ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/abolition-usa/archive/v01.n425

Internet Message Format | 2001-03-02 | 41KB

From: [e-mail] (abolition-usa-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: abolition-usa-digest V1 #425
Reply-To: abolition-usa-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


abolition-usa-digest      Saturday, March 3 2001      Volume 01 : Number 425




----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 18:54:21 -0500
From: ASlater <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Action Alert! Energy bill

Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 16:51:05 -0500
>Subject: (CMEP-List) Tell Your Senator That You Want REAL Energy Security!
>X-FC-MachineGenerated: true
>From: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
>
>Apologies for cross postings!
>
>Tell Your Senator That You Want REAL Energy Security!
>
>Murkowski "Energy Security" Bill Is Wasteful Non-Solution To Our Actual
>Energy Problems, and Needlessly Endangers Pristine Wilderness
>
>The National Energy Security Act of 2001 (S.388 and S.389), introduced by
>Sen. Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska), would be a colossal waste of American tax
>dollars.  While paying only lip service to conservation and sustainable
>energy, this act would pour over $23 billion into the pockets of the oil,
>gas, coal, and nuclear corporations - industries that have brought us a
>plethora of health, safety, pollution, and environmental crises.  This
>bill would translate into a costly "bill" for American taxpayers and the
>environment, and would not safeguard against higher energy costs.
>
>Some highlights of Murkowski's "Bill of Sale":
>
>* $25 Million:  Government subsidies for the design and development of new
>nuclear power plants.
>
>* $750 Million:  "Production incentives" for the nuclear industry.  An
>additional $20 million would be put towards achieving a minuscule 1%
>increase in efficiency.
>
>* $$$  (Unknown):  Increased reliance on nuclear power would add to the
>nation's stockpiles of high-level radioactive waste - a problem not
>adequately addressed in the bill.  The legislation instead offers tax
>credits to utilities that store nuclear waste and would squander further
>public monies on discredited and dangerous plans for "recycling" nuclear
>waste.
>
>* $0.00:  Complete lack of any provisions for improving fuel efficiency
>standards and developing intelligent, comprehensive conservation
>strategies (even though two-thirds of America's oil consumption is used in
>transportation).
>
>* $300 Million:  Handout for companies drilling for hard-to-reach oil in
>Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge  (Please see our website for more
>information on what is at stake in the Refuge).
>
>Tell your Senators to oppose Murkowski's National Energy Security Act !!
>(S.388 and S.389)
>
>
>CALL:  (202)-224-3121
>(Switchboard at the US Capitol)
>
>WRITE: Office of Senator (Name)
>              United States Senate
>              Washington, DC  20510
>
>E-MAIL:
>E-mail addresses and other information for your Senator can be found at:
>www.senate.gov/contacting/index.cfm
>
>(Keep in mind that written letters typically make a bigger impression than
>e-mail)
>
>LEARN:  more about this bill and other energy-related issues by visiting
>the Critical Mass website at www.citizen.org/cmep.
>
>Or contact us at:
>
>Public Citizen
>Critical Mass Energy & Environment Program
>215 Pennsylvania Ave., SE
>Washington, DC  20003
>E-mail: [e-mail]        Phone:  [phone]

- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 07:20:51 -0800
From: Jackie Cabasso <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) South Korea backtracks on strong oppostion to Bush missile defense plan

- --=====================_2705361==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Dear abolitionists -- In a very dissappointing development, it appears that
South Korea has retracted its surprisingly strong statement of earlier this
week, in which it joined Russia in opposing US missile defense plans.=20
Following are two New York Times stories.  The earlier story article follows
today's story.   It seesm to me that both of these developments are=
 significant
and bear watching. -- Jackie Cabasso

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
NEW YORK TIMES

South Korea Now Pulls Back From Russia on Missile Shield

March 2, 2001

By DON KIRK

SEOUL, South Korea, March 1 =97 The government made a swift retreat
today from what had appeared to be a decision by President Kim Dae
Jung to support President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia in opposing
the missile defense program backed by President George W. Bush.

 Pressed by United States officials for an explanation of Mr. Kim
and Mr. Putin's joint statement on Tuesday, the Foreign Ministry
drew a careful distinction between endorsement of the Antiballistic
Missile Treaty of 1972 and opposition to national missile defense.

 It was one thing to join with Mr. Putin, as Mr. Kim did after
their meeting here, in defending the ABM treaty as a "cornerstone
of strategic stability," a ministry official said, but quite
another to conclude that Mr. Kim viewed national missile defense as
inevitably violating the treaty.

 The government appeared eager to reassure Washington that Mr. Kim
had said nothing to Mr. Putin that would compromise South Korea's
alliance with the United States, which supports the South with
37,000 troops here in case of an attack by North Korea.

 The need to respond convincingly to a United States request for
"clarification" of the statement on the missile treaty took on
urgency, as members of Mr. Kim's staff, as well as Foreign Ministry
officials, prepared for his meeting on Wednesday with Mr. Bush in
Washington. Officials met today, a holiday that commemorates the
82nd anniversary of a revolt against Japanese colonial rule.

 The public saw a three-paragraph Foreign Ministry statement that
the ministry was "still carefully reviewing its position" on
missile defense and had not "voiced any opposition to it."

 The joint statement on Tuesday said nothing "indirectly
criticizing or opposing" national missile defense, the Foreign
Ministry said today, adding that news reports to that effect were
misleading and did not "reflect the position" of the government.
The care with which officials worked out the "clarification"
delineated the problem as South Korea tries to carve out a foreign
policy that satisfies all the major powers with immediate influence
on the Korean Peninsula, China, Russia and Japan, as well as the
United States.

 Mr. Kim had hoped in his talks with Mr. Putin to enlist support in
efforts at rapprochement with North Korea, while Mr. Putin sought
to win Mr. Kim to his side in opposing the missile program.

 South Korean officials, in briefings for local reporters, said the
government had rejected a Russian suggestion for a clear expression
of opposition to national missile defense. The statement, in which
Mr. Putin and Mr. Kim said the 1972 treaty should be strengthened,
could be seen as fulfilling that purpose, because the pact requires
signers not to build national missile defense systems.

 United States officials appeared to be satisfied with the South
Korean explanation. "We asked them to clarify their position, and
they clarified it," an American diplomat said. "We said, `Hey, this
sounds as though you're opposed to national missile defense,' and
they said they didn't mean it that way."

 "We're all friends again," the American added.=20

 One theory for
why Mr. Kim joined in such a seemingly strong endorsement of
Moscow's position was that he and his advisers were not aware of
the possible repercussions. "They were trying to be nice to Putin,"
said a Western diplomat.

 Mr. Kim, however, may have also wanted to signal his government's
uneasiness with a plan that would compromise his "sunshine policy"
of engagement with North Korea. China, North Korea's main ally, has
opposed national missile defense, if anything more strongly than
Russia, and the North Korean leader, Kim Jong Il, would undoubtedly
take umbrage at any sign that Kim Dae Jung had adopted the American
position.

 Foreign Minister Lee Joung Binn of South Korea suggested last
month that the United States should persuade the North to stop
producing and testing missiles rather than focus on missile
defense.=20
       =20
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/02/world/02KORE.html?ex=3D984542829&ei=3D1&en=
=3Ddaf
6af5b082521be

Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
South Korean President Sides With Russia on Missile Defense

February 27, 2001

By PATRICK E. TYLER

SEOUL, South Korea, Feb. 27 =97 Less than a week before he meets
President Bush in Washington, the president of South Korea today
publicly took Russia's side in the debate over Washington's plan
for a national missile defense.

 A joint communiqu=E9 issued by President Kim Dae Jung with the
visiting president of Russia, Vladimir V. Putin, declared that the
1972 ABM treaty limiting anti-missile defenses =97 which would be
threatened by Washington's project =97 is a "cornerstone of strategic
stability" and that it should not only be preserved, but also
"strengthened."

 The statement by Mr. Kim =97 whose country is protected with the
help of 37,000 American troops =97 was one of the strongest
declarations to date by one of America's Asian allies, and it
linked South Korea to European powers who have expressed concern
that the United States was pressing forward with missile defenses
in a manner that could inspire a new round of nuclear competition
by Russia, China and South Asia.

 President Bush has asserted that he would withdraw from the 1972
ABM Treaty if necessary in order to build national missile defenses
capable of protecting the United States against the threat of a
limited ballistic missile attack from countries like North Korea,
Iran and Iraq.

 It was not immediately clear why Mr. Kim decided to identify with
Moscow's view of the issue.

 But as the Bush administration shows signs of doubting North
Korea's sincerity in dismantling its weapons of mass destruction,
Mr. Putin has played an energetic role to push rapprochement
forward on the Korean peninsula, flying to Pyongyang last July to
meet the reclusive North Korean leader, Kim Jong-il, and now
preparing to bring him to Moscow for more talks on how to reduce
tensions.

 It is also possible that the South Korean president's criticism
reflects the general concern in Asia that the Bush administration's
missile defense plans will isolate China by rendering its nuclear
arsenal ineffective.

 For South Korea, China has also played a constructive role in
working for Korean rapprochement, treating Kim Jong-il to a tour of
booming Shanghai this winter and doing similar missionary work with
North Korea's hard-line military leaders. Li Peng, the second
ranking member of the ruling Politburo in Beijing, is due in Seoul
next month for a state visit.

 Today's statement cataloged the arms control treaties or
agreements that remain unfulfilled as a result of objections to
their ratification in the United States. The principle outstanding
accords are Start II, the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty that
would cut cold war nuclear arsenals in half, and another that would
to ban nuclear testing. Russia has ratified both, and Mr. Kim, in a
summit meeting that was largely devoted to business and trade
issues, welcomed Russia's act.

 Though neither president mentioned the United States by name and,
during a brief news conference on Mr. Putin's first day of meetings
here, steered questions to economic matters, the object of the
communiqu=E9's criticism was unmistakable.

 "The Russian Federation and the Republic of Korea agreed that the
1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty is the cornerstone of strategic
stability and an important foundation of international efforts on
nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation," the joint statement
said. "Both sides expressed their hope that the Start II Treaty
will enter into force as soon as possible and that as soon as
possible after that, the Start III treaty will be signed and that
the ABM Treaty will be preserved and strengthened."

 In a reference to the test ban treaty, the statement by the
Russian and South Korean leaders said they "appealed to other
countries to ratify the treaty without any delays and they also
appealed to those countries whose ratification is needed for it to
come into effect."=20

 Since he won election a year ago, Mr. Putin has undertaken a
diplomatic campaign to persuade the United States to forgo its
large-scale missile defense plans and instead develop regional and
mobile missile defenses that could be brought to bear against
missile threats from rogue states. Russia presented its concept for
such a plan to NATO's secretary general, Lord Robertson, in Moscow
last week.

 Russia has also sought to show that more intensive diplomacy, such
as Mr. Kim's opening to North Korea, might go a long way in
reducing the threat from rogue states. To that end, Mr. Putin also
has been courting North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-il, in an effort,
thus far unsuccessful, to persuade him to abandon his ballistic
missile program.=20

 After a day in which Mr. Putin and the South Korean leader
discussed the progress between north and south, along with trade,
investment and new plans to link both Koreas with Russian and
Europe via the trans-Siberian railway, Mr. Putin tonight said
Russia was looking for a constructive role for Moscow in linking
the economies of North and South Korea through rail and energy
projects.=20

 "There is nobody who can lose in this process," he said.

 In a
toast tonight at a banquet in the ornate presidential palace with
sweeping blue-tiled rooflines, Mr. Putin predicted that the
north-south dialogue that Mr. Kim engineered last year would "lead
to reunification of the Korean nation."=20

 In between the banquets and toasts, however, Mr. Putin's visit
here has been a hard slog of negotiations over how to resolve
Russia's $1.8 billion debt to Seoul, how to overcome formidable
obstacles to building new railway links that still exist on both
sides of the Demilitarized Zone, where more than 1.7 million North
and South Korean troops still face each other in a high state of
readiness for war.

 Work on one rail line connecting Seoul, Pyongyang and Sinuiji on
North Korea's border with China already has begun, but Mr. Putin is
lobbying for the $1 billion rehabilitation of a second line
northeast to Vladivostok that would connect South Korea's ports and
industrial centers with Russia's impoverished Far East.

 Mr. Putin said linking both Koreas with the trans-Siberian railway
would cut freight deliveries from the Pacific to Europe from 25 to
12 days, while also providing assistance to North Korea, which
would reap more than $100 million a year in revenues.

 At a lunch with businessmen today, Mr. Putin made it clear that
Russia also has high technology products to offer. "Russia can
offer state-of-the-art technology," he said. "For example, we can
help other countries launch space devices such as satellites."

 Mr. Putin was not as successful in selling Russian arms to South
Korea, though some military equipment, including tanker aircraft,
helicopters and hovercraft, are part of a proposal to sell weapons
and raw materials in exchange for reducing Russia's debt.

 As the Soviet Union was collapsing, Seoul offered $1.45 billion in
credits to Moscow to establish diplomatic relations, thus
undercutting one of North Korea's chief patrons. As Russia has
failed to repay the credits, interest charges have increased it to
$1.8 billion.=20
       =20
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/27/world/27CND-KOREA.html?searchpv=3Dsite03?e=
x=3D
984543291&ei=3D1&en=3D6d62054d776bce1f

Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company



****************************************************************************
***************
Jacqueline Cabasso
WESTERN STATES LEGAL FOUNDATION
1440 Broadway, Suite 500
Oakland, California 94612 USA
Tel: + 1 [phone]
Fax: + 1 [phone]
Western States Legal Foundation is a founding member of the=20
ABOLITION 2000 GLOBAL NETWORK TO ELIMINATE NUCLEAR WEAPONS
****************************************************************************
***************
- --=====================_2705361==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html><div>Dear abolitionists -- In a very dissappointing development, it
appears that South Korea has retracted its surprisingly strong statement
of earlier this week, in which it joined Russia in opposing US missile
defense plans.  Following are two New York Times stories.  The
earlier story article follows today's story.   It seesm to me
that both of these developments are significant and bear watching. --
Jackie Cabasso</div>
<br>
<div>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D</div>
<div>NEW YORK TIMES</div>
<br>
<div>South Korea Now Pulls Back From Russia on Missile Shield</div>
<br>
<div>March 2, 2001</div>
<br>
<div>By DON KIRK</div>
<br>
<div>SEOUL, South Korea, March 1 =97 The government made a swift
retreat</div>
<div>today from what had appeared to be a decision by President Kim
Dae</div>
<div>Jung to support President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia in
opposing</div>
<div>the missile defense program backed by President George W.
Bush.</div>
<br>
<div> Pressed by United States officials for an explanation of Mr.
Kim</div>
<div>and Mr. Putin's joint statement on Tuesday, the Foreign
Ministry</div>
<div>drew a careful distinction between endorsement of the
Antiballistic</div>
<div>Missile Treaty of 1972 and opposition to national missile
defense.</div>
<br>
<div> It was one thing to join with Mr. Putin, as Mr. Kim did
after</div>
<div>their meeting here, in defending the ABM treaty as a
"cornerstone</div>
<div>of strategic stability," a ministry official said, but
quite</div>
<div>another to conclude that Mr. Kim viewed national missile defense
as</div>
<div>inevitably violating the treaty.</div>
<br>
<div> The government appeared eager to reassure Washington that Mr.
Kim</div>
<div>had said nothing to Mr. Putin that would compromise South
Korea's</div>
<div>alliance with the United States, which supports the South
with</div>
<div>37,000 troops here in case of an attack by North Korea.</div>
<br>
<div> The need to respond convincingly to a United States request
for</div>
<div>"clarification" of the statement on the missile treaty
took on</div>
<div>urgency, as members of Mr. Kim's staff, as well as Foreign
Ministry</div>
<div>officials, prepared for his meeting on Wednesday with Mr. Bush
in</div>
<div>Washington. Officials met today, a holiday that commemorates
the</div>
<div>82nd anniversary of a revolt against Japanese colonial rule.</div>
<br>
<div> The public saw a three-paragraph Foreign Ministry statement
that</div>
<div>the ministry was "still carefully reviewing its position"
on</div>
<div>missile defense and had not "voiced any opposition to
it."</div>
<br>
<div> The joint statement on Tuesday said nothing
"indirectly</div>
<div>criticizing or opposing" national missile defense, the
Foreign</div>
<div>Ministry said today, adding that news reports to that effect
were</div>
<div>misleading and did not "reflect the position" of the
government.</div>
<div>The care with which officials worked out the
"clarification"</div>
<div>delineated the problem as South Korea tries to carve out a
foreign</div>
<div>policy that satisfies all the major powers with immediate
influence</div>
<div>on the Korean Peninsula, China, Russia and Japan, as well as
the</div>
<div>United States.</div>
<br>
<div> Mr. Kim had hoped in his talks with Mr. Putin to enlist
support in</div>
<div>efforts at rapprochement with North Korea, while Mr. Putin
sought</div>
<div>to win Mr. Kim to his side in opposing the missile program.</div>
<br>
<div> South Korean officials, in briefings for local reporters, said
the</div>
<div>government had rejected a Russian suggestion for a clear
expression</div>
<div>of opposition to national missile defense. The statement, in
which</div>
<div>Mr. Putin and Mr. Kim said the 1972 treaty should be
strengthened,</div>
<div>could be seen as fulfilling that purpose, because the pact
requires</div>
<div>signers not to build national missile defense systems.</div>
<br>
<div> United States officials appeared to be satisfied with the
South</div>
<div>Korean explanation. "We asked them to clarify their position,
and</div>
<div>they clarified it," an American diplomat said. "We said,
`Hey, this</div>
<div>sounds as though you're opposed to national missile defense,'
and</div>
<div>they said they didn't mean it that way."</div>
<br>
<div> "We're all friends again," the American added.
</div>
<br>
<div> One theory for</div>
<div>why Mr. Kim joined in such a seemingly strong endorsement of</div>
<div>Moscow's position was that he and his advisers were not aware
of</div>
<div>the possible repercussions. "They were trying to be nice to
Putin,"</div>
<div>said a Western diplomat.</div>
<br>
<div> Mr. Kim, however, may have also wanted to signal his
government's</div>
<div>uneasiness with a plan that would compromise his "sunshine
policy"</div>
<div>of engagement with North Korea. China, North Korea's main ally,
has</div>
<div>opposed national missile defense, if anything more strongly
than</div>
<div>Russia, and the North Korean leader, Kim Jong Il, would
undoubtedly</div>
<div>take umbrage at any sign that Kim Dae Jung had adopted the
American</div>
<div>position.</div>
<br>
<div> Foreign Minister Lee Joung Binn of South Korea suggested
last</div>
<div>month that the United States should persuade the North to
stop</div>
<div>producing and testing missiles rather than focus on missile</div>
<div>defense. </div>
<div>        </div>
<div><a=
 href=3D"http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/02/world/02KORE.html?ex=3D984542829&=
amp;ei=3D1&en=3Ddaf6af5b082521be"=
 EUDORA=3DAUTOURL>http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/02/world/02KORE.html?ex=3D9=
84542829&ei=3D1&en=3Ddaf6af5b082521be</a></div>
<br>
<div>Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company</div>
<br>
<div>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D</div>
<div>South Korean President Sides With Russia on Missile Defense</div>
<br>
<div>February 27, 2001</div>
<br>
<div>By PATRICK E. TYLER</div>
<br>
<div>SEOUL, South Korea, Feb. 27 =97 Less than a week before he
meets</div>
<div>President Bush in Washington, the president of South Korea
today</div>
<div>publicly took Russia's side in the debate over Washington's
plan</div>
<div>for a national missile defense.</div>
<br>
<div> A joint communiqué issued by President Kim Dae Jung
with the</div>
<div>visiting president of Russia, Vladimir V. Putin, declared that
the</div>
<div>1972 ABM treaty limiting anti-missile defenses =97 which would
be</div>
<div>threatened by Washington's project =97 is a "cornerstone of
strategic</div>
<div>stability" and that it should not only be preserved, but
also</div>
<div>"strengthened."</div>
<br>
<div> The statement by Mr. Kim =97 whose country is protected with
the</div>
<div>help of 37,000 American troops =97 was one of the strongest</div>
<div>declarations to date by one of America's Asian allies, and=20
it</div>
<div>linked South Korea to European powers who have expressed
concern</div>
<div>that the United States was pressing forward with missile
defenses</div>
<div>in a manner that could inspire a new round of nuclear
competition</div>
<div>by Russia, China and South Asia.</div>
<br>
<div> President Bush has asserted that he would withdraw from the
1972</div>
<div>ABM Treaty if necessary in order to build national missile
defenses</div>
<div>capable of protecting the United States against the threat of
a</div>
<div>limited ballistic missile attack from countries like North
Korea,</div>
<div>Iran and Iraq.</div>
<br>
<div> It was not immediately clear why Mr. Kim decided to identify
with</div>
<div>Moscow's view of the issue.</div>
<br>
<div> But as the Bush administration shows signs of doubting
North</div>
<div>Korea's sincerity in dismantling its weapons of mass
destruction,</div>
<div>Mr. Putin has played an energetic role to push rapprochement</div>
<div>forward on the Korean peninsula, flying to Pyongyang last July
to</div>
<div>meet the reclusive North Korean leader, Kim Jong-il, and now</div>
<div>preparing to bring him to Moscow for more talks on how to
reduce</div>
<div>tensions.</div>
<br>
<div> It is also possible that the South Korean president's
criticism</div>
<div>reflects the general concern in Asia that the Bush
administration's</div>
<div>missile defense plans will isolate China by rendering its
nuclear</div>
<div>arsenal ineffective.</div>
<br>
<div> For South Korea, China has also played a constructive role
in</div>
<div>working for Korean rapprochement, treating Kim Jong-il to a tour
of</div>
<div>booming Shanghai this winter and doing similar missionary work
with</div>
<div>North Korea's hard-line military leaders. Li Peng, the=20
second</div>
<div>ranking member of the ruling Politburo in Beijing, is due in
Seoul</div>
<div>next month for a state visit.</div>
<br>
<div> Today's statement cataloged the arms control treaties
or</div>
<div>agreements that remain unfulfilled as a result of objections
to</div>
<div>their ratification in the United States. The principle
outstanding</div>
<div>accords are Start II, the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty
that</div>
<div>would cut cold war nuclear arsenals in half, and another that
would</div>
<div>to ban nuclear testing. Russia has ratified both, and Mr. Kim, in
a</div>
<div>summit meeting that was largely devoted to business and=20
trade</div>
<div>issues, welcomed Russia's act.</div>
<br>
<div> Though neither president mentioned the United States by name
and,</div>
<div>during a brief news conference on Mr. Putin's first day of
meetings</div>
<div>here, steered questions to economic matters, the object of
the</div>
<div>communiqué's criticism was unmistakable.</div>
<br>
<div> "The Russian Federation and the Republic of Korea agreed
that the</div>
<div>1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty is the cornerstone of
strategic</div>
<div>stability and an important foundation of international efforts
on</div>
<div>nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation," the joint
statement</div>
<div>said. "Both sides expressed their hope that the Start II
Treaty</div>
<div>will enter into force as soon as possible and that as soon=20
as</div>
<div>possible after that, the Start III treaty will be signed and
that</div>
<div>the ABM Treaty will be preserved and strengthened."</div>
<br>
<div> In a reference to the test ban treaty, the statement by
the</div>
<div>Russian and South Korean leaders said they "appealed to
other</div>
<div>countries to ratify the treaty without any delays and they
also</div>
<div>appealed to those countries whose ratification is needed for it
to</div>
<div>come into effect." </div>
<br>
<div> Since he won election a year ago, Mr. Putin has undertaken
a</div>
<div>diplomatic campaign to persuade the United States to forgo
its</div>
<div>large-scale missile defense plans and instead develop regional
and</div>
<div>mobile missile defenses that could be brought to bear=20
against</div>
<div>missile threats from rogue states. Russia presented its concept
for</div>
<div>such a plan to NATO's secretary general, Lord Robertson, in
Moscow</div>
<div>last week.</div>
<br>
<div> Russia has also sought to show that more intensive diplomacy,
such</div>
<div>as Mr. Kim's opening to North Korea, might go a long way in</div>
<div>reducing the threat from rogue states. To that end, Mr. Putin
also</div>
<div>has been courting North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-il, in an
effort,</div>
<div>thus far unsuccessful, to persuade him to abandon his
ballistic</div>
<div>missile program. </div>
<br>
<div> After a day in which Mr. Putin and the South Korean
leader</div>
<div>discussed the progress between north and south, along with
trade,</div>
<div>investment and new plans to link both Koreas with Russian=20
and</div>
<div>Europe via the trans-Siberian railway, Mr. Putin tonight=20
said</div>
<div>Russia was looking for a constructive role for Moscow in
linking</div>
<div>the economies of North and South Korea through rail and
energy</div>
<div>projects. </div>
<br>
<div> "There is nobody who can lose in this process," he
said.</div>
<br>
<div> In a</div>
<div>toast tonight at a banquet in the ornate presidential palace
with</div>
<div>sweeping blue-tiled rooflines, Mr. Putin predicted that the</div>
<div>north-south dialogue that Mr. Kim engineered last year would
"lead</div>
<div>to reunification of the Korean nation." </div>
<br>
<div> In between the banquets and toasts, however, Mr. Putin's
visit</div>
<div>here has been a hard slog of negotiations over how to=20
resolve</div>
<div>Russia's $1.8 billion debt to Seoul, how to overcome
formidable</div>
<div>obstacles to building new railway links that still exist on
both</div>
<div>sides of the Demilitarized Zone, where more than 1.7 million
North</div>
<div>and South Korean troops still face each other in a high state
of</div>
<div>readiness for war.</div>
<br>
<div> Work on one rail line connecting Seoul, Pyongyang and Sinuiji
on</div>
<div>North Korea's border with China already has begun, but Mr. Putin
is</div>
<div>lobbying for the $1 billion rehabilitation of a second line</div>
<div>northeast to Vladivostok that would connect South Korea's ports
and</div>
<div>industrial centers with Russia's impoverished Far East.</div>
<br>
<div> Mr. Putin said linking both Koreas with the trans-Siberian
railway</div>
<div>would cut freight deliveries from the Pacific to Europe from 25
to</div>
<div>12 days, while also providing assistance to North Korea,
which</div>
<div>would reap more than $100 million a year in revenues.</div>
<br>
<div> At a lunch with businessmen today, Mr. Putin made it clear
that</div>
<div>Russia also has high technology products to offer. "Russia
can</div>
<div>offer state-of-the-art technology," he said. "For example,
we can</div>
<div>help other countries launch space devices such as
satellites."</div>
<br>
<div> Mr. Putin was not as successful in selling Russian arms to
South</div>
<div>Korea, though some military equipment, including tanker
aircraft,</div>
<div>helicopters and hovercraft, are part of a proposal to sell
weapons</div>
<div>and raw materials in exchange for reducing Russia's debt.</div>
<br>
<div> As the Soviet Union was collapsing, Seoul offered $1.45
billion in</div>
<div>credits to Moscow to establish diplomatic relations, thus</div>
<div>undercutting one of North Korea's chief patrons. As Russia
has</div>
<div>failed to repay the credits, interest charges have increased it
to</div>
<div>$1.8 billion. </div>
<div>        </div>
<div><a=
 href=3D"http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/27/world/27CND-KOREA.html?searchpv=
=3Dsite03?ex=3D984543291&ei=3D1&en=3D6d62054d776bce1f"=
 EUDORA=3DAUTOURL>http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/27/world/27CND-KOREA.html?s=
earchpv=3Dsite03?ex=3D984543291&ei=3D1&en=3D6d62054d776bce1f</a></di=
v>
<br>
<div>Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company</div>
<br>
<br>
<br>

<div align=3D"center">
****************************************************************************=
***************<br>
Jacqueline Cabasso<br>
WESTERN STATES LEGAL FOUNDATION<br>
1440 Broadway, Suite 500<br>
Oakland, California 94612 USA<br>
Tel: + 1 [phone]<br>
Fax: + 1 [phone]<br>
Western States Legal Foundation is a founding member of the <br>
ABOLITION 2000 GLOBAL NETWORK TO ELIMINATE NUCLEAR WEAPONS<br>
****************************************************************************=
***************</html>

- --=====================_2705361==_.ALT--


- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 11:33:22 -0500
From: ASlater <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Fwd: BUSH PROPOSES SPACE BUDGET HIKE

>Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 21:21:31 -0500
>Subject: BUSH PROPOSES SPACE BUDGET HIKE
>X-FC-MachineGenerated: true
>From: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
>
>
>Bush plan would hike NASA budget 2 percent
>02/28/01
>By KARIN MEADOWS
>Huntsville Times
>
>WASHINGTON - Marshall Space Flight Center (Huntsville, Alabama) will
>continue operating at full throttle if President Bush's proposed 2 percent
>budget increase for NASA passes muster in Congress.
>
>Redstone Arsenal also stands to benefit from a $20 billion increase in
>spending for research and development of defense technology over four years
>to build effective ballistic missile systems.
>
>The president's proposal, released this morning, would raise NASA's budget
>to $14.5 billion in fiscal 2002, which begins Oct. 1, from $14.3 billion in
>fiscal 2001.
>
>One of the centerpieces of the NASA budget proposal is the Marshall-based
>Space Launch Initiative, a program created to reduce the cost of building
>and operating spaceships and to improve safety in space transportation.
>Bush
>wants to boost the program's spending in 2002 by 64 percent to $475.6
>million. That amount already had been anticipated by NASA.
>
>Last year, Congress set aside $4.5 billion to be spent over five years for
>the Space Launch Initiative. The program received $290 million for 2001.
>"We had hoped the new administration would stay on course for the $4.5
>billion over five years for SLI, but we had no guarantees, so this . . . is
>great news," U.S. Rep. Bud Cramer, D-Huntsville, said today.
>
>"Marshall Space Flight Center is taking the lead on developing the next
>generation of space transportation. This kind of funding level will give
>them the resources they need to succeed."
>
>Marshall spokesman Jerry Berg said he could not comment on the proposed 64
>percent increase and said he did not know if the $475.6 million was more,
>less or the same amount of money expected for the Space Launch Initiative
>in
>2002.
>
>Berg said NASA officials had not yet received a copy of Bush's budget
>proposal. NASA planned to brief reporters this afternoon at its Washington
>headquarters.
>
>But a spokesman for Cramer said Bush's proposed 64 percent increase in new
>booster technology research next year is in line with what Congress
>envisioned when it approved money for the five-year program last year.
>
>In his first proposed budget, unveiled this morning following Tuesday
>night's State of the Union speech, Bush challenged the defense technology
>community to use "the present window of relative peace" to develop military
>forces the nation will need for the 21st century.
>
>The budget proposal provided little detail about defense spending, other
>than to ask for a $20 billion increase in defense research and development
>between 2002 and 2006 and to request that 20 percent of the research and
>development budget be allocated to investigate and create new missile
>technologies.
>
>Cramer called the money for improved technology and weapons a plus for the
>state.
>
>"Developing new defense technology and new weapons is a critical need for
>this country and great news for the economy of North Alabama," he said.
>
>In related NASA matters, Bush proposed transferring space station workers
>from Johnson Space Center in Texas to Washington headquarters and
>eliminating funding for the Pluto-Kuiper Express and Solar Probe missions,
>while beefing up dollars for the Mars Exploration Program.
>
>
>
>
>Bruce K. Gagnon
>Coordinator
>Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space
>PO Box 90083
>Gainesville, FL. 32607
>[phone]
>http://www.space4peace.org
>[e-mail]
>

- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 10:05:57 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian McDermott <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (abolition-usa) Urgent! Sign-on request from our Russian  enviro colleagues

- --- Ellen Thomas <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Please sign us on, Marylia.
>
> Ellen Thomas
> Executive Director
>
> PROPOSITION ONE COMMITTEE
> P.O. Box 27217, Washington, DC 20038 USA
> 202-462-0757 (phone) | 202-265-5389 (fax)
> http://prop1.org | [e-mail]
>
>                  ***
>
>       BAN ALL RADIOACTIVE BOMBS
> * depleted uranium, fission, neutron *
>
> Online Petition! -
> http://www.PetitionOnline.com/prop1/petition.html
> Write Letter to Congress about HR-2545 -
> http://prop1.org/prop1/letter.htm
> Depleted uranium keeps on killing! -
> http://[e-mail]/2000/du/dulv.htm
> NucNews -
> http://prop1.org/nucnews/briefslv.htm
>
>
> -
>  To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to
> "[e-mail]"
>  with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the
> message.
>  For information on digests or retrieving files and
> old messages send
>  "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in
> your message.


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 15:28:38 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: (abolition-usa) Urgent! Sign-on request from our Russian enviro colleagues

- --part1_3b.11369b06.27d2adf6_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Please sign us on.


Francis Chiappa, Vice President
Cleveland Peace Action
Peace House
10916 Magnolia Dr.
Cleveland, OH 44106
Ph: 216-231-4245
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

- --part1_3b.11369b06.27d2adf6_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT  SIZE=2>Please sign us on.
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>Francis Chiappa, Vice President
<BR>Cleveland Peace Action
<BR>Peace House
<BR>10916 Magnolia Dr.
<BR>Cleveland, OH 44106
<BR>Ph: 216-231-4245
<BR>Fax: [phone]
<BR>E-mail: [e-mail]</FONT></HTML>

- --part1_3b.11369b06.27d2adf6_boundary--

- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

End of abolition-usa-digest V1 #425
***********************************

-
 To unsubscribe to $LIST, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe $LIST" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.