|
|
|
The Journal of South Asian Non-Proliferation December, 2008 Editorial Staff
|
|
|
The Journal of
South Asian Non-Proliferation is an online compendium of non-proliferation
related publications.
It is a periodic compilation of news, official statements, and expert analyses
related to South Asian non-proliferation issues.
|
|
|
Supporting worldwide understanding of South Asian non-proliferation, arms control and disarmament issues. The Journal of South Asian Non-Proliferation CONTENTSNUCLEAR RELATED ISSUES á
Leader:
Pakistan wonŐt be first in nuclear strike á
AF Moves in Right Direction on Nuke
Program á
Russia, Libya sign civil nuclear deal as Kadhafi visits: Tripoli á
Former Speaker: Iran Views WMD as Useless Tool á The Weakest Link: More Delays in Nuclear Detection at Borders á
Gates's nuclear
brief á
Brazil wants
UNSC to drop Iran nuclear case á
Brown wants
greater nuclear links á
Nuclear
technology will strengthen IranŐs independence: Larijani á
Election breathes
new life into nuclear debate MISSILE RELATED ISSUES á
NATO
says still backs plan for U.S. missile shield á
Missile
defense needs to be scaled back á
Pakistani
Army Tests Missile Capable of Shooting Down Drones OPINION / EDITORIAL á
No Nukes á
Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World á
ObamaŐs Victory CHEM / BIO á
Terrorists may
switch to nuke & biological warfare, says Patil CLIMATE / ENERGY á
Jordan, France's Areva discuss plans to
build nuclear plant á
Bahrain To Host Seminar On Climate Change á
RP plans to start
up 600-MW nuclear power plant by 2025 á
Governors push climate agenda: State
leaders sign pact to work with other nations á
NASA scientist cites 'global-warming
emergency' á
New Nuclear
Option at Nanticoke Good News for Jobs, Investment á
Nuclear energy a must for the Kingdom SUMMARIES
Leader: Pakistan won't be first in nuclear strike ISLAMABAD,
Pakistan - 23 November 2008 (AP) — Pakistan's president has assured
rival India he would not be the first to use atomic weapons in any future
conflict and proposed the idea of a nuclear-free South Asia. Pakistan's
nuclear doctrine, unlike India's, does not contain a clause saying the
country will not use its weapons first in conflict. It was not clear
if President Asif Ali Zardari's comments, made Saturday during a video
conference question-and-answer session organized by The Hindustan Times
newspaper of India, represented a formal change in policy. Asked by a
student whether Pakistan was prepared to say it would not use a nuclear
weapon first, Zardari said: "Most defiantly, I am against nuclear warfare
altogether," he said. The moderator
then asked the question again, pointing out to Zardari that his earlier
answer was a "headline." Zardari again replied,
"Definitely." Zardari proposed the idea of a nuclear-free South
Asia, saying he could persuade lawmakers to support such a plan, the reports
said. AF Moves in Right Direction on
Nuke Program (October 30, 2008 Air Force Print News) WASHINGTON -
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates pointed to broad initiatives within the Air
Force he said are helping to return its nuclear mission to "the
standards of excellence for which it was known throughout the entire Cold
War." Secretary Gates credited Airmen with helping Air Force officials
recover from problems that came to light over the past year regarding the
handling of nuclear weapons and related material. Those issues involved a
mistaken shipment of sensitive missions parts to Taiwan in 2006, and an
unauthorized transfer of munitions from Minot Air Force Base, N.D., to
Barksdale AFB, La., in August 2007. Russia, Libya sign civil nuclear deal as Kadhafi visits: Tripoli (November 2, 2008) MOSCOW
(AFP) — Libya and Russia signed a civil nuclear cooperation deal
Saturday, Tripoli's foreign minister said, as Moamer Kadhafi visited Moscow
for talks he said could help restore "geopolitical equilibrium".A
cooperation agreement was signed in the area of the peaceful use of civilian
nuclear, particularly in the design and construction of reactors and the
supply of nuclear fuel," said Abdelrahman Chalgham, who accompanied
Kadhafi. The deal also extended to nuclear use in medicine and nuclear waste
treatment, he said.The Kremlin made no comment, and Russian government
spokesman Dmitry Peskov said no such agreement had been signed during the
meeting between Kadhafi and Putin. Former Speaker: Iran Views WMD as Useless Tool (November 1, 2008) TEHRAN
(FNA)- Weapons of mass destruction (WMD) are not the key to solving current
world problems, Iran's former Parliament Speaker Gholam Ali Haddad Adel said.
"The Islamic Republic is not seeking to obtain nuclear weapons since its
power already emanates from its people," Haddad Adel said in an
interview with Kuwaiti newspaper al-Rai al-Alam. "Tehran's nuclear work
poses no threat to the region," Haddad Adel added, stressing that Iran
was "on the right track" with respect to its nuclear program. The Weakest Link: More Delays in
Nuclear Detection at Borders Experts: Proposed
Technology Not Worth $3 Billion Price Tag (October 31, 2008 ) It is one of the
most likely ways that terrorists can cause mass casualties – a crude
nuclear device smuggled into the country via a cargo container, truck, or
boat. Yet, experts say, seven years after the 9/11 attacks, a gaping nuclear
loophole remains at the nation's borders and seaports. (November 3, 2008) IN A SPEECH before a
think tank Tuesday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates suggested that upgrading
America's nuclear weapons is a good way to discourage proliferation around
the globe. His argument before the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
was provocative - but also persuasive. Gates's key recommendations for
securing, modernizing, and reducing the US nuclear stockpile should be heeded
by Congress and by the next president. Brazil wants UNSC to drop Iran nuclear case Brown
wants greater nuclear links ABU DHABI // November 02. 2008 - Gordon Brown,
the British prime minister, will today push for strengthened co-operation on
civil nuclear and green energy projects during a visit to Abu Dhabi. Britain
is one of eight nuclear powers co-operating with the Government in its
preparations to become the first Arab nation with atomic power. Britain and
the Emirates signed a co-operative agreement on civil nuclear energy in May
after the UAE indicated its wishes to develop a peaceful nuclear programme. Nuclear technology will strengthen
IranŐs independence: Larijani TEHRAN (IRNA) – On Saturday, Majlis
Speaker Ali Larijani criticized efforts by certain Western countries which
are trying to prevent Iran from getting access to peaceful nuclear
technology, saying Iran is trying to strengthen its independence through its
peaceful nuclear energy program. Election breathes new life into nuclear
debate WASHINGTON: Mon Nov 3, (Reuters) - Whether it is [was] Barack
Obama or John
McCain, the new U.S. president will take over one of
the most awesome of responsibilities -- his finger will be on the trigger of
the country's huge nuclear arsenal.In advance of the election, some of
Washington's most influential national security thinkers have argued for a
dramatic shift in U.S. policy, to actively pursue the eventual elimination of
all nuclear weapons from the Earth.Many dismiss this goal as a dream, given
the lack of trust among the nuclear weapons powers and the entrenched role
that atomic weapons have in the global balance of power.But Democratic front-runner
Obama, who is leading in polls before Tuesday's election, endorsed it and his
Republican rival John
McCain said he hopes to move to "the lowest
possible number" of U.S. nuclear weapons. "I will not authorize the development of new nuclear
weapons," Obama said in September. "And I will make the goal of
eliminating nuclear weapons worldwide a central element of U.S. nuclear
policy."
NATO says still backs plan for U.S.
missile shield BRUSSELS, Nov 17
(Reuters) - NATO reaffirmed on Monday its backing for a planned U.S. missile
shield in Europe after French President Nicolas Sarkozy said it would bring
no extra security on the continent. NATO leaders
including Sarkozy welcomed U.S. plans to deploy the missile shield in Poland
and the Czech Republic as a "substantial contribution to the protection
of allies" at a summit in Bucharest last April. Washington says the
shield will protect the United States and its allies from attack by
"rogue" states such as Iran and North Korea and rejects Russia's argument
that it is a direct threat to its territory. But after talks with
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on Friday, Sarkozy said that deploying the
U.S. anti-missile system would do "nothing to bring security and
complicates things". NATO spokeswoman Carmen
Romero said the alliance's position had not changed. Missile defense needs to be scaled back 22 November 2008- In
the past few years the Bush administration has pursued the creation of a
missile defense system in Europe that is geared toward defending against
ballistic missiles from Iran or others in the Middle East. This issue has
been a significant point of contention between the United States and Russia
due to the Russian perception that the system is actually intended to
infringe on their nuclear power. The various players—including Poland,
NATO, and U.S. military official as proponents of this project and Russia,
France, and academics as critics—are extremely interested in the
thoughts of President-elect Obama on missile defense. President Medvedev of
Russia wasted little time in making aggressive moves intended to ŇneutralizeÓ
the missile defense system by placing missiles on the border with Poland,
where the system is intended to be based. A few days later Polish President
Lech Kaczynski claimed, apparently falsely, that Obama had verbally vowed to
continue the program. Despite their best efforts, the various players have
failed to force ObamaŐs hand into committing either way. Obama has, in the
past, stated that Ňwe need missile defense because of Iran and North Korea
and the potential for them to obtain or to launch nuclear weapons.Ó However,
he has expressed doubts about the actual effectiveness of the current
technology and claims that he would not support a system that wouldnŐt
fulfill its function. Pakistani Army Tests Missile Capable of
Shooting Down Drones Nov. 21 (Bloomberg) -- Pakistan successfully
tested a short- range, surface-to-air missile capable of destroying drones,
the country's military said, two days after protesting to the U.S. over
attacks on its territory by the unmanned aircraft. ``The elements of army air
defense demonstrated their shooting skills by targeting drones flying at
different altitudes,'' according to a statement posted today on the
military's Web site. The test took place during an exercise that also involved
the use of radar-controlled guns. The government in Islamabad
summoned U.S. Ambassador Anne W. Patterson on Nov. 19, for the second time in
a month, to demand a halt to strikes on its soil by American forces based in
neighboring Afghanistan. On Nov. 18, U.S. forces extended their attacks for
the first time to an area beyond Pakistan's tribal region along the border,
the Foreign Ministry said.
Once a quixotic
slogan, the idea of actually dismantling every nuclear weapon is attracting
mainstream policy thinkers By Drake Bennett - Boston.com - November 23, 2008 FOR MANY AMERICANS, the
idea of a world without nuclear weapons is a bit like the idea of a world
without war or disease - it would be nice, but, contra John Lennon, it's hard
to imagine. That's not to say lots of
people haven't devoted themselves to the cause. As the atomic age was
dawning, Gandhi was already demanding its end, and today Pope Benedict XVI
echoes that call. A host of international organizations, from Greenpeace to
Mayors for Peace to the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament to the German Green
Party, are dedicated to the abolition of nuclear weapons. Many of them have
been at it for decades. The movement, however, has
always carried utopian associations, and been conflated in the popular
imagination with pacifism. The leaders of the world's nuclear powers, their
global stature buttressed by their atomic arsenals, have, with a few
exceptions, shown little real interest in the idea. This is changing. Total
nuclear disarmament - "getting to zero" in the arms-control argot -
has become a mainstream cause. Voices from the heights of the American
foreign policy establishment have begun to argue that, in a world of
inevitably unruly globalization, increasing interest in nuclear energy,
incomplete alliances, ambitious suicide terrorists, and ever-present human
fallibility, it will never be enough to improve controls on the world's
nuclear weapons, or to reduce their numbers. We have to commit to eliminating
them altogether. These arguments are being
made not by popes and mahatmas and Greens but by former secretaries of state
and secretaries of defense, by generals and nuclear scientists, Democrats and
Republicans. The leaders of the new no-nuke movement are George Shultz, Henry
Kissinger, William Perry, and Sam Nunn, four of the most respected figures in
American foreign policy circles. Over the past two years, they have, in
speeches, at arms-control conferences and, most prominently, in two widely
circulated op-ed pieces, lent their authority to an idea that is still seen
as fairly radical. And there is evidence that
these arguments are being taken seriously by the people who are going to be
making decisions about nuclear policy in the new administration. On the
campaign trail, Barack Obama repeatedly committed himself to a nuclear-free
future. One of his key foreign policy advisers, Ivo Daalder, coauthored an
article in the current issue of Foreign Affairs, a leading foreign policy
journal, laying out a plan for how to get there. No one is arguing that this
is a goal that will be reached in the next eight years, but there's a sense
that for the first time in a long while, real and significant movement in
that direction is possible. "The reaction has
amazed me," says Shultz, who served as Ronald Reagan's secretary of
state. "People realize that the future, if we just keep going as we are,
is not very inviting." The newfound prominence of
the nuclear abolitionist idea has heartened longtime activists, and it has
alarmed some nuclear experts, who see it as a rash rejection of a strategy
that, for all its perils, proved effective at making the second half of the
20th century far less bloody than the first. "It's an unserious
idea espoused by serious people," says Robert Jervis, a professor of
international affairs and security policy at Columbia University. "It's
a little puzzling." Regardless, though, this
new vision has pushed a reexamination of not only how to get to a nonnuclear
world, but how to stay there. And it raises a set of koan-like questions with
thorny practical implications. In a world in which former nuclear powers
could keep their bomb-building know-how even if they get rid of their bombs,
is zero enough? If not, then what would be? How can we ever ensure that a
technology as potent as this one will not be used? The new no-nukes forces
realize the enormity of the challenge, and they're beginning to offer
answers. It took time for nuclear
weapons to acquire their air of ineradicability. Even before Fat Man and
Little Boy were dropped on Japan, some of the very scientists who had brought
the weapons into existence were arguing that the world would be better off
without them. In 1946, the Truman administration submitted to the United
Nations a now unimaginable plan under which the United States - at that point
still the world's sole nuclear power - would turn over its arsenal to an
international body, as long as the rest of the world's nations pledged not to
develop atomic weapons of their own and submitted to regular inspections to
verify it. The Soviet Union balked, and the plan was dropped. After the Soviet Union
acquired its own nuclear arsenal, and as the Cold War began in earnest, such
efforts came to seem unworkable and naive. With little trust between the two
superpowers, American policy makers saw the threat of overwhelming nuclear
devastation as the only guarantee of peace - especially given the clear
advantage in conventional forces that the Soviets would possess in a European
conflict. And while the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which the United
States signed in 1968, committed those nations with nuclear weapons to work
toward total disarmament, none of them truly have. For George Shultz, the
first vision of what that disarmament might look like came at the Reykjavik
summit in 1986. With Shultz at the table with them, Reagan and Mikhail
Gorbachev famously found themselves on the brink of agreeing to give up their
nations' entire nuclear arsenals - the plan only collapsed over Reagan's
refusal to relinquish his ambitions for a missile defense system and
Gorbachev's equally stubborn refusal to accept such a system. But for all its historical
drama, many of Reagan's top aides and allies saw Reykjavik as a catastrophe
narrowly averted. As Shultz describes it, when Reagan talked about a
nuclear-free future, "most of the experts around him sort of patted him
on the head and tolerated it, but didn't take it seriously." Immediately
after returning from Iceland, Shultz was summoned to a meeting with Margaret
Thatcher at which she subjected him to a ferocious tongue-lashing for his
complicity in what she saw as Reagan's recklessness. Richard Nixon claimed
that the summit had been as perilous to Western interests as any since Yalta,
when Eastern Europe was ceded to the Soviets. Among the other vocal critics
was Sam Nunn, then a Democratic US senator from Georgia and one of his
party's leading voices on foreign affairs. The fact that Nunn is now
one of the leading nuclear abolitionists suggests how much the landscape has
changed. In a move that reverberated loudly through the small world of
nuclear policy thinkers, Nunn, along with Shultz, Perry, and Kissinger,
published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal in January 2007 urging a
commitment to "a world free of nuclear weapons and working energetically
on the actions required to achieve that goal." Many of the concrete
steps they outlined, both in that piece and in a follow-up a year later, were
uncontroversial: better security for nuclear weapons and weapons materials,
taking missiles off high alert so they're less likely to be launched
accidentally, reducing stockpiles, and strengthening compliance with existing
arms-control agreements. But their explicit invocation of a
post-nuclear-weapons world gave their argument a galvanizing power. Rather than recoiling in
horror, much of the foreign policy establishment has embraced the
abolitionist idea. In one form or another, former high-ranking officials
including Colin Powell, Madeleine Albright, James A. Baker III, Zbigniew
Brzezinski, William Cohen, Lawrence Eagleburger, Anthony Lake and Robert
McNamara, among others, have signed on to the cause. Today's abolitionists argue
that the international picture has changed dramatically since Reykjavik, in a
way that scrambles the traditional cost-benefit calculation around nuclear
weapons. Most obviously, the Cold War is over, and with it much of the logic
of a massive nuclear deterrent. And at the same time, the risks that come
with nuclear weapons have only grown. In place of an expansionist Soviet
Union, one of the greatest threats to the United States today is a suicide
terrorist with a crude nuclear device in a truck, or on a motorboat in a
big-city harbor. And with more countries now possessing nuclear weapons - and
a still larger number pursuing nuclear energy - the number of places where
nuclear materials could be acquired is growing. All of this is on top of the
continued risk of an accidental apocalypse from malfunction or human error. "There's a greater
danger today [from nuclear weapons], and they've become less relevant to our
defense," says Sidney Drell, a physicist and emeritus Stanford professor
who has worked closely with Shultz in developing his arguments for abolition. Nunn's own
"evolution," as he describes it, came from the realization that
even the most basic efforts at international coordination on nuclear issues
were increasingly hampered by a sense among nonnuclear states that nuclear
powers like the United States were ignoring their own obligation to disarm.
"That's what we signed up for in 1968," he says, referring to the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. "The general view out there when you
get behind the scenes, even with some of our allies, is, 'We don't like Iran
and North Korea, but what kind of hypocrites are you?' " Skeptics of going to zero
don't so much disagree with any of these arguments as find them wholly
inadequate as a justification for so radical a step. First of all, they
argue, there is the question of how we could ensure that no one decided to
keep a few carefully hidden weapons. Even with a moderately intrusive
inspection regime, a country could easily secret away a dozen warheads, and
in a world in which no one else has them, that would be an extremely potent
threat. "Zero is a very
unstable number," says Jervis. But the real danger would
arise if the world actually did manage to stay free of nuclear weapons,
critics say. They worry that, freed from the nuclear shadow, national leaders
would be more reckless, picking fights that they would have shied away from
in a nuclear world, where all-out war has cataclysmic consequences. Michael
May, the former director of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, uses
the example of the recent conflagration between Russia and Georgia, which, he
argues, would have been more likely to draw in the United States and escalate
into a broader war if not for the clarifying backdrop of the American and
Russian nuclear arsenals. "The real example is
not the Cold War," May says. "It is World War I or II. They show
how advanced countries, no matter their interests, can stumble into war, or
be led by a demagogue." But while the abolitionists
concede that the path will be difficult, they maintain that the greater risk
is to keep the weapons. And a few analysts have started thinking, in as
specific a way as possible, about the steps necessary to get there. In the coming years,
arms-control experts believe one of the trickiest tensions is going to be
between the need to control the world's supply of weapons-grade fissile
material and the need to feed the world's growing nuclear energy industry -
an expansion helped along by concerns about climate change, pollution, and
the world's long-term oil and gas supplies. One suggestion is to create
a single international body, with a sweeping global mandate, that would
control and track all of the world's fissile material, no matter its form -
something like the current-day International Atomic Energy Agency, but far
larger and better-funded. Such a body would be able to spot any diversions to
potential terrorists, and would trace and verify cuts in stockpiles. The other major question is
what, if anything, countries can use as a deterrent in place of nuclear
missiles. (This is less of a worry for the United States than other countries
- in a nuclear-free world our conventional military dominance would be all
the more pronounced.) In a paper published this summer, George Perkovich and
James Acton, two nuclear proliferation experts at the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, weighed two options. One was an international body that
would control the world's remaining nuclear weapons and be empowered to use
them on rogue nations - a set-up that seems, for the foreseeable future,
politically implausible. The second was more
intriguing. It was a proposal, first suggested in 1984 by the writer and
nuclear analyst Jonathan Schell, for "virtual" nuclear arsenals. In
effect, the world's nuclear powers would dismantle all of their weapons, but
maintain everything they need to quickly build new ones - fissile material,
trained engineers, production facilities. If threatened, a country could have
a new arsenal built in weeks. Whether or not nations
would consider this an effective deterrent, Schell's idea also raises the
question of what, exactly, going to zero means. Would we actually be living
in a nuclear-free world if there were no nuclear weapons but dozens of
nuclear-weapons facilities poised to churn them out if need be? Some thinkers have
suggested that better than zero might actually be, say, 10 weapons, if those
bare-bones arsenals were combined with a coordinated missile-defense system
to protect against the risks of accidental launches. Schell himself prefers to
talk in terms of "degrees below zero." "If you took all the
bombs off the delivery vehicles and took the guts out of the bombs, and you
stored them in underground locations, in some sense that might be zero or
some level below that. If you melted down the fissile material that's another
degree below it," he says. "You're driving the technology ever
backward." Even if we wanted to, of
course, we could not make the world's nuclear scientists forget how to build
bombs. What is possible, say the abolitionists, is that, through patient,
determined effort, we find ways to make that knowledge as obsolete as
possible. "It's a bad phrase, 'Putting
the genie back in the bottle,' " says Jan Lodal, a former senior
Pentagon and White House official in the Nixon, Ford, and Clinton
administrations and the coauthor of the current Foreign Affairs article.
"You can't uninvent the technology. But you build a new bottle, a bigger
bottle, and you make it stronger." Global
Trends 2025: A Transformed World We prepared Global Trends 2025:
A Transformed World to stimulate strategic thinking about the future by identifying key trends,thefactors that drive
them,where they seem to be headed, and how they
might interact. It uses
scenarios to illustrate some of the many ways in which the drivers
examined in the study (e.g., globalization, demography, the
rise of new powers, the decay of international institutions, climate change, and the geopolitics of energy) may interact to generate
challenges and opportunities for future
decisionmakers. The study as a
whole is more a description of the factors
likely to shape events than a prediction of what will actually happen. Dawn On-Line Edition – November 6 2008 - EVEN
if he had failed in his bid for the presidency, Barack Obama would have
succeeded in transforming the face of US politics, and possibly changing
forever the way Americans think. In the event he pulled off a feat that was
not only historic but revolutionary, and perhaps even miraculous. He was
born, after all, in a country where it was unthinkable until very recently
that a black person could be nominated by one of the major parties, let alone
become president. The times, it is clear, are changing in America. A majority
of citizens have let it be known, in emphatic fashion, that they want their
nation to pursue a different course, a new direction. Given the enormity of
the problems inherited by the president-elect, the US may continue to falter
in areas of governance, economic resurrection and foreign policy. But pause
and look at the fine print, which ought really to be in bold. The nationŐs
social fabric has been strengthened immeasurably: it has been to the
darnerŐs, the cleanerŐs and then back to the people. Putting a black man in
the White House is a staggering achievement for America where millions of
voters chose this year to look at the person, not his race. This wholehearted
embrace of multiculturalism will also lift AmericaŐs battered image abroad
and tell the world that better things may — and thatŐs a big may,
admittedly — be expected of a superpower that has ridden roughshod over
real and imagined adversaries in the last eight years when intellect and the
White House became mutually exclusive. George W. BushŐs utterances may have
been a source of amusement abroad but were also a source of shame for
educated Americans. It has been said that Mr
ObamaŐs bid for the top job in Washington was more a movement than a campaign,
on the grounds that movements inspire while campaigns are either just
supported or opposed. And inspire he certainly did. He became a symbol of
change, and with his oratorical genius and serene demeanour led many to
believe that it was time to turn not just the leaf but to close a chapter.
And that, yes, it could be done. John McCain, in contrast, represented for
the majority a continuation of the past — and a moribund past at that.
He ran a decent campaign, however, for he is a person who has always distanced
himself from the ultra-right-wing fringe of his party. Even if that position
lost him some votes, it wouldnŐt have been decisive. The world awaits how America
will reposition itself — or not. Here in Pakistan, Mr ObamaŐs earlier
take on the issue of militancy was sometimes seen as somewhat short-sighted
and belligerent. The US certainly cannot go it alone without the support of
Pakistan (that is a reality that America must acknowledge publicly if it is
an honest broker). But Pakistan too has to understand that a different mood
now prevails in Washington. There will be a clear tendency on the part of our
patrons to pour money into democracy as opposed to autocracy.
Terrorists may switch to nuke &
biological warfare, says Patil NEW DELHI: 23 Nov 2008, The
alleged involvement of Hindu radical groups in recent incidents of terror and
communal violence came up for discussion during the meeting of DGPs here,
leading to the consensus that all states and UTs must take stock of the
presence of such extremists outfits and their fronts and keep a watchful eye
on their activities. Though
no particular Hindu outfitŐs name cropped up during the deliberations at the
two-day DGP conference being organised by IB, the statesŐ nod for a
data-check on radical saffron outfits comes days after the Centre wrote to
all state chief secretaries seeking details of outfits like Bajrang Dal and
the criminal cases pending against their functionaries.
Jordan, France's Areva discuss plans to build nuclear plant AMMAN, Nov. 2 (Xinhua) -- Energy-thirsty
Jordan on Sunday discussed with French nuclear giant Areva plans to join
hands to build a nuclear plant in the kingdom. Talks between Jordan's Prime
Minister Nader Dahabi and visiting Areva CEO Anne Lauvergeon covered a
timetable for the project, Areva's key role in helping Jordan raise
sufficient funds for construction, and operation of the nuclear power
facility. The two sides also discussed to establish a French university in
the port city of Ababa to train Jordanians in fields including nuclear
energy, information technology and applied sciences. Jordan has signed an
agreement with Areva on uranium exploration and mining last month. Areva was
reported to embark on a uranium project in Jordan in November. Bahrain To Host Seminar On Climate
Change MANAMA, NOV. 23
(BNA) -- The kingdom of Bahrain will host a seminar next Wednesday and
Thursday under the theme of Energy and Climate change: Challenges and
Opportunities. The event will be organized by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
in coordination with the National Oil and Gas Authority (NOGA) and the
General Commission for the Protection of Marine Resources, Environment and
Wildlife. the Foreign Ministry and the other organizers have resorted to the
thai embassy in the kingdom to help them finalize the procedures and invite
the asian cooperation dialogue states for Thailands active role in the group.
a host of issues will be tackled by the symposium including climate change,
clean fuel technology, exchange of expertise, ways of reducing emissions and
how acd could benefit from relevant un programmes. RP plans to start up 600-MW nuclear power plant by 2025 (November 03, 2008) The Philippines plans to start up its first
600-megawatt (MW) nuclear power plant by 2025, according to data from the
Department of Energy (DOE). In its
latest Philippine Energy Plan (PEP), it was noted that the new nuclear power
facility is expected to contribute 0.885 million tonne oil equivalent (MTOE)
to the projected energy mix and will reach up to 3.54 MTOE by 2035. Governors push climate agenda: State leaders sign pact to work with other nations Nov. 22,
2008, State leaders are cheering President-elect Barack Obama's plans to make
addressing climate change a national priority — but say they'll
continue to move forward on their own. At a
first-of-its-kind climate change meeting in Beverly Hills, international and
state leaders said the problems that global warming present to the world are
too big not to do everything possible to address it. "When
you realize the kind of impact that climate change can have on a state like
Florida, as any other ... I think the people of our respective states expect
us to at least try to make a difference," Fla. Gov. Charlie Crist said
last week at the conference hosted by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. International
climate help Rising sea
levels and other global warming-related problems could devastate Florida and
its tourist-driven economy, Crist said. He and 12 other governors, as well as
leaders from five other countries, signed a wide-reaching agreement Wednesday
to work together on strategies to combat global warming. NASA
scientist cites 'global-warming emergency' NASA physicist says public
awareness lags about the 'hundreds of millions' of people worldwide will
sufffer from lack of water, rising seas Time is running out to prevent
catastrophic consequences from global warming, a leading climate scientist
warned a packed audience Thursday at Stanford University. Physicist James E. Hansen,
director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said hundreds of
millions of people will lose fresh water sources and hundreds of millions of
others will be displaced by rising sea levels if fossil fuel emissions remain
on their current course. "We've reached a point
where we have a crisis, an emergency, but people don't know that,"
Hansen told a packed Stanford audience Thursday night. "There's a big gap between
what's understood about global warming by the scientific community and what
is known by the public and policymakers." Hansen, who first warned about
climate change in testimony to Congress in the late 198s, said a path out of
the crisis is, "barely, still possible." Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters:
New Nuclear Option at Nanticoke Good News for Jobs, Investment Nov 3 2008: Canadian Manufacturers &
Exporters (CME) expressed support for Bruce Power's announcement that the
company was launching a planning process to consider the construction of two
new nuclear units at Nanticoke.
The
news means the region could benefit from billions in new private investment
and thousands of new jobs if the project proceeds. Ontario manufacturers
could significantly benefit given the significant amount of upfront
investment Bruce Power would make during construction. Nuclear energy a must for the Kingdom
|
|||||||||
|
|