28.2.06

U.N. Agency Says It Got Few Answers From Iran on Nuclear Activity and Weapons - New York Times

U.N. Agency Says It Got Few Answers From Iran on Nuclear Activity and Weapons - New York Times

What were you expecting?

VIENNA, Feb. 27 — Iran has accelerated its nuclear fuel enrichment activities and rejected demands of international inspectors to explain evidence that had raised suspicions of a nuclear weapons program, according to a report by a United Nations agency. That could make it easier for the United States and its European partners to seek punitive action in the Security Council.

But the assessment, contained in an 11-page report released Monday by Mohamed ElBaradei, the director of the United Nations nuclear watchdog agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency, made no definitive judgment about whether the program was peaceful, or intended to create the capacity to produce weapons. That surprised some governments and even some agency officials who had predicted that the report would be harsher.

The report laid out a long list of fresh examples in which it said Iran had stonewalled the agency, responding with incomplete and ambiguous answers and refusing repeated requests to turn over documents and information.

It called it "regrettable and a matter of concern" that Iran has not been more forthcoming after three years of intensive agency verification.

In an indication that Iran is prepared to take a tougher line against the agency and even against the United States, Iran told inspectors on Sunday that documents obtained by American intelligence suggesting links between Iran's nuclear activities and its missile program were forgeries, the report said.

The documents make reference to a secretive entity in Iran called the Green Salt Project, and seem to suggest that the project established "administrative interconnections" between Iran's uranium processing, high explosives and missile warhead design. If accurate, the documents would be the first to tie what Iran says is its purely civilian nuclear program to military activities.

But those allegations "are based on false and fabricated documents," Iranian authorities were quoted as telling an agency inspection team on Sunday, an assertion that came after months of pledges by Iran to provide information on the matter. They also declared that no such project had ever existed.

The report, released to the 35 countries that sit on the agency's decision-making board, also left unclear whether the Iranians had taken possession of copies of the disputed Green Salt documents, which would seem to be a necessary step if Tehran were to subject them to serious forensic examination and pass judgment on their authenticity.

But the shift in the Iranian position seemed intended to call into question the reliability of American intelligence reports on Iran, and to remind the international community of the far-reaching American intelligence failure in overstating Iraq's nuclear program in the months before the American-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

A senior administration official in Washington, who declined to speak on the record because of the delicate nature of the intelligence, said that Iran had been shown only a limited number of documents from the laptop computer that American intelligence agencies had obtained from an Iranian source.

"We knew they would question the credibility of the intelligence," the official said, "but the other countries that have seen it can judge for themselves."

In another development, Iran informed the agency that it was planning at the end of this year to set up 3,000 centrifuges that enrich uranium as it moves toward industrial-scale enrichment, ignoring international demands that it return to a freeze on its uranium enrichment activities at its vast facility at Natanz, the report said. That would be enough to make a weapon if all technical problems were resolved.

The site is eventually to hold 50,000 of the machines, which would give Iran the technical ability to purify large amounts of uranium for either nuclear reactors or atomic bombs.

The report also documents a number of contradictions between claims by Iranian authorities and the inspectors' evidence.

An example of the serious discrepancies found by the atomic agency center on Iranian research on plutonium, one of the main fuels of nuclear arms. The report said the agency took a number of Iranian plutonium disks to Vienna for analysis of their makeup.

The investigators found a major disagreement between the disks and what was said to be the solution from which they were made. The analysis revealed that eight of the disks had "significantly lower" amounts of plutonium 240. That finding is important because plutonium 240 is considered a pollutant in the making of nuclear arms, and nuclear engineers work hard to limit its presence.

The report made no link between the plutonium 240 finding and its potential usefulness for making nuclear arms. Rather, in the agency's usual understated style, it simply noted the discrepancy. ????

"The story is not as straight as it has been presented to us," said a senior official with knowledge of the agency's investigation.

Europeans Offer $144 Million Aid to Palestinians - New York Times

Europeans Offer $144 Million Aid to Palestinians - New York Times

JERUSALEM, Feb. 27 — After receiving a dire warning that the Palestinian Authority was so short of money that it might collapse in two weeks, the European Union on Monday offered $144 million in aid to the Palestinians before a Hamas government takes power.

The Europeans acted in partial response to a letter from James D. Wolfensohn, the special Middle East envoy of the so-called Quartet made up of the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations.

Mr. Wolfensohn warned in a letter dated Saturday that "unless a solution is found, we may be facing the financial collapse of the P.A. within two weeks," referring to the Palestinian Authority. The money from the European Union will not solve the Palestinian money crunch for very long, especially since most of it is not in cash, but it will ease the burden of repayments to suppliers.

A large Israeli oil company, Dor Alon, said Monday that it could no longer supply fuel oil and natural gas to the Palestinians because a check for some $35 million from the Palestinian Authority bounced last week. The European money will presumably ensure the flow of energy to the Palestinians in a chilly, wet winter.

The acting Palestinian finance minister, Jihad al-Wazir, said there was an immediate need for "$60-80 million next week to begin to pay wages," Mr. Wolfensohn wrote in the letter to Quartet foreign ministers, warning of "wide-ranging consequences" for "security and stability for both the Palestininians and the Israelis."

The Palestinian Authority's financial situation has worsened, said Mr. Wolfensohn, the former president of the World Bank. With estimated internal tax revenues of $35 million a month, and the loss of Israeli-collected tax and customs receipts of some $50 million a month, the Authority faces a monthly deficit of $130 million a month.

For February and March, the period before a Hamas government is likely to take over, Mr. Wolfensohn said, the Authority may need as much as $360 million in new money. He said the Authority had to make loan repayments, pay arrears to private suppliers of energy and other goods, and meet the Bush administration's demand that it return $50 million provided last year for infrastructure improvements and used as collateral for bank loans.

Israeli public companies supply electricity and water to the Palestinians, deducting the cost from the customs and tax revenues the Israelis collect for the Palestinian Authority. Israel is now withholding the revenues because of the victory of Hamas in the legislative elections last month.

Israel argues that the recent swearing in of the legislature means that Hamas now controls the Authority, but the United States and the rest of the Quartet insist that President Mahmoud Abbas is still running a caretaker government that must be supported, and that any cutoff of financing should not take place until Hamas forms a government.

Mr. Wolfensohn has been asked to help the Authority get through February and March. Matters will only get worse once Hamas is considered to have formed a government by the Quartet and more funds are cut off. But the Quartet is arguing about when that date will be, with the European Union and the United Nations now saying it is important to wait to see what the new government's program is before cutting aid.

Benita Ferrero-Waldner, the European Union's external relations commissioner, emphasized on Monday that European aid was not going to Hamas. After a Hamas-led government is sworn in, she said, "we have to see what will be the program of the government."

"We have to give them time," she said.

In the interim, she said, the Europeans, like the Americans, are "supporting the caretaker government and trying to do everything to give Mahmoud Abbas our full support."

Of the $144 million the Europeans pledged on Monday, about $47.4 million will pay energy bills that the Palestinians owe Israeli companies, $75.9 million will be channeled through the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian refugees and $20.7 million is cash — direct budget support to help pay salaries.

The Quartet and Israel agree that relief aid to the Palestinians should continue, including money spent by United Nations organizations. The amount of money channeled through such organizations is likely to increase, but that will not pay the 135,000 or so Palestinians dependent on salaries from the Palestinian Authority.

Mr. Wolfensohn, diplomats say, is arguing that he should try to get the Palestinian Authority through to June, when the Group of 8 industrial nations are to meet. But the United States and Israel fear that such a long period would allow Hamas to establish itself.

U.S. Is Settling Detainee's Suit in 9/11 Sweep - New York Times

U.S. Is Settling Detainee's Suit in 9/11 Sweep - New York Times

The federal government has agreed to pay $300,000 to settle a lawsuit brought by an Egyptian who was among dozens of Muslim men swept up in the New York area after 9/11, held for months in a federal detention center in Brooklyn and deported after being cleared of links to terrorism.

The settlement, filed in federal court late yesterday, is the first the government has made in a number of lawsuits charging that noncitizens were abused and their constitutional rights violated in detentions after the terror attacks.

It removes one of two plaintiffs from a case in which a federal judge ruled last fall that former Attorney General John Ashcroft, the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other top government officials must answer questions under oath. Government lawyers filed an appeal of that ruling on Friday.

In the settlement agreement, which requires approval by a federal judge in Brooklyn, lawyers for the government said that the officials were not admitting any liability or fault. In court papers they have said that the 9/11 attacks created "special factors," including the need to deter future terrorism, that outweighed the plaintiffs' right to sue.

"A settlement like this is not a precedent, but it's a form of accountability," said Gerald L. Neuman, a law professor at Columbia University who is an expert in human rights law and was not involved in the case. "When the government finds it necessary to settle, that changes the government's incentives. It doesn't mean the government will settle future cases that it makes different calculations about," like another lawsuit, brought as a class action on behalf of hundreds of detainees, that is pending before the same judge.

A spokesman for the Justice Department said officials would not comment on the agreement. But lawyers who represent both the Egyptian, Ehab Elmaghraby, who used to run a restaurant near Times Square, and the second plaintiff, a Pakistani who is still pursuing the lawsuit, described the outcome as significant.

"This is a substantial settlement and shows for the first time that the government can be held accountable for the abuses that have occurred in Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo Bay and in prisons right here in the United States," said one of the lawyers, Alexander A. Reinert of Koob & Magoolaghan.

The lawsuit accuses Mr. Ashcroft and the F.B.I. director, Robert S. Mueller III, of personally conspiring to violate the rights of Muslim immigrant detainees on the basis of their race, religion and national origin, and names a score of other defendants, including Bureau of Prison officials and guards at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn.

A 2003 report by the Justice Department's inspector general found widespread abuse of the noncitizen detainees at the Brooklyn center after 9/11, and in recent months, 10 of the center's guards and supervisors have been disciplined.

Mr. Elmaghraby, who spent nearly a year in detention, and the Pakistani man, Javaid Iqbal, held for nine months, charged that while shackled they were kicked and punched until they bled. Their lawsuit said they were cursed as terrorists and subjected to multiple unnecessary body-cavity searches, including one in which correction officers inserted a flashlight into Mr. Elmaghraby's rectum, making him bleed.

In a telephone interview from his home in Alexandria, Egypt, Mr. Elmaghraby, 38, said he had reluctantly decided to settle because he is ill, in debt and about to have surgery for a thyroid ailment aggravated by his treatment in the detention center.

"I wish I come to New York, to stay in the court face to face with these people," he said in imperfect English, adding that he had always expected the courts to uphold his claim. "I lived 13 years in New York, I see a lot of big cases on TV. I think the judges is fair."

The government had argued that the lawsuits should be dismissed without testimony because the extraordinary circumstances of the terror attacks justified extraordinary measures to confine noncitizens who fell under suspicion, and because top officials need governmental immunity to combat future threats to national security without fear of being sued.

The federal judge, John Gleeson of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, disagreed, writing in his decision last September, "Our nation's unique and complex law enforcement and security challenges in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks do not warrant the elimination of remedies for the constitutional violations alleged here."

Threats and Responses
Go to Complete Coverage

Refugee Crisis Grows as Darfur War Crosses a Border - New York Times

Refugee Crisis Grows as Darfur War Crosses a Border - New York Times

ADRÉ, Chad — The chaos in Darfur, the war-ravaged region in Sudan where more than 200,000 civilians have been killed, has spread across the border into Chad, deepening one of the world's worst refugee crises.

A boy and his sister in a camp in Kolloye, Chad, are among the refugees left homeless by marauding militias along the border with Sudan.

Multimedia

Arab gunmen from Darfur have pushed across the desert and entered Chad, stealing cattle, burning crops and killing anyone who resists. The lawlessness has driven at least 20,000 Chadians from their homes, making them refugees in their own country.

Hundreds of thousands more people in this area, along with 200,000 Sudanese who fled here for safety, find themselves caught up in a growing conflict between Chad and Sudan, which have a long history of violence and meddling in each other's affairs.

"You may have thought the terrible situation in Darfur couldn't get worse, but it has," Peter Takirambudde, executive director of the Africa division of Human Rights Watch, said in a recent statement. "Sudan's policy of arming militias and letting them loose is spilling over the border, and civilians have no protection from their attacks, in Darfur or in Chad."

Indeed, the accounts of civilians in eastern Chad are agonizingly familiar to those in western Sudan. One woman, Zahara Isaac Mahamat, described how Arab men on camels and horses had raided her village in Chad, stealing everything they could find and slaughtering all who resisted.

The dead included her husband, Ismail Ibrahim, who tried to prevent the raiders from burning his sorghum and millet fields. Like so many others in this desolate expanse of dust-choked earth, she fled west with her three children, much as people in Darfur have been forced to do in recent years.

"I have lost everything but my children," she said, her face looking much older than her 20 years. She is now a refugee, with thousands of other displaced Chadians, in Kolloye, a village south of here.

"We have three bowls of grain left," she said. "When that is gone, only God can help us."

The spreading chaos is a result of two closely connected conflicts in the neighboring countries.

In Darfur, rebels have been battling government forces and the janjaweed, Arab militias aligned with the government, in a campaign of terror that the Bush administration has called genocide.

The United Nations Security Council has agreed to send troops to protect civilians, but they will take months to arrive. In the meantime, President Bush has said, NATO should help shore up a failing African Union peacekeeping mission there, but a surge of violence has chased tens of thousands of people from their homes in recent weeks.

In Chad, the government is fighting its own war against rebels based in Sudan and bent on ousting Chad's ailing president, Idriss Déby.

The rebels include disgruntled soldiers who defected and tribes tired of being ruled by members of the president's tribe, the Zaghawa, who represent just a small percentage of the population but have long dominated politics and the military.

In a sign of how inseparable the two conflicts have become, President Déby has accused Sudan of supporting the rebellion against his government, and Sudan has long suspected members of Mr. Déby's family of supporting Zaghawa-led rebels in Darfur.

Both sides agreed at a summit meeting in Libya in early February to stop supporting rebels on each other's territory and to tone down the belligerent talk. But Chadian rebels have remained on the Sudanese side of the border, and it is not clear whether Mr. Déby has the capacity to stop members of his clan from supporting Darfur rebels.

If unchecked by international intervention, this complex and volatile mix of government forces, allied militias and at least a half-dozen rebel groups in a remote region awash with weapons will almost inevitably lead to disaster, said John Prendergast, a senior adviser at the International Crisis Group, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization, and an expert on the Darfur conflict.

"The principle strategy of all these actors, both state actors and proxy militias, is to displace people in order to destabilize and undermine the support base of your opponent," he said. "We are going to see an increasing spiral of displacement on both sides of the border and an increasingly dangerous environment for humanitarian workers."

27.2.06

Pentagon: Iraqi Troops Downgraded

Pentagon: Iraqi Troops Downgraded
No Iraqi battalion capable of fighting without U.S. support

WASHINGTON -- The only Iraqi battalion capable of fighting without U.S. support has been downgraded to a level requiring them to fight with American troops backing them up, the Pentagon said Friday.

The battalion, made up of 700 to 800 Iraqi Army soldiers, has repeatedly been offered by the U.S. as an example of the growing independence of the Iraqi military.

The competence of the Iraqi military has been cited as a key factor in when U.S. troops will be able to return home.

"As we see more of these Iraqi forces in the lead, we will be able to continue with our stated strategy that says as Iraqi forces stand up, we will stand down," President Bush said last month.

The battalion, according to the Pentagon, was downgraded from "level one" to "level two" after a recent quarterly assessment of its capabilities.

"Level one" means the battalion is able to fight on its own; "level two" means it requires support from U.S. troops; and "level three" means it must fight alongside U.S. troops.

Though officials would not cite a specific reason for downgrading the unit, its readiness level has dropped in the wake of a new commander and numerous changes in the combat and support units, officials said.

The battalion is still deployed, and its status as an independent fighting force could be restored any day, Pentagon officials said. It was not clear where the battalion is operating within Iraq.

According to the congressionally mandated Iraq security report released Friday, there are 53 Iraqi battalions at level two status, up from 36 in October. There are 45 battalions at level three, according to the report.

Overall, Pentagon officials said close to 100 Iraqi army battalions are operational, and more than 100 Iraq Security Force battalions are operational at levels two or three. The security force operations are under the direction of the Iraqi government.

The numbers are roughly the same as those given by the president last month when he said 125 Iraqi combat battalions were fighting the insurgency, 50 of them taking the lead.

"In January 2006, the mission is to continue to hand over more and more territory and more and more responsibility to Iraqi forces," Bush said. "That's progress." Idiot

'Public Court' Holds Bush Guilty of Perpetrating Terrorism

'Public Court' Holds Bush Guilty of Perpetrating Terrorism

Guilty on all accounts.

A 'praja court' (public court) here Sunday held US President George W. Bush guilty of "perpetrating terrorism in the name of fighting terrorism and killing people including women and children".

Bush, who is scheduled to visit the Andhra Pradesh capital March 3, the last day of his three-day visit to India, faced charges ranging from war mongering and mass killings to violation of all international charters and aggression against sovereign countries.

A jury comprising retired Supreme Court judge B.S.A. Swamy, human rights activist G. Haragopal and prominent writer-activist Rama Milkote heard the people and upheld eight charges against Bush.

The jury held Bush guilty of "perpetrating terrorism in the name of fighting against terrorism" and "attacking and threatening other countries using the issue of nuclear weapons as a pretext". GUILTY

Bush was also found to be guilty of human rights violations and large- scale killing of people, including women and children, especially in Afghanistan and Iraq and of creating a sense of insecurity in the world. GUILTY

"It is a fit case to be tried in the international court of justice," said the jury. Indeed

The public hearing on "crimes of George Bush" was held by a coalition of 40 groups including Left parties and their affiliated organisations, human rights and women's groups, and trade unions.

This was the first time that such a public hearing was held in the country against any visiting head of state or government.

A total of 13 people deposed before the jury, which asked the Indian government to call off Bush's visit.

Acid Seas Kill Off Coral Reefs

Acid Seas Kill Off Coral Reefs

THE world’s coral reefs could disappear within a few decades along with hundreds of species of plankton and shellfish, according to new studies into man’s impact on the oceans.

Researchers have found that carbon dioxide, the gas already blamed for causing global warming, is also raising the acid levels in the sea. The shells of coral and other marine life dissolve in acid. The process is happening so fast that many such species, including coral, crabs, oysters and mussels, may become unable to build and repair their shells and will die out, say the researchers.

“Increased carbon dioxide emissions are making the world’s oceans more acidic and could cause a mass extinction of marine life similar to the one that occurred on land when the dinosaurs disappeared,” said Professor Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution’s global ecology department.

When CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels dissolves in the ocean, it forms carbonic acid. A little of this can benefit marine life by providing carbonate ions — a vital constituent in the biochemical process by which sea creatures such as corals and molluscs build their shells.

Caldeira found, however, that the huge volumes of carbon dioxide being released by humans are dissolving into the oceans so fast that sea creatures can no longer absorb it. Consequently, the levels of carbonic acid are rising and the oceans are “turning sour”.

Speaking at the American Geophysical Union’s ocean sciences conference in Hawaii last week, Caldeira said: “The current rate of carbon dioxide input is nearly 50 times higher than normal. In less than 100 years, the pH (measure of alkalinity) of the oceans could drop by as much as half a unit from its natural 8.2 to about 7.7.”

This would mark a huge change in ocean chemistry. The shells of marine creatures are made of calcium carbonate, the same substance as chalk, which is vulnerable to acidity. Even a slight increase in acidity would mean many creatures would dissolve. Others might be able to rebuild their shells but would be unable to reproduce.

Nature, the scientific journal, recently published a study by Jim Orr, of the Laboratory for Science of the Climate and Environment, Paris. It said that by 2050 the Southern Ocean and subarctic regions of the Pacific might be so acidic that the shells of smaller marine creatures would start eroding.

Such a loss would have disastrous consequences for larger marine animals such as salmon, mackerel, herring, cod and baleen whales. These all feed on pteropods, or sea butterflies, one of the species most threatened by rising acidity.

Last week another warning was issued about the threat of acidity to sea life at the annual meeting in St Louis of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Katherine Richardson, professor of biological oceanography at Aarhus University in Denmark, said: “These marine creatures do humanity a great service by absorbing half the carbon dioxide we create. If we wipe them out, that process will stop. We are altering the entire chemistry of the oceans without any idea of the consequences.”

Mexican Border Wall Plan Seen as U.S. Conceit

Mexican Border Wall Plan Seen as U.S. Conceit
Across Latin America, people are dismayed by a bill calling for a 700-mile wall along the frontier with Mexico to stem illegal immigration.
by Héctor Tobar

MEXICO CITY — "The wall" does not yet exist, and it may never be built, but already the proposed 700 miles of fencing and electric sensors loom like a new Berlin Wall in the Latin American imagination.

The plan for a barrier along the border with Mexico was approved by the U.S. House in December and is scheduled to be debated by the Senate next month.

El muro, as it is called in Spanish, has been in the news for weeks not only in countries such as Mexico and El Salvador that are increasingly dependent on the money migrants send back home, but also those farther away, such as Argentina and Chile. Across the region, el muro is seen as an ominous new symbol of the United States' unchecked power.

"The U.S. government has fostered an atmosphere of collective paranoia, given a green light to its spies … and institutionalized torture," Salvadoran novelist Horacio Castellanos Moya said. "The only thing missing was a wall."

The brainchild of Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.), the measure calls for two "layers of reinforced fencing," new lighting, cameras and underground sensors similar to those in place near San Ysidro, Calif. One new stretch would seal off nearly the entire 350-mile length of the Arizona-Mexico border.

"Our nation has lost control of its borders," Sensenbrenner said on the House floor when introducing the bill in December. An estimated 1 million people cross illegally into the United States each year.

The bill proposes elevating illegal crossing from a misdemeanor to a felony, and includes new provisions to curb hiring of undocumented workers.

"Large majorities of Americans support efforts to restore the security of our nation's borders," Sensenbrenner said. The House later approved the bill by a vote of 239-182.

South of the proposed barrier, news of the vote has been greeted with expressions of confusion, sadness and official concern. The foreign ministers of 11 Latin American countries who met Feb. 13 in Colombia agreed to formulate a plan to lobby the U.S. Senate to kill the proposal.

Guatemalan Vice President Eduardo Stein, whose center-right government is close to the Bush administration, made an unusually strident statement about the bill last month.

"It seems to us a real affront that a government that calls itself a friend and regional partner only wants our money and our products, but treats our people as if they were a plague," Stein said.

A minority of commentators have suggested that Latin American governments share at least some of the blame for the disorder on the U.S. frontier.

"The diatribes [against the wall] are a poor substitute for adequate policies," Sergio Aguayo Quezada wrote in the Mexico City newspaper Reforma. "The long era of open borders is over, and the escape valve is slowly closing."

Others point out that the walls already in place for more than a decade in Tijuana, El Paso and other border areas have driven illegal crossers into the Sonoran Desert, where hundreds have died.

Fearing that more fences will result in more deaths, Bishop Renato Ascencio Leon led a Mass in Ciudad Juarez against the proposal. "We pray to the Lord that this wall not be raised," he said.

The president of Mexico's National Commission for Human Rights, Jose Luis Soberanes, called the proposal an act of "idiocy."

The Guatemalan newspaper Prensa Libre sounded out the country's artists and athletes, who unanimously condemned the fence.

"It's one more slap in the face from the gringos, an example of their cynicism," actress Patricia Orantes told the newspaper. "The walls are falling now. Berlin's fell, and [the Americans] still haven't learned yet."

Bristling over the repeated comparisons with the wall built by East German Communist leaders, U.S. Ambassador Tony Garza responded last month with an angry letter.

"Comparisons of proposals to alter our border policies to the Berlin Wall are not only disingenuous and intellectually dishonest, they are personally offensive to me," Garza wrote in a statement issued by the U.S. Embassy here. "The Berlin Wall was built to keep its own people trapped inside, and was created by an oppressive authoritarian government."

The United States, Garza wrote, has an inherent right to defend its security.

U.S. relations with Latin America have been strained in recent years, especially since the invasion of Iraq. Latin American representatives on the U.N. Security Council in 2003, Chile and Mexico, opposed the war.

In Mexico, where perceived ill treatment by the United States is more than ever a national obsession, the rhetorical power of el muro has been hard to resist.

Leftist presidential candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador refers to el muro in his speeches, saying, "If there is no economic growth in Mexico, people will continue to cross, no matter if they build walls." Felipe Calderon, presidential candidate of the center-right National Action Party, called the proposal "historically unacceptable."

In a televised interview last month, President Vicente Fox called the barrier "the wall of ignominy" and promised to fight it.

A few days later, during a visit to the city of Merida on the Yucatan peninsula, a group of union activists threw the metaphor back at the president. "Why won't you talk to us?" the protesters shouted at Fox from behind a crowd barrier. "Here is the wall! The wall is here!"

In the Buenos Aires newspaper Clarin, Marcelo Moreno compared el muro with Argentina's exclusive "country club" gated neighborhoods. If the rich of Latin America are building barriers to keep out the poor, he argued, why should anyone be surprised that the U.S. is building walls too?

"When the Berlin Wall fell, many believed that with globalization on the march, the last great barrier had fallen," Moreno wrote. "Now the opposite is happening. The walls are multiplying."

Dubai Expected to Ask for Review of Port Deal - New York Times

Dubai Expected to Ask for Review of Port Deal - New York Times

WASHINGTON, Feb. 25 — After two days of behind-the-scenes negotiations with the Bush administration and Congress, the Dubai company seeking to manage terminals at six American ports is expected to announce by Monday a deal inviting the government to conduct a broad new review of security concerns, senior administration officials and a company adviser say.

If an agreement is completed, the state-owned company, Dubai Ports World, will "voluntarily" ask the Bush administration to pursue the lengthier, deeper investigation that Democrats and Republicans in Congress have been demanding since controversy over the transaction erupted at the beginning of the week.

The White House plans to portray the action as the company's own decision, giving administration officials a face-saving way of backing away from President Bush's repeated declarations in recent days that there is no security risk in having the port terminals operated by a company controlled by the emir of Dubai, part of the United Arab Emirates.

The people who discussed the negotiations, two senior administration officials and the company adviser, spoke on the condition of anonymity because final details had not been worked out. Dubai Ports lawyers and lobbyists spent Friday and Saturday talking with Congressional leaders, including the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist of Tennessee.

The goal was to try to delay, if not circumvent, a collision with Republican leaders who have been threatening to support some form of Congressional action next week, possibly including a bill to block the company from taking over.

Dubai Ports' purchase of the British company now running the terminals was approved by the Committee on Investment in the United States in mid-January. As recently as Friday, Mr. Bush's national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, emphasized that the process was complete. "There's nothing to reopen," he said.

But according to several people involved in the talks, even as Mr. Hadley was speaking, executives of Dubai Ports became convinced that their offer on Thursday to close the deal but to "segregate" the American operations until further briefings were conducted on Capitol Hill would not quiet the controversy.

A new review would essentially allow the government to do the kind of full 45-day assessment of the security implications that the administration argued all last week was unwarranted. Critics of the White House's handling of the situation said the law required the 45-day investigation because Dubai Ports is owned by a foreign state.

A company spokesman declined to comment on whether an agreement was near on a new investigation.

If a new investigation is conducted under the terms of a law passed by Congress 14 years ago, the results would be reported to Mr. Bush, who would make a final decision and report to Congress. That would put the onus of the decision clearly on a president who has said that he was unaware of the previous decision allowing the transaction until recently, but that he fully supports it.

"Everybody needed a way to get off this train," said one official with knowledge of the talks, "and this seemed to be the best one."

Because Mr. Bush has already declared his position on the issue, it is unclear how the administration could conduct a truly independent review. In statements on Tuesday, the president strongly suggested that anti-Arab bias lay behind the protests. The current operator is the Peninsula & Oriental Steam Navigation Company, which is British.

But neither Mr. Bush's assurances nor an offer from Dubai Ports on Thursday to delay taking over management of the terminals appeared to sway the critics on Saturday.

Gov. Jon S. Corzine of New Jersey, one of the lawmakers seeking to block the company from managing the terminals, dismissed suggestions that anti-Arab bias or racial profiling lay behind opposition to the deal.

"Dubai is not Britain," Mr. Corzine said. "And the fact of the matter is that port security does not begin and end at the pier in Newark."

Mr. Corzine's condemnation of the transaction — in a Democratic response to Mr. Bush's weekly radio address, which was on a different topic — came as Democrats and some Republicans made clear that they planned to move on several fronts to block Dubai Ports from taking control, including Congressional actions and court challenges.

At a meeting of the nation's governors in Washington this weekend, the ports controversy was a central subject of conversation.

Gov. Mike Huckabee, an Arkansas Republican and chairman of the National Governors Association, said the deal "put a lot of elected officials in an impossible situation." He said, "The visceral reaction they got from their constituents left them no choice in opposing it."

As the governors met, Mr. Corzine was pressing those from other states to join New Jersey's legal action to halt the deal. He dismissed the company's offer to delay the formal takeover, saying, "what we need is not a token delay but a serious review."

Bush administration officials have seemed torn between their desire to repair damage from what they acknowledge was a severe political error — failing to consult with Congress, state and city officials, and the port authorities — and their insistence that the review of the transaction was considered closed.


Grading Homeland Security Progress

Grading Homeland Security Progress

Army to Pay Halliburton Unit Most Costs Disputed by Audit - New York Times

Army to Pay Halliburton Unit Most Costs Disputed by Audit - New York Times

What's wrong with this picture?

The Army has decided to reimburse a Halliburton subsidiary for nearly all of its disputed costs on a $2.41 billion no-bid contract to deliver fuel and repair oil equipment in Iraq, even though the Pentagon's own auditors had identified more than $250 million in charges as potentially excessive or unjustified.

The Army said in response to questions on Friday that questionable business practices by the subsidiary, Kellogg Brown & Root, had in some cases driven up the company's costs. But in the haste and peril of war, it had largely done as well as could be expected, the Army said, and aside from a few penalties, the government was compelled to reimburse the company for its costs.

Under the type of contract awarded to the company, "the contractor is not required to perform perfectly to be entitled to reimbursement," said Rhonda James, a spokeswoman for the southwestern division of the United States Army Corps of Engineers, based in Dallas, where the contract is administered.

The contract has been the subject of intense scrutiny after disclosures in 2003 that it had been awarded without competitive bidding. That produced criticism from Congressional Democrats and others that the company had benefited from its connection with Dick Cheney, who was Halliburton's chief executive before becoming vice president.

Later that year auditors began focusing on the fuel deliveries under the contract, finding that the fuel transportation costs that the company was charging the Army were in some cases nearly triple what others were charging to do the same job. But Kellogg Brown & Root, which has consistently maintained that its costs were justified, characterized the Army's decision as an official repudiation of those criticisms.

"Once all the facts were fully examined, it is clear, and now confirmed, that KBR performed this work appropriately per the client's direction and within the contract terms," said Cathy Mann, a company spokeswoman, in a written statement on the decision. The company's charges, she said, "were deemed properly incurred."

The Pentagon's Defense Contract Audit Agency had questioned $263 million in costs for fuel deliveries, pipeline repairs and other tasks that auditors said were potentially inflated or unsupported by documentation. But the Army decided to pay all but $10.1 million of those contested costs, which were mostly for trucking fuel from Kuwait and Turkey.

That means the Army is withholding payment on just 3.8 percent of the charges questioned by the Pentagon audit agency, which is far below the rate at which the agency's recommendation is usually followed or sustained by the military — the so-called "sustention rate."

Figures provided by the Pentagon audit agency on thousands of military contracts over the past three years show how far the Halliburton decision lies outside the norm.

In 2003, the agency's figures show, the military withheld an average of 66.4 percent of what the auditors had recommended, while in 2004 the figure was 75.2 percent and in 2005 it was 56.4 percent.

Rick Barton, co-director of the postconflict reconstruction project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said despite the difficulties of doing business in a war zone, the low rate of recovery on such huge and widely disputed charges was hard to understand. "To think that it's near zero is ridiculous when you're talking these kinds of numbers," he said.

The Halliburton contract is referred to as a "cost-plus" agreement, meaning that after the company recovers its costs, it also receives various markups and award fees. Although the markups and fees are difficult to calculate exactly using the Army figures, they appear to be about $100 million.

One of Halliburton's most persistent critics, Representative Henry A. Waxman, a California Democrat who is the ranking minority member of the House Committee on Government Reform, said in a written statement about the Army's decision, "Halliburton gouged the taxpayer, government auditors caught the company red-handed, yet the Pentagon ignored the auditors and paid Halliburton hundreds of millions of dollars and a huge bonus."

About $208 million of the disputed charges was mostly related to the cost of importing fuel, which was at the heart of the controversy surrounding the contract. Kellogg Brown & Root hired a little-known Kuwaiti company, Altanmia, to transport fuel in enormous truck convoys. The Pentagon auditors found that in part because of the transportation fees that Kellogg Brown & Root agreed to pay Altanmia, the cost for a gallon of gasoline was roughly 40 percent higher than what the American military paid when it did the job itself — under a separate contract it had negotiated with Altanmia.

Photobucket