns of possible criminal activity from external sources."
Mr. Ashcroft said the old guidelines prohibited F.B.I. investigators from surfing the Web "in the same way that you and I can look for information." Justice Department officials said that under 1999 guidelines, the Policies for Online Criminal Investigation, F.B.I. agents could not search for leads on the Internet but could use it only in cases where a criminal investigation had been established.
For example, one official said, agents would have been permitted in recent months to look at Web sites for information about anthrax because of the agency's broad investigation of anthrax-contaminated letters to officials.
But agents would not have been allowed to search the Internet for information about smallpox's potential as a biological weapon, he said, because it was not the subject of a criminal investigation.
Those guidelines are based on principles dating to the days of President Gerald R. Ford and Attorney General Edward H. Levi that prohibited agents from using publicly available sources of information like libraries to collect information, except in a criminal investigation. An investigation requires some complaint of wrongdoing.
The prohibitions were a reaction to Cointelpro, an F.B.I. domestic spying operation aimed at disrupting political groups. Its best-known target was the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. The guidelines were based on the principle that federal agents should not compile dossiers on people and groups without some reason to be believe a crime had been committed.
The changes announced today by Mr. Ashcroft are certain to produce a new chapter in the debate over whether the nation's security agencies are updating antiquated policies to combat terrorism or simply taking advantage of the Sept. 11 attacks and their aftermath to obtain new powers.
Kate Martin, a policy analyst at the Center for National Security Studies, a civil liberties group in Washington, said Mr. Ashcroft's unilateral announcement of the changes "shows that the administration continues to be disdainful of any open policy-making."
Other changes imposed by Mr. Ashcroft will allow supervisors in the bureau's 56 field offices to initiate counterterrorism inquiries without approval from headquarters in Washington. Agents will also be allowed once again to search commercial databases without the need to show a crime may have been committed, as was required before today.
As for attending events at places like mosques, the change reads: "For the purpose of detecting or preventing terrorist activities, the F.B.I. is authorized to visit any place and attend any event that is open to the public, on the same terms and conditions as members of the public generally."
As the bureau dealt in recent weeks with criticism that it mishandled information that could have uncovered the Sept. 11 plot, senior officials at the Justice Department and the bureau have adopted a posture of acknowledging that serious mistakes were made. As part of that approach, Mr. Ashcroft used the widely praised complaint of Coleen Rowley, a senior agent in Minneapolis, to help justify his changes.
Ms. Rowley had said officials at F.B.I. headquarters stymied investigations that might have uncovered the Sept. 11 plot. Mr. Ashcroft said his changes would help agents in the field, like Ms. Rowley.
At the White House today, President Bush joined in sending the administration's message that the bureau had serious problems but that recent changes would put it on the right track.
"The F.B.I. needed to change," Mr. Bush said. "It was an organization full of fine people who loved America, but the organization didn't meet the times."
A joint investigation of the government's performance before Sept. 11 by the House and Senate intelligence committees will begin next week.
An aide to Senator Bob Graham, Democrat of Florida and chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, said today that the first closed hearings, on Tuesday, would be for briefings by the committee's investigative staff.
The aide, Paul Anderson, said staff investigators would brief the members of the House and Senate panels on their findings from a review of more than 100,000 pages of documents and testimony from 175 witnesses. No witnesses are scheduled to appear in the first week of hearings, Mr. Anderson said.
-------
Ashcroft defends taking of new powers
May 31, 2002
By Jerry Seper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020531-70566090.htm
The Justice Department yesterday gave the FBI expanded authority to monitor terrorism, including the ability to search Internet sites and to target any public place or event - religious and political gatherings among them - in the hunt for terrorist suspects.
Attorney General John Ashcroft defended the assumption of vast new powers, calling it a move to change the FBI from "reactive to proactive." The guidelines allow agents to pursue leads in terrorist investigations without evidence of a specific crime and without having to get approval from FBI headquarters.
"Today, I am announcing comprehensive revisions to the department's investigative guidelines," Mr. Ashcroft said during a Justice Department press conference. "The guidelines emphasize that the FBI must not be deprived of using all lawful, authorized methods in investigations, consistent with the Constitution to pursue and prevent terrorist actions."
The attorney general, countering criticism yesterday about the new guidelines from civil rights groups and in response to a question about "domestic spying" by the FBI, insisted the guidelines would be used only for "detecting and preventing terrorism."
The FBI will not be allowed to build files on individuals or organizations, he said.
Mr. Ashcroft said searches and seizures of information or documents still must be conducted under the authority of a warrant signed by a judge and that no information obtained from any visit to a public place or event can be retained unless it relates to potential criminal or terrorist activity.
"The abuses that have been alleged about the FBI decades ago would not be allowed," he said, referring to the widespread FBI gathering of information on prominent people and political groups through the 1970s. Mr. Ashcroft said the guidelines provide limitations and guidance "over and above all requirements and safeguards imposed by the Constitution." He said they conform with federal law.
The new guidelines were challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union, which said they could result in a loosening of restrictions on domestic spying and a renewal of the abuses of the past. The guidelines also were criticized by the Center for Constitutional Rights, which said history had shown that the "FBI won't stop at passive information gathering."
Laura W. Murphy, director of the ACLU's Washington office, also charged that the government was "rewarding failure," saying the administration's response to apparent FBI intelligence failures before September 11 was to "give itself new powers rather than seriously investigating why the failures occurred."
Jason Erb, governmental affairs director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, questioned whether the openness of mosques and other holy places should be "abused by using tactics of deception to spy on a religious minority engaged in lawful activities."
A senior Justice Department official added that the guidelines allow the FBI to do "what any other law-enforcement organization, or in fact any public citizen, can do - go online, go to public places or events and see what's going on."
Mr. Ashcroft said FBI field agents have been frustrated in the search for terrorist suspects because of internal restrictions that hamper their ability to conduct investigations. He said the old guidelines contributed to that frustration, barring agents "from taking the initiative to detect and prevent future terrorist acts."
He said the old guidelines created restrictions that resulted in a "competitive advantage for terrorists" who use sophisticated techniques and modern computer systems to compile information for "targeting and attacking innocent Americans."
Mr. Ashcroft said the guidelines outline four "overriding principles":
•The war against terrorism is the central mission and highest priority of the FBI, and the bureau "must not be deprived of using all lawful, authorized methods in investigations to pursue and prevent terrorist actions."
•Terrorism prevention is the key objective under the revised guidelines, and the Justice Department will intervene early and investigate aggressively, not waiting to "sift through the rubble following a terrorist attack."
•Unnecessary procedural red tape must not interfere with detecting, investigating and preventing terrorist activities, and agents in charge of FBI field offices will have the authority to approve and renew terrorism probes rather than waiting for approval from Washington.
•The FBI must draw proactively on all lawful sources of information to identify terrorist threats and activities, and agents cannot be kept from obtaining public information that "everyone else is free to see."
FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III, criticized by Congress for the bureau's failure to respond to indications of terrorism before September 11, said the new guidelines were necessary to combat terrorism.
President Bush endorsed the new guidelines and a wide-ranging FBI reorganization announced Wednesday. He said the administration will "honor our Constitution and respect the freedoms that we hold so dear," adding that the new guidelines seek to make sure "we do everything we can to prevent a further attack, to protect America."
--------
Lawmakers Say Misstatements Cloud F.B.I. Chief's Credibility
New York Times
May 31, 2002
By PHILIP SHENON
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/31/politics/31MUEL.html
WASHINGTON, May 30 - With admissions this week that the F.B.I. might have been able to foil the Sept. 11 attacks and that it had bungled additional clues, Robert S. Mueller III has contradicted much of his past public defense of the bureau, raising new concern today on Capitol Hill about his leadership of the embattled agency.
Lawmakers said in interviews that the F.B.I. director was secure in his job for now and that they welcomed the plans he announced on Wednesday to change and enlarge the bureau's counterterrorism program.
But they said a review of his public remarks about the Sept. 11 investigation had raised uncomfortable questions about the F.B.I. director's credibility and about his ability to gather accurate information from his deputies.
Mr. Mueller's credibility was harshly attacked in a letter made public last weekend in which a Minneapolis agent said the F.B.I. director was engaged in a public relations campaign "to protect the F.B.I. at all costs" after Sept. 11.
In a news conference on Wednesday that amounted to a painful mea culpa for the bureau and for his performance in the nine months since he took over the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Mr. Mueller said, "I have made mistakes occasionally in my public comments based on information or a lack of information that I subsequently got."
He was referring specifically to a widely publicized Sept. 14 statement in which he offered assurances - later proved to be false - that the bureau had no warning that terrorists might be training in American flight schools. On Sept. 17, Mr. Mueller went further, saying he knew of "no warning signs" of any sort of attack.
Senator Charles E. Grassley, an Iowa Republican who is on the Judiciary Committee, said his staff investigators would explore the accusations made by the Minneapolis agent, Coleen Rowley, that Mr. Mueller and other senior F.B.I. officials had intentionally shaded the truth about the investigation last summer of Zacarias Moussaoui.
Mr. Moussaoui, who has been charged with conspiring in the Sept. 11 attacks, was arrested in Minnesota in August. Ms. Rowley said F.B.I. headquarters had obstructed the work of the local office in determining if Mr. Moussaoui was a terrorist.
"I believe that his heart is in the right spot," Senator Grassley said of Mr. Mueller, a decorated Vietnam War veteran and career federal prosecutor who until this week had received almost universal praise on Capitol Hill for his early performance at the F.B.I.
"But I'm going to give a great deal of deference to a whistle-blower," Mr. Grassley said of Ms. Rowley. "It gives me responsibility for digging deeper."
Mr. Grassley said that senior aides to Mr. Mueller may be to blame for the misstatements that had come back to haunt the F.B.I. director and that Mr. Mueller's deputies should be held accountable if they were responsible. "I'm willing to forgive him," the senator said. "But I'm not willing to forgive the agents who gave him the information."
Senator Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat who is a member of the Judiciary and Intelligence committees, said she was perplexed by some of the inaccuracies that have been uncovered in Mr. Mueller's public statements, and that she was concerned that they might reflect an unwise decision to "take on the burden of defending what has been done in the past."
But she said that inadvertent mistakes by Mr. Mueller in his public comments might be understandable, especially in his first few, chaotic weeks on the job. "I have no concerns that he is up to the task," she said. "I think he has to be given a fair chance to prove himself."
A review of Mr. Mueller's public remarks since Sept. 11 shows that the director, who arrived at the F.B.I. only a week before the attacks, was quick to defend the bureau's performance and to suggest that there was little the F.B.I. could have done to prevent the attacks.
Some of his early remarks have proved to be untrue, and he has made what appear to inconsistent statements on other elements of the inquiry, notably the Moussaoui case.
"The tragedies quite clearly astonish and shock me and the country," he said at a news conference on Sept. 14. "The fact that there were a number of individuals that happened to have received training at flight schools here is news, quite obviously. If we had understood that to be the case, we would have - perhaps one could have averted this."
Three days later, in the wake of news reports about Mr. Moussaoui's arrest, Mr. Mueller was asked again if the bureau had missed "any warning signs." He offered a more wide-ranging defense, saying, "There were no warning signs that I'm aware of that would indicate this type of operation in the country."
In her May 21 letter to the F.B.I. director, Ms. Rowley said she and other Minneapolis agents had been alarmed by Mr. Mueller's public comments and "immediately sought to reach your office through an assortment of higher-level F.B.I.-HQ contacts, in order to quickly make you aware of the background of the Moussaoui investigation and forewarn you so that your public statements could be accordingly modified."
But she said that when Mr. Mueller and his deputies repeated the comments in the weeks that followed, the Minneapolis agents "faced the sad realization that the remarks indicated someone, possibly with your approval, had decided to circle the wagons at F.B.I. HQ in an apparent effort to protect the F.B.I. from embarrassment."
Questioned this week about Ms. Rowley's accusations, Mr. Mueller conceded that his Sept. 14 statement had been in error and that he had been unaware that day of a memorandum sent to F.B.I. headquarters in July by a Phoenix agent who had called for a nationwide investigation of flight schools in light of evidence suggesting that Arab men with ties to terrorist groups might be seeking training.
"The fact of the matter is when I made that statement, I wasn't aware of the Arizona E.C.," Mr. Mueller said Wednesday, using the initials for electronic communication. "After I made that statement at the press conference, somebody brought it to my attention that, look there's this Phoenix E.C. out there."
The review of his public comments shows that Mr. Mueller has also given other seemingly contradictory statements about the Moussaoui case - specifically, about why the bureau did not pursue a warrant before Sept. 11 that might have allowed Minneapolis agents to search his computer, where evidence linking him to the hijackers was found.
In October and again in December, when he announced Mr. Moussaoui's indictment, Mr. Mueller said publicly that there had been insufficient evidence before Sept. 11 to request the court order sought by the Minneapolis agents.
"When it was looked at, there was insufficient probable cause - clear, insufficient probable cause," Mr. Mueller explained in October. In December, he said again that "attorneys back at F.B.I. determined that there was insufficient probable cause," which "appears to be an accurate decision."
But on Wednesday, Mr. Mueller backed away from his earlier statements, saying that he had not made a decision on whether the search warrant should have been sought. "I haven't parsed it," he said. "I know the Hill is looking at that."
--------
BUSINESS WATCH
The (revised) FBI story
May 31, 2002
Washington Times
Cal Thomas
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20020531-4908806.htm
The FBI appears to have gotten the message - the message contained in Special Agent Coleen Rowley's remarkable 13-page memo to Director Robert Mueller, detailing how agents were blocked from investigating suspected terrorists - and the political message that failure to conduct a thorough re-organization of the agency would jeopardize the integrity and veracity of the Bush administration, not to mention risking further loss of life in future terrorist attacks.
On Wednesday, Mr. Mueller announced the greatest shakeup of the FBI in its history. In doing so, he appeared to be using the Rowley memo as his re-organizing principle. Mr. Mueller said the agency will be decentralized, giving more control to agents in the field, and that the FBI will have as its first priority the prevention of terrorism. Relations between FBI headquarters in Washington D.C. and field agents will be redefined and a new espionage section will be created to track down would-be terrorists. A new intelligence office will be established to allow for earlier identification of terrorist threats.
Key targets will be identified and protected, said Mr. Mueller. Nine hundred new FBI agents will have been hired by the first anniversary of September 11 and 500 FBI employees will be transferred, improving the work of the entire bureau.
Many of these reforms were suggested in Ms. Rowley's memo. She had requested protection under the "whistleblower" law, which shields federal employees who reveal information that might otherwise get them fired. She needn't worry about her job security. Ms. Rowley ought to be honored and receive a pay raise and promotion for committing a selfless, patriotic act.
Action on Ms. Rowley's proposals was surprisingly swift. Her memo was dated May 21, and just eight days later the FBI Director Mueller announced the reforms she suggested. That's what "re-inventing government" should look like.
It is pathetic that reorganization of our domestic and foreign intelligence gathering has taken so long. Many red flags have been raised in the past several years, including the cases of convicted spies Robert Hanssen, an FBI agent, and Aldrich Ames, a CIA agent who sold secrets to the Soviet Union and was responsible for the deaths of other agents he compromised.
Congress, which will investigate these latest intelligence failures, should not be allowed to escape blame. Beginning 30 years ago with investigations of covert domestic surveillance activities by the FBI arising from Vietnam War protests, Congress went too far in its efforts to correct abuses in both the CIA and FBI. A primary contributor to the undermining of these agencies was the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1979. The law, signed by President Carter, was fashioned by such noted liberals as Sens. Edward Kennedy and Birch Bayh and Reps. Peter Rodino and Edward Boland.
An editorial in The Washington Times editorial on May 29 noted: "The law, Mr. Kennedy explained at the time, was aimed at making sure that a warrant could only be issued if it could be shown that a crime might be committed. That made it almost impossible to gain such a warrant [in the case of Zacarias Moussaoui, the suspected "20th hijacker"] prior to September 11, because there was no evidence at the time he had committed any crime, aside from overstaying his visa. Also, per FISA, FBI headquarters turned down the Minneapolis agents' request for a warrant (to search Moussaoui's laptop computer) on the grounds there was no evidence Moussaoui was acting 'in preparation for sabotage or international terrorism.' "
The CIA is restricted by law from collecting intelligence information on U.S. citizens unless it can be shown that an individual is involved in espionage or international terrorist activities. The FBI and the CIA could do a much better job of collecting and sharing what information they do have. The reorganization will hopefully reduce rivalries within and between the two agencies and improve communication.
There are dangers inherent in this announced re-organization. Civil liberties groups are right to warn that new and intrusive powers for government could mean less liberty for individuals and fewer constitutional protections. Once government has power it's reluctant to relinquish it. As C.S. Lewis wrote, "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive."
Is the tradeoff of a potentially safer homeland worth the possible loss of privacy and some freedoms? Maybe it is if the other choice would allow more terror. The question won't be answered quickly, but the press and public will have to remain vigilant, not only for terrorists, but for overreaching government.
-------- terrorism
Missiles smuggled into U.S.
By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
May 31, 2002
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020531-888741.htm
The U.S. government has alerted airlines and law enforcement agencies that new intelligence indicates that Islamic terrorists have smuggled shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles into the United States.
Classified intelligence reports circulated among top Bush administration policymakers during the past two weeks identified the missiles as Russian-made SA-7 surface-to-air missiles or U.S.-made Stinger anti-aircraft missiles obtained covertly in Afghanistan, said intelligence officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
Authorities are looking for three types of "manpads," or man-portable, air-defense systems, including SA-7s and Stingers, the officials said.
The SA-7s have a range of more than 3 miles and can hit aircraft flying at 13,500 feet. Stinger missiles can hit aircraft flying at 10,000 feet and 5 miles away.
The FBI sent out an intelligence alert two weeks ago warning about the missiles. The officials said the warning is based on intelligence and not a specific threat that the missiles are in the United States.
"We don't have information that al Qaeda is planning to use these against commercial aircraft in the United States," an FBI official said. "However, we are passing the information along for people to remain alert to the potential use."
The official said an FBI intelligence alert was sent to law-enforcement authorities about two weeks ago and that airlines were notified on May 22.
As a result of the "recent apparent targeting of U.S.-led military forces in Saudi Arabia, law-enforcement agencies in the United States should remain alert to potential use of manpads against U.S. aircraft," the FBI said.
Other intelligence officials spoke of concerns that the missiles had been smuggled into the United States.
Senior Pentagon officials also were briefed recently on the threat posed by shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles smuggled into the United States.
Officials said the intelligence reports followed the discovery earlier this month of an empty SA-7 launcher near a desert base used by U.S. air forces in Saudi Arabia. The launcher was found by Saudi security police near Prince Sultan Air Base, near Riyadh, the Saudi capital.
The Saudis could not determine whether the launcher had fired a missile, and they destroyed it before U.S. military or intelligence officials could examine it.
One official said that intelligence report was given credence by Abu Zubaydah, the al Qaeda organization's operations chief, who was captured in Pakistan in March and who has been providing information about the terrorist group.
A U.S. official also said the portable missiles, which can be carried in small crates, "are fairly light and not difficult to obtain on the gray market."
"It's conceivable that terrorists could get them," the official said. "It is one of a number of possible threats that we need to be mindful and concerned about."
Officials said another worry was an interview in an Arabic-language newspaper with a senior al Qaeda terrorist. Abd-al-Azim al-Muhajir, a senior commander, told a reporter for London's Al-Sharq al Awsat in Pakistan last week that the terrorist group is planning a major attack against the United States.
Al-Muhajir said U.S. military operations in Afghanistan have "changed the nature of the action in the field, media appearances and training centers." However, he insisted, al Qaeda is not "finished."
Asked about new attacks against the United States, al-Muhajir said: "We pray to God, the glorified and exalted, to help us in the coming stage, that is the 'guerrilla warfare,' and in dealing with the aircraft. Thanks be to God that we have taken big strides in this."
Gen. Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters at the Pentagon that U.S. military forces are on alert for attacks by portable missiles.
"We take very seriously the fact that our opponents do have surface-to-air missiles, shoulder-fired surface-to-air-missiles," Gen. Pace said. "And we take precautions on the ground and in the air any time we have our aircraft arriving or departing."
He said there were no reports of U.S. aircraft taking surface-to-air missile fire in Saudi Arabia after the discovery of the SA-7 launcher.
"That does not mean it was not fired; it simply means we do not know if that particular weapon was fired at that location or simply dropped off there," he said.
----
FOR THE RECORD - Mexicans say cyanide found
WORLD In Brief
Friday, May 31, 2002; Page A26
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A36802-2002May30?language=printer
Authorities in Mexico said they had accounted for all 96 containers of cyanide stolen earlier this month, ending fears they might have been taken by terrorists targeting the United States.
----
Former U.S. Defense Chief Sees New Terror Threat
May 31, 2002
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/politics/politics-asia-cohen.html
SINGAPORE - Former Defense Secretary William Cohen said on Friday that Washington was focusing anti-terror efforts on a renewed threat from al Qaeda and other radical groups trying to obtain biological, chemical or nuclear weapons.
``There appears to be members of the al-Qaeda who are trying to reassemble, re-gather and re-establish themselves certainly inside Afghanistan and perhaps, according to some reports, may be operating inside Pakistan now,'' Cohen said.
``Everyone now recognizes there are terrorist groups who are seeking access to weapon of mass destruction. The effort is focused upon al-Qaeda and other radical groups, but also on weapon of mass destruction.''
Cohen, speaking to Reuters on the sidelines of an Asian Security Conference in Singapore, also said India and Pakistan were well aware that a stand-off over the disputed region of Kashmir could spiral out of control.
He said the likelihood of an escalation in Pakistan-India tension ``depends on what day it is.''
``You have fairly strong statements coming out of the Pakistani and Indian leaderships, and yet today it seems to be easing off somewhat.''
``I think both countries realize that this can escalate into a major conflict.''
``With both parties having nuclear weapons that becomes all the more imperative that we seek to ease those tensions,'' Cohen said.
Earlier on Friday the current U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said war between India and Pakistan would be devastating and also set back much improved relations between Washington and the South Asian foes.
``It would be tragic to see both of these positive opportunities destroyed by a war that would be devastating for everybody,'' he told a news conference in Singapore, where he is attending a regional security conference.
Cohen said security in Southeast Asia was also of great importance to the United States.
Singapore and Malaysia have arrested dozens of terror suspects since the September 11 attacks on the United States, and Washington has sent troops to the Philippines to train local forces fighting separatist Muslim rebels.
-------- ENERGY AND OTHER
-------- alternative energy
UK green power firm EPRL aims for 2003 listing
Story by Eva Sohlman
REUTERS UK:
May 31, 2002
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/16216/story.htm
LONDON - Energy Power Resources Limited, Britain's top chicken litter power producer, plans to float on the London Stock Exchange by 2003 but needs to expand further before listing, CEO Paul Anthony said yesterday.
"We are aiming for a listing within the next 18 months," Anthony told Reuters in an interview.
He said Energy Power Resources Limited (EPRL), the largest biomass firm in Britain, expects a boom in the renewable energy sector as the government has set a target of supplying 10 percent of Britain's power from green sources by 2010.
In order to meet the stock exchange's requirements on company size, Anthony said the Bristol-based firm will have to expand this year both in Britain and abroad.
"We would need to complete a small number of acquisitions to reach a critical mass for a listing of a market capitalisation well in excess of 100 million pounds," Anthony said.
Earlier this month, the company bought renewable energy company First Renewables for about 25 million pounds from UK utility Kelda Group Plc .
EPRL nearly doubled its capacity to 70 megawatts (MW) from 30 MW as a result of the First Renewables buy which also helped widen its energy mix to include wind power and energy crops such as willow.
The company is also looking at new projects and is in the final stages of completing a deal to set up a turkey litter power plant in the Netherlands, as well as schemes in the United States.
Anthony said the firm would focus on wind power where production costs have fallen rapidly recently.
"Windpower is going to become an important area for us because the capital costs of building wind turbines are falling due to increased competition amongst manufacturers," he said.
In addition more modern wind turbines have an increased output capacity which make the power plants more economic, Anthony said.
-------- energy
Calif. Power Operators Issue Alert
May 31, 2002
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Power-Woes.html
FOLSOM, Calif. (AP) -- California power grid operators issued their first alert in nine months, saying energy supplies were low because of a heat wave in the Southwest that forced out-of-state wholesalers to divert electricity elsewhere.
The California Independent System Operator declared the alert Thursday. It was the lowest level of warning used by the agency and called on power generators to avoid unnecessary outages.
The alert did not continue Friday.
Power alerts were almost a daily occurrence in the summers of 2000 and 2001 when California was strapped for energy and threatened with rolling blackouts.
Thursday's warning came as a heat wave swept through Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico. Units at two large nuclear power plants in California were closed for routine maintenance, and there was a disruption in a north-south transmission line, said ISO spokesman Gregg Fishman.
State power grid operators predicted last month that there was enough power to avoid rolling blackouts this summer. Fishman said the alert issued Thursday did not change that, although it also could serve as a reminder that consumers still need to conserve.
``I don't think we ever said we're completely out of the woods,'' he said.
-------- environment
European Union Ratifies Eco Treaty
May 31, 2002
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-UN-Climate-Change.html
UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- In a big boost to the global fight against climate change, the 15 nations in the European Union formally ratified the Kyoto Protocol on Friday and urged the United States to end its opposition to the treaty.
The European Union has been in the forefront of the campaign to cut pollution that is warming the planet and the simultaneous ratifications by its members represented a major step toward the treaty's entry into force.
The ceremony also highlighted the Bush administration's isolation as the only announced opponent of the 1997 accord. One by one, envoys from the 15 EU members presented the documents of ratification from their governments to U.N. legal adviser Hans Corell in the main press room at U.N. headquarters.
EU Environment Commissioner Margot Wallstrom, who handed over a separate ratification from the organization itself, hailed the ``historic moment for global efforts to combat climate change'' and pointedly singled out the United States as the only country to reject the treaty.
To take effect, the Kyoto accord must be ratified by 55 countries, but the ratifications must also include industrialized nations responsible for at least 55 percent of the 1990 levels of greenhouse gases blamed for heating up the atmosphere.
The EU boosted the number of ratifications to about 70, topping the minimum needed, and pushed the treaty about halfway to the goal of 55 percent of the greenhouse gas pollution levels for it to enter into force.
The EU, whose members produced 24.2 percent of emissions in 1990, represented the first major industrialized bloc to ratify the treaty. Before Friday, the vast majority of countries that had ratified were developing countries.
The Kyoto Protocol was signed by the Clinton administration, but never ratified by the U.S. Senate. President Bush backed out of it last year, saying it would have cost the U.S. economy $400 billion and 4.9 million jobs.
``The European Union urges the United States to reconsider its position and to return to and participate in the global framework for addressing climate change that this protocol provides,'' Wallstrom said.
Bush unveiled an alternative proposal to the Kyoto accord in February which he said would reduce greenhouse gases, curb pollution and promote energy efficiency. But Wallstrom argued that it will lead instead ``to a significant increase of more than 30 percent above 1990 levels'' of greenhouse gas emissions by 2012.
With the United States, which was responsible for 36.1 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in 1990, opting out of the treaty, the EU said the support of Japan, which was responsible for 8.5 percent, and Russia, which was responsible for 17.4 percent, is crucial.
The EU is pushing for the treaty to enter into force by the time the U.N. World Summit on Sustainable Development begins in Johannesburg in late August.
Japan is expected to ratify next week but Wallstrom said Russia's parliament may not ratify until the fall.
The Kyoto Protocol aims to cut global emissions by 5.2 percent from their 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012. The EU must cut its emissions by 8 percent.
----
New Panel Will Advise EPA About Superfund
May 31, 2002
ENS
http://ens-news.com/ens/may2002/2002-05-31-09.asp#anchor7
WASHINGTON, DC, A new advisory panel is expected to make recommendations on the role Superfund should play in addressing the nation's most polluted hazardous waste sites.
"I am forming this advisory group to spur a national dialogue on the Superfund program," said U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Christie Whitman. "Today, Superfund exists alongside other cleanup programs, such as state voluntary cleanups, that did not exist when the statute was created more than 20 years ago. As we move forward as a country on addressing contaminated sites, we need to consider how all of these cleanup tools can work together in a more effective and unified fashion."
Whitman has come under fire for the Bush administration's plans to reduce scheduled Superfund cleanups, from more than 80 per year under the Clinton administration to about 40 per year under President George W. Bush. In March, Whitman testified before the House that the EPA does not have enough money to keep up the pace of cleanups, as the tax that supported Superfund expired in 1995.
The new advisory panel will be a subcommittee to the National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT). NACEPT was formed by the EPA in 1988 to provide a forum for public discussion and independent advice to the agency.
Council members include senior level decision makers and experts from academia, business and industry, community and environmental advocacy groups, federal, state, local and tribal governments, regulators, and environmental justice, labor, non-governmental and professional organizations.
The EPA will ask the subcommittee to consider the scope of the national Superfund program against a backdrop of other federal and state waste cleanup programs. The dialogue will aim to consider how the nation's waste programs can work together to assure citizens that polluted sites will be made safe for future use.
The subcommittee will examine three major issues: the role of the National Priorities List in cleaning up the worst Superfund sites, the role of Superfund at so-called "mega sites," where cleanup costs are expected to exceed $50 million, and measuring program performance.
The first public meeting of the subcommittee will be held June 18-19, in Alexandria, Virginia. A final report from the subcommittee is expected within 12 to 18 months. More information is available at: http://www.epa.gov/oswer/SFsub.htm
-------- health
Anti-Terror Drugs Get Test Shortcut
New York Times
May 31, 2002
By ANDREW POLLACK and WILLIAM J. BROAD
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/31/health/31DRUG.html
Departing from longstanding practice, the Food and Drug Administration will allow some drugs and vaccines designed to counter biological, chemical and nuclear terrorism to be approved without being tested in people to prove they work.
In an announcement yesterday, the agency said the new rule could spur development of drugs for use against biological, chemical and radioactive substances by eliminating a major stumbling block, the ethical barriers to exposing people to deadly substances like smallpox or nerve gas simply to prove that a drug works.
"We've been stymied for some products figuring out a way to show human efficacy, given the ethical issues," said Dr. Janet Woodcock, director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research at the F.D.A. "One of the reasons there wasn't commercial interest was that people were not at all certain their drugs could be approved if they developed them."
The agency normally requires three phases of clinical trials in people to prove a drug is safe and effective. The new rule would allow animals to be used to test effectiveness, providing there was no ethical way to test that in people.
Testing for safety and side effects would still have to be done on human volunteers because that requires exposing people only to the drug, not to the lethal agent.
The rule was first proposed in 1999 and there has been no real opposition to it, so the agency has faced criticism for dragging its feet in formally approving it, especially after the Sept. 11 attacks and the anthrax mailings last fall.
"It's been languishing," said Dr. Frank E. Young, a former chairman of the agency who is now a director of a biotechnology company, EluSys Therapeutics, that is developing a drug to treat people exposed to biological agents. "In the absence of this rule, companies cannot go forward."
Dr. Woodcock said it did not take unusually long to get the rule approved given federal procedures.
Dr. Sidney Wolfe of Public Citizen, an advocacy group in Washington, said the concept of the new rule was good but its application must be limited to cases of absolute necessity. "I'm very worried about this being abused" to win approval for drugs without adequate testing, he said.
The F.D.A. acknowledged that there was a risk in approving drugs based only on animal tests because many drugs that work in animals do not work in people. Under the new rule, the products would be labeled as having been tested only in animals. In most cases, at least two types of animals would be used. There also would have to be enough understanding of the mechanism of the disease and of the drug to reasonably conclude that the animal results reflect what would happen in people.
Dr. D. A. Henderson, the top bioterrorism adviser to the secretary of Health and Human Services, said yesterday that the F.D.A. move was logical and overdue.
"It only makes sense," he said. "There's no way we can possibly test against these diseases in man."
Still, it is not quite clear how much the rule will stimulate development of drugs and vaccines. Dr. Woodcock said she knew of a handful of drugs now in development that might eventually come up for approval based on animal studies. But the F.D.A. estimates that the new rule might be used only once every three years.
Stephan Lawton, a vice president of the Biotechnology Industry Organization, said there were many small companies working on drugs that could be used for biodefense. Dr. Michael A. Friedman, senior vice president for policy at the drug maker Pharmacia, said companies might now try to get the antibiotics they already sell approved for the additional use of treating anthrax infections.
But Dr. Friedman, who is also chief of biomedical preparedness for the drug industry's main trade group, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said that while the new rule would help spur development of such drugs, "it doesn't solve all the problems."
One problem, he said, is that there are long waits at the few laboratories that test lethal agents on animals. He also said that for some biological agents there are no animals that can be used for testing.
Charles L. Bailey, a former commander of the Army's laboratory at Fort Detrick, Md., said another problem was the shortage of research monkeys for such tests, although he said the government was now moving to address this issue.
Another factor that could inhibit development is that the drugs might have a limited market because a biological, chemical and radioactive attack might never come. "This is a niche market," Dr. Young said.
One of the biggest beneficiaries could be the Pentagon, which has already indicated it wants to use animal testing to win approval of a drug that has allowed mice in tests to survive normally lethal doses of radiation. The Army also has many vaccines for biological agents that it has never been able to win approval for but which are given as experimental drugs to protect scientists who work with lethal agents at Fort Detrick and other laboratories.
"Now both the civilian population and the military population will be able to get these products out in a straightforward fashion," said Dr. Arthur O. Anderson, the chief ethics officer of the biodefense program at Fort Detrick.
The F.D.A. has already approved one drug without human testing, the antibiotic Cipro, which was approved in 2000 for use against anthrax. In that case, the agency used a different rule that relaxes testing requirements for drugs meant for life-threatening diseases like cancer or AIDS.
In some cases, the microbes that might be used as biological agents have natural outbreaks, giving an opportunity for drugs to be tested. The anthrax vaccine currently in use was tested decades ago in textile mill workers, who were exposed to the spores in goat hair. But for many other agents natural outbreaks might never occur.
The F.D.A. could allow the use of unproven drugs as experiments. But that requires informed consent of each person treated, which might be hard to obtain in an emergency after a biological or chemical attack, Dr. Woodcock said. The new rule sprang in part from a controversy that arose when the military tried to have the informed consent rule waived so it could give botulism vaccine and a nerve gas antidote to soldiers in the Persian Gulf war.
--------
Most in U.S. at Higher Cancer Risk
May 31, 2002
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/health/AP-Toxic-Pollution.html
WASHINGTON (AP) -- At least two-thirds of Americans live in areas where toxic chemicals pose an elevated cancer risk, an Environmental Protection Agency analysis concluded Friday.
The findings are contained in a long-awaited EPA assessment of health risks from 32 toxic chemicals. The study is based on 1996 emissions data subjected to several years of internal analysis.
The assessment concludes that the accumulated exposure to the various toxic chemicals can be expected to cause 10 additional cancers over a lifetime of exposure for every 1 million people, or a 10 in 1 million cancer risk. These risks can be found across virtually the entire country, said the study, which was reviewed by outside scientists.
``More than 200 million people live in census tracts where the combined upper bound lifetime cancer risk from these (chemical) compounds exceeded 10 in 1 million risk,'' said the study. It added that 20 million people live in areas where the risks are even higher -- a risk of 100 additional lifetime cancers for every 1 million people.
``The risks are very much in line with what we expected all along,'' said Jeffrey Holmstead, head of the EPA's air office. He said in an interview the risks of cancer from toxic chemical exposure ``are very, very small,'' compared with overall cancer risks from all sources.
The EPA considers a cancer risk of 1 in a million or greater as a matter of concern, although those levels do not always trigger regulatory actions.
Holmstead said the report was ``designed to be a baseline'' for further studies on risks posed by air toxins. He also emphasized the findings are based on 1996 data. ``Since that time, the risks already have been reduced significantly,'' said Holmstead.
But environmentalists said the study's findings provide clear evidences that tougher measures are needed to reduce releases of toxic chemicals -- such as benzene, mercury, formaldehyde and other carcinogens -- from automobiles, power plants and industrial sources.
They show ``a lifetime cancer risk at least 10 times greater than the level considered acceptable by the EPA,'' said Emily Figdor of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group.
``These findings are a wake-up call that EPA should take action to reduce this long overlooked public health threat'' from toxic air releases, argued Figdor.
Among the study's conclusions is that automobiles and trucks contribute substantially to the public's exposure to cancer-causing air toxins.
It estimated that 100 million people live in areas where motor vehicles -- both on and off-road -- account for an additional lifetime cancer risk of at least 10 in a million.
These risks are largely the result of exposure to such chemicals as benzene, formaldehyde and butadiene -- all components of motor fuels.
The study also concluded that toxic chemicals pose a significant health hazard other than cancer to much of the U.S. population, especially problems with respiratory systems.
The report said the assessment was viewed as a ``snapshot'' that identifies the greatest health risks from toxic chemicals and the areas of most potential concern. It said the EPA will update the assessment with another report next year.
The authors of the internal EPA analysis cautioned that the risk analysis was subject to limitations ``due to gaps in data or in the state of the science for assessing risk.''
In some cases the shortcomings may have understated the risks, the authors suggested. For example, the study did not attempt to assess various dioxin compounds ``that may contribute substantially to (cancer) risks,'' they wrote.
In addition, the study noted, the EPA is reassessing the health effects of the 32 toxic chemicals that were studied and that reassessment could show an increase in the overall risks that the chemicals pose.
On the Net:
EPA's National Air Toxics Assessment: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata
-------- ACTIVISTS
Kyrgyzstan Picks Top Official
WORLD In Brief
Friday, May 31, 2002
Associated Press
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A36802-2002May30?language=printer
BISHKEK, Kyrgyzstan -- The upper house of parliament approved the president's choice for prime minister, days after the government resigned as opposition protests escalated.
Lawmakers voted 36 to 5 to approve the appointment of Nikolai Tanayev, a former first deputy prime minister. He will be independent Kyrgyzstan's first ethnic Russian prime minister.
Kyrgyzstan's cabinet and other top officials resigned after President Askar Akayev criticized them for their handling of a March protest in the southern Jalalabad region in which five people were killed and dozens injured when police clashed with protesters.
The demonstration was the first to turn violent in post-Soviet Kyrgyzstan.
It prompted a wave of protests that have raised fears of political instability. U.S. and other troops taking part in the anti-terrorism operation in nearby Afghanistan are based in Kyrgyzstan.
-------
China Sentences Democracy Activists
May 31, 2002
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-China-Dissidents-Sentenced.html
BEIJING (AP) -- A Chinese court has sentenced two democracy activists to jail terms of 10 and 11 years on charges of trying subvert the government, a human rights group said Friday.
Meanwhile, Beijing police took away the wife of China's most prominent jailed dissident after she began a 24-hour fast to protest his treatment in prison.
He Xintong says her husband, veteran democracy activist Xu Wenli, is not getting adequate treatment for hepatitis contracted in jail.
Hu Mingjun and Wang Sen, the activists convicted on subversion charges, were sentenced Thursday by a court in Dazhou, in southwestern Sichuan province, the Information Center for Human Rights and Democracy said.
Hu was sentenced to 11 years and Wang to 10, the Hong Kong-based group said. Both are members of the China Democracy Party, a would-be opposition group set up by dissidents to challenge the Communist Party's monopoly rule. Many of the group's leaders and members have been imprisoned.
In convicting Hu and Wang, Dazhou's Intermediate People's Court ruled their party was an ``enemy organization,'' the Information Center said.
The court accused them of organizing a protest in December 2000 by workers at a Dazhou iron and steel plant, the Information Center said.
The more than 1,000 workers were protesting because they had not been paid for a year, the center said. After Hu and Wang met some of them, the China Democracy Party's Sichuan branch issued a statement supporting the protest, the center said.
The statement demanded that the government allow workers to form independent trade unions, improve China's social security system and combat corruption, the center said.
Wang was arrested April 30, 2001, and Hu a month later, it said.
Xu, the veteran activist serving a 13-year term at Yanqing Prison outside Beijing, was a leader of the China Democracy Party. It is his second lengthy term. Earlier he spent 12 years in prison, much of it in solitary confinement.
Wearing a T-shirt marked ``I'm on hunger strike,'' ``I protest,'' and ``Release Xu Wenli,'' his wife went to the front gate of their apartment compound and sat down.
She chatted with reporters until police came and led the reporters away. While they were held in a small office, police led her away to the street. When the reporters were released, she was gone. It was not clear where police took her. Phone calls to her home went unanswered.
``I'm hunger striking because, in this despotic country, I have no other way to appeal for basic human rights,'' she said in a statement.
In an interview earlier this week, she said that during her last monthly visit with Xu, on May 23, he told her he had stopped taking medicines provided by the prison because they were not working.
--------
Delegates Close in on Earth Summit Plan, NGOs Livid
May 31, 2002
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-environment-development.html
BALI, Indonesia - Delegates at a vital U.N. meeting in Indonesia inched closer on Friday to agreeing a global development plan but there was stinging criticism from leading environmental groups that the talks were going nowhere.
The draft action plan will be a key plank of the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in August -- dubbed Earth Summit 2 -- where 100 heads of states will pledge to slash poverty while trying to save the environment. Delegates meeting on the resort island of Bali for a final round of preparatory talks said they should complete most of the plan by Saturday, adding while they were generally satisfied with progress made there was still some tough negotiating ahead. But in a letter to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and the WWF conservation group said the Johannesburg summit was in danger of collapse. They accused the United States of systematically deleting references to targets and timetables for action.
``The proposed plan of action, watered down even further this week in Bali, is a plan of inaction, a recipe for social and environmental disaster,'' they wrote in the letter, dated May 31, adding rich countries were putting corporate profits ahead of the interests of the world's poor and the environment.
The U.N. summit in Johannesburg opens on August 26 and has been timed to fall a decade after the landmark Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, where agreement was reached to balance the world's economic and social needs with the environment.
Most of the goals adopted at Rio have not been met and Johannesburg aims to breathe life into those promises.
The draft plan calls for cutting poverty, improving sanitation and access to electricity, preserving natural ecosystems and changing harmful consumption patterns.
Some targets were agreed at the U.N. Millennium Summit, which called for halving by 2015 the number of people living on less than $1 a day and who have no access to clean water.
NOT TRUE, SAYS WASHINGTON
A member of the U.S. delegation earlier rebuffed criticism that Washington was reluctant to agree to timebound commitments, calling it ``blatantly not the case.''
Delegates from the European Union and Britain also appeared displeased with the letter sent to Annan.
``You have to be very careful about condemning a multilateral process when it's in the stage of negotiation,'' Sheila McCabe, head of the British delegation, told a news conference.
Some 6,000 delegates from government and NGOs are taking part in two weeks of talks, which began on Monday. Ministers from environment and development portfolios will meet from June 5-7.
Delegates at the talks have said while differences remained over how to achieve goals linked to trade and corporate accountability, the key bones of contention were how to implement the objectives, who would pay and how they would be monitored.
They said ministers might deal with a few of the most contentious aspects of the action plan, but that mainly they would focus on the outlines of a political declaration to be endorsed by leaders at Johannesburg and the summit's agenda.
One key question is whether President Bush will attend the Johannesburg summit. The member of the U.S. delegation said that would partly depend on the outcome in Bali, and whether countries pledged to promote good governance.
Earlier, some 20 Indonesian protesters briefly picketed the conference venue at a hotel complex in Bali's Nusa Dua, calling for debt relief for poor nations. There were no untoward incidents.
-------
------- OneList (submissions from subscribers)
------- Depleted Uranium Keeps On Killing!
-----------
Posted
without profit or payment for research and educational
purposes only,
in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107.