PJ 103
CHAPTER 9
REC #1 HATONN
THU., JUL. 21, 1994 3:31 P.M. YEAR 7, DAY 338
THU., JUL. 21, 1994
The following presentation is "hot" enough that it has been brought to me for consideration as to how to handle it. Well, it is not the "heat" of the document which is in point but rather the quality of the documents from the FAX machine.
Because I want this type of information dispersed along with the other usurper information--we need to put everything of this nature to computer disc for use now as well as later--and of course, for publication.
PRESIDENTIAL DECISION DIRECTIVE
(PDD)-25
This is classified information and therefore I think that until I have clearance from parties involved--I will refrain from using sources for the information itself. Let us be grateful to have as much as has come through. We will type exactly as presented to us but readers must understand right up front that the last sentence or so of EACH FAX page is missing or so inked that it is not legible. In most instances it is not important so we will go with what we have and as others get copies perhaps you can fill in the missing portions or incorrect copy, please. This document has been so "classified" that even Senators have been unable to obtain a summary of it. We are under the impression that THIS is a summary. Senators seeking a summary have been denied under the shelter of "Foreign Policy".
The source of this material we pass on has an information comment also: "I am told that the President can issue an executive order, or PDD (Presidential Decision Directive), or similar order--legally. This was tested in the Supreme Court based on the powers of the Executive office.
[From intro to Fax:] "A President can also 'delegate' his power and authority, according to the court. This may soon be challenged."
It is obvious by Executive Order 12919--that the above is true in fact, even if not lawfully. These are the things you MUST attend, readers, as bit by mortal piece is torn away from your lives of freedom and Constitutional government.
THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION'S POLICY ON
REFORMING MULTILATERAL PEACE OPERATIONS
MAY 1994
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Last year, President Clinton ordered an inter-agency review of our nation's peacekeeping policies and programs in order to develop a comprehensive policy framework suited to the realities of the post-Cold War period. This policy review has resulted in a Presidential Decision Directive (PDD). The President signed this Directive, following the completion of extensive consultations with Members of Congress. This paper summarizes the key elements of that directive. [H: Wouldn't you like to know WHICH members of Congress?]
As specified in the "Bottom-Up Review", the primary mission of the U.S. Armed Forces remains to be prepared to fight and win two simultaneous regional conflicts. In this context, peacekeeping can be one useful tool to help prevent and resolve such conflicts before they pose direct threats to our national security. Peacekeeping can also serve U.S. interests by promoting democracy, regional security, and economic growth.
The policy directive (PDD) addresses six major issues of reform and improvement:
1. Making disciplined and coherent choices about which peace operations to support--both when we vote in the Security Council for UN peace operations and when we participate in such operations with U.S. troops.
To achieve this goal, the policy directive sets forth three increasingly rigorous standards of review for U.S. support for or participation in peace operations, with the most stringent applying to U.S. participation in missions that may involve combat. The policy directive affirms that peacekeeping can be a useful tool for advancing U.S. national security interests in some-circumstances, but both U.S. and UN involvement in peacekeeping must be selective and more effective.
2. Reducing U.S. costs for UN peace operations, both the percentage our nation pays for each operation and the cost of the operations themselves.
To achieve this goal, the policy directive orders that we work to reduce our peacekeeping assessment percentage from the current 31.7% to 25% by January 1, 1996, and proposes a number of specific steps to reduce the cost of UN peace operations.
3. Defining clearly our policy regarding the command and control of American military forces in UN peace operations.
The policy directive underscores the fact that the President will never relinquish command of U.S. forces. However, as Commander-in-chief, the President has the authority to place U.S. forces under the operational control of a foreign commander when doing so serves American security interests, just as American leaders have done numerous times since the Revolutionary War, including in Operation Desert Storm.
The greater the anticipated U.S. military role, the less likely it will be that the U.S. will agree to have a UN commander exercise overall operational control over U.S. forces. Any large scale participation of U.S. forces in a major peace enforcement operation that is likely to involve combat should ordinarily be conducted under U.S. command and operational control or through competent regional organizations such as NATO or ad hoc coalitions.
4. Reforming and improving the UN's capability to manage peace operations.
The policy recommends 11 steps to strengthen UN management of peace operations and directs U.S. support for strengthening the UN's planning, logistics, information and command and control capabilities.
5. Improving the way the U.S. government manages and funds peace operations.
The policy directive creates a new "shared responsibility" approach to managing and funding UN peace operations within the U.S. Government. Under this approach, the Department of Defense will take lead management and funding responsibility for those UN operations that involve U.S. combat units and those that are likely to involve combat, whether or not U.S. troops are involved. This approach will ensure that military expertise is brought to bear on those operations that have a significant military component.
The State Department will retain lead management and funding responsibility for traditional peacekeeping operations that do not involve U.S. combat units. In all cases, the State Department remains responsible for the conduct of diplomacy and instruction to embassies and our UN Mission in New York.
6. Creating better forms of cooperation between the Executive, the Congress and the American public on peace operations.
The policy directive sets out seven proposals for increasing and regularizing the flow of information and consultation between the executive branch and Congress; the President believes U.S. support for and participation in UN peace operations can only succeed over the long term with the bipartisan support of Congress and the American people.
KEY ELEMENTS OF THE CLINTON
ADMINISTRATION'S POLICY ON REFORMING
MULTILATERAL PEACE OPERATIONS
INTRODUCTION:
The Role of Peace Operations in U.S. Foreign Policy. (For simplicity, the term peace operations is used in this document to mean the entire spectrum of activities from traditional peacekeeping to peace enforcement aimed at defusing and resolving international conflicts.)
Serious threats to the security of the United States still exist in the post-Cold War era. New threats will emerge. The United States remains committed to meeting such threats.
When our interests dictate, the U.S. must be willing and able to fight and win wars, unilaterally whenever necessary. To do so, we must create the required capabilities and maintain them ready to use. UN peace operations cannot substitute for this requirement.
Circumstances will arise, however, when multilateral action best serves U.S. interests in preserving or restoring peace. In such cases, the UN can be an important instrument for collective action., UN peace operations can also provide a "force multiplier" in our efforts to promote peace and stability.
During the Cold War, the United Nations could resort to multilateral peace operations only in the few cases when the interests of the Soviet Union and the West did not conflict. In the new strategic environment such operations can serve more often as a cost-effective tool to advance American as well as collective interests in maintaining peace in key regions and create global burden-sharing for peace.
Territorial disputes, armed ethnic conflicts, civil wars (many of which could spill across international borders) and the collapse of governmental authority in some states are among the current threats to peace. While many of these conflicts may not directly threaten American interests, their cumulative effect is significant. The UN has sought to play a constructive role in such situations by mediating disputes and obtaining agreement to ceasefires and political settlements. Where such agreements have been reached, the interposition of neutral forces under UN auspices has, in many cases, helped facilitate lasting peace.
UN peace operations have served important U.S. national interests. In Cambodia, UN efforts led to an election protected by peacekeepers, the return of hundreds of thousands of refugees and the end of a destabilizing regional conflict. In El Salvador, the UN sponsored elections and is helping to end a long and bitter civil war. The UN's supervision of Namibia's transition to independence removed a potential source of conflict in strategic southern Africa and promoted democracy. The UN in Cyprus has prevented the outbreak of war between two NATO allies. Peacekeeping on the Golan Heights has helped preserve peace between Israel and Syria. In Former Yugoslavia, the UN has provided badly-needed humanitarian assistance and helped prevent the conflict from spreading to other parts of the region. UN-imposed sanctions against Iraq, coupled with the peacekeeping operation on the Kuwait border, are constraining Iraq's ability to threaten its neighbors. [H: Are you impressed or sick? This is pure unadulterated lies and garbage!]
Need for Reform
While serving U.S. interests, UN peace operations continue to require improvement and reform. Currently, each operation is created and managed separately, and economies of scale are lost. Likewise, further organizational changes at UN Headquarters would improve efficiency and effectiveness. A fully independent office of Inspector General should be established immediately. The 'U.S. assessment rate should be reduced to 25 per cent.
Since it is in our interest at times to support UN peace operations, it is also in our interest to seek to strengthen UN peacekeeping capabilities and to make operations less expensive in our interest to identify clearly and quickly those peace operations we will support and those we will not. Our policy establishes clear guidelines for making such decisions.
Role in U.S. Foreign Policy
UN and other multilateral peace operations will at times offer the best way to prevent, contain or resolve conflicts that could otherwise be more costly and deadly. In such cases, the U.S. benefits from having to bear only a share of the burden. We also benefit by being able to invoke the voice of the community of nations on behalf of a cause we support. Thus, establishment of a capability to conduct multilateral peace operations is part of our National Security Strategy and National Military Strategy.
While the President never relinquishes command of U.S. force, the participation of U.S. military personnel in UN operations can, in particular circumstances, serve U.S. interests. First, U.S. military participation may, at times, be necessary to persuade others to participate in operations that serve U.S. interests. Second, U.S. participation may be one way to exercise U.S. influence over an important UN mission, without unilaterally bearing the burden. Third, the U.S. may be called upon and choose to provide unique capabilities to important operations that other countries cannot.
In improving our capabilities for peace operations, we will not discard or weaken other tools for achieving U.S. objectives. If U.S. participation in a peace operation were to interfere with our basic military strategy, winning two major regional conflicts nearly simultaneously (as established in the Bottom Up Review), we would place our national interest uppermost. The U.S. will maintain the capability to act unilaterally or in coalition when our most significant interests and those of our friends and allies are at stake. Multilateral peace operations must, therefore, be placed in proper perspective among the instruments of U.S. foreign policy.
The U.S. does not support a standing UN army, nor will we earmark specific U.S. military units for participation in UN operations. We will provide information about U.S. capabilities for data bases and planning purposes.
It is not U.S. policy to seek to expand either the number of UN peace operations or U.S. involvement in such operations. Instead, this policy, which builds upon work begun by previous administrations and is informed by the concerns of the Congress that our use of peacekeeping is selective and more effective. Congress must also be actively involved in the continuing implementation of U.S. policy on peacekeeping.
* * *
I. Supporting the Right Peace Operations
i. Voting New Peace Operations
The U.S. will support well-defined peace operations, generally as a tool to provide finite windows of opportunity to allow combatants to resolve their differences and failed societies to reconstitute themselves. Peace operations would not be open-ended commitments but instead linked to concrete political solutions; otherwise, they normally should not be undertaken. To the greatest extent possible, each UN peace operation should have a specified time frame tied to intermediate or final objectives, an integrated political/military strategy well-coordinated with humanitarian assistance efforts, specified troop levels, and a firm budget estimate. The U.S. will continue to urge the UN Secretariat and Security Council members to engage in rigorous, standard evaluations of all proposed new peace operations.
The Administration will consider the factors below when deciding whether to vote for a proposed new UN peace operation (Chapter VI or Chapter VII) or to support a regionally-sponsored peace operation:
* UN involvement advances U.S. interests, and there is an international community of interest for dealing with the problem on a multilateral basis.
* There is a threat to or breach of international peace and security, often of a regional character, defined as one or a combination of the following:
* International aggression, or;
* Urgent humanitarian disaster coupled with violence;
* Sudden interruption of established democracy or gross violation of human rights coupled with violence, or threat of violence.
* There are clear objectives and an understanding of where the mission fits on the spectrum between traditional peacekeeping and peace enforcement.
* For traditional (Chapter VI) peacekeeping operations, a ceasefire should be in place and the consent of the parties obtained before the force is deployed.
* For peace enforcement (Chapter VII) operations, the threat to international peace and security is considered significant.
* The means to accomplish the mission are available, including the forces, financing and a mandate appropriate to the mission.
* The political, economic and humanitarian consequences of inaction by the international community have been weighed and are considered unacceptable.
* The operation's anticipated duration is tied to clear objectives and realistic criteria for ending the operation.
These factors are an aid in decision-making; they do not by themselves constitute a prescriptive service. Decisions have been and will be based on the cumulative whole of the factors with no single factor necessarily being an absolute determinant. [line missing] ----up for regular renewal by the Security Council to assess the value of continuing them. In appropriate cases, the U.S. will seek voluntary contributions by beneficiary nations or enhanced host nation support to reduce or cover, at least partially, the costs of certain UN operations. The U.S. will also consider voting against renewal of certain long-standing peace operations that are failing to meet established objectives in order to free military and financial resources for more pressing UN missions.
ii. Participating in UN and Other Peace Operations
The Administration will continue to apply even stricter standards when it assesses whether to recommend to the President that U.S. personnel participate in a given peace operation. In addition to the factors listed above, we will consider the following factors: [H: Go read that again please. I thought the President IS the Administration???]
* Participation advances U.S. interests and both the unique and general risks to American personnel have been weighed and are considered acceptable.
* Personnel, funds and other resources are available;
* U.S. participation is necessary for operation's success;
* The role of U.S. forces is tied to clear objectives and an endpoint for U.S. participation can be identified;
* Domestic and Congressional support exists or can be marshalled;
* Command and control arrangements are acceptable.
Additional, even more rigorous factors will be applied when there is the possibility of significant U.S. participation in Chapter VII operations that are likely to involve combat:
* There exists a determination to commit sufficient forces to achieve clearly defined objectives;
* There exists a plan to achieve those objectives decisively;
* There exists a commitment to reassess and adjust, as necessary, the size, composition, and disposition of our forces to achieve our objectives.
Any recommendation to the President will be based on the cumulative weight of the above factors, with no single factor of the above being an absolute determinant.
II. The Role of Regional Organizations
In some cases, the appropriate way to perform peace operations will be to involve regional organizations. The U.S. will continue to emphasize the UN as the primary international body with the authority to conduct peacekeeping operations. At the same time, the U.S. will support efforts to improve regional organizations' peacekeeping capabilities.
When regional organizations or groupings seek to conduct peacekeeping with UNSC [UN Security Council] endorsement, U.S. support will be conditioned on adherence to the principles of the UN Charter and meeting established UNSC criteria, including neutrality, consent of the conflicting parties, formal UNSC oversight and finite, renewal mandates.
With respect to the question of peacekeeping in the territory of the former Soviet Union, requests for "traditional" UN blue-helmeted operations will be considered on the same basis as other requests, using the factors previously outlined (e.g., a threat to international peace and security, clear objectives, etc.). U.S. support for these operations will, as with other such requests, be conditioned on adherence to the principles of the UN Charter and established UNSC criteria.
III. Reducing Costs
Although peacekeeping can be a good investment for the U.S., it would be better and more sustainable if it cost less. The Administration is committed to reducing the U.S. share of peacekeeping costs to 25% by January 1, 1996, down from the current rate of 31.7%. We will also inform the UN of Congress's likely refusal to fund U.S. peacekeeping assessments at a rate higher than 25% after Fiscal Year 1996.
The Administration remains concerned that the UN has not rectified management inefficiencies that result in excessive costs and, on occasion, fraud and abuse. As a matter of priority, the U.S. will continue to press for dramatic administrative and management improvements in the UN system. In particular, the U.S. is working hard to insure that new and on-going peace operations are cost-effective and properly managed. Towards this end, the U.S. is pursuing a number of finance and budget management reforms, including:
* immediate establishment of a permanent, fully independent office of Inspector General with oversight responsibility that included peacekeeping.
* unified budget for all peace operations, with a contingency fund, financed by a single annual peacekeeping assessment;
* standing cadre of professional budget experts from member states, particularly top contributing countries, to assist the UN in developing credible budgets and financial plans;
* enlargement of the revolving peacekeeping reserve fund to $500 million, using voluntary contributions;
- required status of forces/mission agreements that provide preferential host nation support to peacekeeping operations;
* prohibit UN "borrowing" from peacekeeping funds to finance cash shortfalls in regular UN administrative operations;
* revise the special peacekeeping scale of assessments to base it on a 3-year average of national income and rationalize Group C so that higher income countries pay their regular budget rate.
Moreover, the U.S. will use its voice and vote in the Fifth Committee of the General Assembly of the United Nations to contain costs of UN peace operations once they are underway.
IV. Strengthening the UN
If peace operations are to be effective and efficient when the U.S. believes they are necessary, the UN must improve the way peace operations are managed. Our goal is not to create a global high command but to enable the UN to manage its existing load more effectively. At present each UN operation is created and managed separately by a still somewhat understaffed UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO). As a result, support to the field may suffer, economies of scale are lost, capabilities, particularly in complex operations, need substantial improvement. Structural changes at UN Headquarters, some of which are already underway, would make a positive difference.
A. The U.S. proposals include the reconfiguration and expansion of the staff for the Department of Peacekeeping Operations to create:
* Plans Division to conduct adequate advance planning and preparation for new and on-going operations;
* Information and Research Division linked to field operations to obtain and provide current information [word missing]
* Operations Division with a modern command, control and communications (C3) architecture based on commercial systems;
* Logistics Division to manage both competitive commercial contracts (which should be re-bid regularly on the basis of price and performance) and a cost-effective logistics computer network to link the UN DPKO with logistics offices in participating member nations. This system would enable the UN to request price and availability data and to order materiel from participating states;
* Small Public Affairs cell dedicated to supporting on-going peace operations and disseminating information within host countries in order to reduce risks to UN personnel and increase the potential for mission success;
* Small Civilian Police Cell to manage police missions, plan for the establishment of police and judicial institutions, and develop standard procedures, doctrine and training.
B. To eliminate lengthy, potentially disastrous delays after a mission has been authorized, the UN should establish:
* a rapidly deployable headquarters team, a composite initial logistics support unit, and open, pre-negotiated commercial contracts for logistics support in new missions;
* data base of specific, potentially available forces or capabilities that nations could provide for the full range of peacekeeping and humanitarian operations;
* trained civilian reserve corps to serve as a ready, external talent pool to assist in the administration, management, and execution of UN peace operations;
* modest airlift capability available through pre-negotiated contracts with commercial firms or member states to support urgent deployments.
C. Finally, the UN should establish a professional Peace Operations Training Program for commanders and other military and civilian personnel.
D. Consistent with the global objectives outlined above, the U.S. will actively support efforts in the Fifth Committee of the -----[line missing].
* detail appropriate numbers of civilian and military personnel to DPKO in New York in advisory or support roles;
* share information, as appropriate, while ensuring full protection of sources and methods;
* offer to design a command, control, and communications systems architecture for the Operations Division, using commercially available systems and software;
* offer to assist DPKO to establish an improved, cost-effective logistics system to support UN peacekeeping operations;
* offer to help design the database of military forces or capabilities and to notify DPKO, for inclusion in the database, of specific U.S. capabilities that could be made available for the full spectrum of peacekeeping or humanitarian operations. U.S. notification in no way implies a commitment to provide those capabilities, if asked by the UN;
* detail public affairs specialists to the UN;
* offer to help create and establish a training program, participate in peacekeeping training efforts and offer the use of U.S. facilities for training purposes. [H: Go back and read it again!]
V. Command and Control of U.S. Forces
A. Our Policy: The President retains and will never relinquish command authority over U.S. forces. On a case by case basis, the President will consider placing appropriate U.S. forces under the operational control of a competent UN commander for specific UN operations authorized by the Security Council. The greater the U.S. military role, the less likely it will be that the U.S. will agree to have a UN commander exercise overall operational control over U.S. forces. Any large scale participation of U.S. forces in a major peace enforcement mission that is likely to involve combat should ordinarily be conducted under U.S. command and operational control or through competent regional organizations such as NATO or ad hoc coalition.
[H: I want to interrupt here (I actually think I have contained myself quite admirably so far) because I want to remind you of something--THIS DOCUMENT DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING AS TO GUIDELINES--REALLY. ANYTHING CAN BE INTERPRETED ANY WAY ANYONE IN POWER WANTS TO INTERPRET IT--JUST LIKE YOUR NEWSTATES CONSTITUTION. BESIDES, YOU HAD BETTER REMEMBER THE U.N. CHARTER--ANY UN FORCES ARE GOING TO, BY CHARTER, BE HEADED BY RUSSIAN COMMAND!!!]
There is nothing new about this Administration's policy regarding the command and control of U.S. forces. [H: Well, you JUST GOT IT! WITH A STATEMENT LIKE THAT YOU KNOW YOU ARE "HAD"!] U.S. military personnel have participated in UN peace operations since 1948. American forces have served under the operational control of foreign commanders since the Revolutionary War, including in World War I, World War II, Operation Desert Storm and in NATO since its inception. We have done so and will continue to do so when the President determines it serves U.S. national interests.
***
This has been a bitch to do and our scribe is now in an incredibly bad mood! Maybe Rick can get a phone call through and get "whoever" to read him off that which I couldn't translate or was simply missing--I think I got most all of it correctly decoded elsewise. Thank you, Dharma, and Salu.
APPENDIX
THE REMAINDER OF THIS JOURNAL IS
A COLLECTION OF TIMELY NEWS AND/OR
EDUCATIONAL ITEMS
CHAPTER 10
THE NEWS DESK
Ed Cleary 7/15/94
THE PANAMA FOLLY CONTINUES
From an Associated Press article in THE ORLANDO SENTINEL dated May 30, Panama City, "The first of 10,000 U.S. troops stationed here return home this week as the United States begins the end of nearly a century of military presence in Panama.
"By the end of next year, 4,000 troops will be gone, but the rest of the pullout will not be completed until the end of the decade.
"By then, the United States will have turned over to Panama the U.S. military bases here, the waterway itself and about 80,000 acres of real estate in the canal zone.
"The moves are mandated by the 1977 Panama Canal Treaties signed by President Carter and Panamanian strongman Omar Torrijos in which the United States agreed to hand over the canal it has controlled since taking over its construction in 1903.
"Although the United States reserves the right by treaty to defend the Panama Canal, the likelihood of danger to the waterway in the post-Cold War is small, U.S. officials say."
RUSSIA JOINS UP WITH "NWO"
In THE ORLANDO SENTINEL (Reuter's) an article dated May 28, Paris, "The OECD, the club for rich industrial nations, finally buried the Cold War Wednesday by signing a cooperation accord with Russia and agreeing to admit four new members from eastern Europe.
"The Organization for Economics Cooperation and Development said ministers meeting in Paris had asked it to start membership talks with Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia.
"They also agreed the OECD should open talks with South Korea, widely expected to apply to join shortly. The four eastern European countries already have applied to join."
RUSSIA ENDS NATO HOLDOUT
Fron the ALBUQUERQUE JOURNAL an Associated Press dispatch dated June 12, Brussels, Belgium, "Russia will join NATO's military cooperative plan for east Europe, ending months of uncertainty about whether Moscow would sign the accord at the heart of NATO's post-Cold War plans for Europe.
"Russian Foreign minister Andrei Kozyrev will sign the Partnership for Peace agreement on Wednesday during a visit to NATO headquarters, NATO spokesman Florent Swijssen said Friday.
"At a June 10 meeting in Istanbul, Turkey, the NATO foreign ministers reiterated Russia must first sign the partnership deal before there can be any discussion of broadening the relationship.
"The partnership opens the door to political and military cooperation including joint military exercises and Western help in converting military factories to civilian uses.
"Eighteen of Moscow's former Warsaw Pact allies have signed partnership accords with NATO."
THE GOOD NEWS--THE BAD NEWS
In an article from the June 12, 1994 edition of THE ORLANDO SENTINEL--[quoting:] Washington--The dream of a world where nuclear weapons disappear, light bulbs last for years, bicycles outsell cars and people live longer is coming true.
The good news, some of it surprising on a planet tainted by pollution and shaken by post-Cold War violence, is part of Worldwatch Institute's Vital Signs 1994, released Saturday.
But overall, the planet is not doing so well, says Lester Brown, Worldwatch president and principal author of the compilation of trends.
"Of all the key-indicators measuring the health of the planet, we have succeeded in reversing the decline in only one--namely, the manufacture and production of chlorofluorocarbons" that deplete the ozone layer, he said.
"All the other trends--carbon emission, deforestation, loss of species, population growth and soil erosion--are still headed in the wrong direction."
WORLD OF WOE?
Some key signs that bode ill for the Earth, according to World-watch Institute:
Birds are disappearing, with two-thirds of all species on the decline and 1,000 threatened with extinction.
Destructive insects are developing resistance to more poisons, with at least 17 species now unaffected by any insecticide on the market.
The sea is yielding about all the edible creatures it can.
Grain supplies are at their lowest level since the mid-1970s, although there are hundreds of millions more people to feed.
The number of refugees is at a high--19 million--and the world population continues to grow at alarming rates.
FISKE EARNS PAY--BLOCKS MORE TESTIMONY
In an article from the June 24, 1994 edition of THE ORLANDO SENTINEL--[quoting]: The Whitewater prosecutor struck a plea bargain Thursday that will keep a lid on testimony by a man who claims then-Gov. Bill Clinton pressured him into making a loan. The agreement came four days into a trial peripherally related to the Whitewater investigation of Clinton's real estate dealings. The case involves two men accused of conspiring to defraud the Small Business Administration. A third man involved, David Hale, was to take the stand, but Whitewater prosecutor Robert Fiske Jr. feared his testimony could jeopardize the Whitewater probe by tipping off people under investigation. Fiske agreed to reduce felony fraud charges against Charles Matthews and Eugene Fitzhugh to misdemeanors in exchange for guilty pleas.
DEAD SEA SCROLLS
In an article by John Davis and Craig Sowers from LFWC International Israel--[quoting]: While on long-term assignment in Israel, Lockheed F-16 field engineer, Aubrey Richardson, played a key role in the reopening of Qumran, site of the famous Dead Sea Scrolls discovery.
He became interested in Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls after reading numerous historical accounts of the excavations made at Qumran in the early 1950s; he compared those findings with a translation of the famous Copper Scroll unearthed during those digs.
The Copper Scroll, which now resides in Amman, Jordan, describes the location of numerous hidden treasures of gold, silver and various religious articles.
Unable to reconcile the absence of the treasures described in the Copper Scroll in prior archaeological undertakings, Aubrey advanced the theory that these hidden treasures may lie in the Qumran plateau subsurface that served as a campsite for archaeological expeditions. He concluded that the treasure was, literally, "right under their noses."
Studying the Essene sect (as noted in the Bible), Aubrey reasoned that the Essenes, having lived in the Qumran area more than 200 years, would have fabricated and cached more scrolls and religious items than found thus far.
He also noted that of the scrolls found, numerous errors were contained, making them unusable in Essene religious ceremonies. As such, it seemed reasonable that usable articles, revered and protected by the Essene community, would have been hidden from possible intruders.
To validate his assertion that not all Essene artifacts had been found, Aubrey pursued and obtained permission to undertake mini-excavations in and around the man-made cave of the plateau in 1989.
Working closely with an Israeli archaeologist assigned by the Israeli Antiquities Department, pottery shards and charcoal-ashes were exhumed from various sites.
Also found was a false floor in one cave as described in the Copper Scroll; unfortunately, the earthen vessel, scroll and silver described therein had been previously removed.
Discovery of these trace artifacts supported Aubrey's theory and prompted the Department of Geophysics at Tel Aviv University to sponsor a non-destructive investigation of the plateau in 1992.
Using ground penetrating radar and seismic reflection equipment, a complete, integrated geophysical survey was conducted. Several promising targets were detected and mapped at depths of 4 to 15 meters. Of particular interest were the deeper targets, which are interpreted to be manmade "voids" in geophysical terms.
Aubrey's theory--that these geophysical voids are the man-made vaults described in the Copper Scroll--was embraced by the Israeli Antiquities Department.
In November 1993, physical excavation was begun on the shallow targets. A month later, euphoria swept through the excavation team as the first evidence of man-made structures was revealed. The excitement swelled as three man-made storage vaults were viewed for the first time since their burial 2,000 years ago. Clay pottery, shards and miscellaneous artifacts were found in the vaults.
The most important discovery, however, was an intact copper vessel of sizable dimensions. While its contents have yet to be revealed by the Israeli Antiquities Department, its presence in one of the vaults corroborates Aubrey's theory that not all of the Essene's treasure and scrolls have been discovered.
THE NEWS DESK
Rick Martin 7/16/94
ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION
In an article from the July 1 edition of The JOHNSON CITY PRESS, written by Paul Recer, [quoting:]
Intensifying ultraviolet radiation is wiping out insect larvae that are a major food source for fish in North America, a researcher reports. [Regular CONTACT and JOURNAL readers will be aware that there is much more to this subject than the ultraviolet radiation tale--how about greatly intensified NUCLEAR RADIATION fallout from past nuclear testing! However, the JOURNAL which explained in detail what is taking place has been BANNED by court order from availability to the public.] The finding suggests that UV effects on the natural food chain could be worse than previously suspected.
Max Bothwell of the National Water Research Institute in Burlington, Ontario, reports in the journal SCIENCE that a type of radiation from the sun called ultraviolet-B, or UVB, is more damaging to the midge larvae than expected and that this could, over time, cause a decline in the number of freshwater fish.
The food chain is the natural pattern that transfers food or energy from plants to lower animals to higher animals and eventually to humans. The first link in the chain are plants that use photosynthesis to convert sunlight to an organic form of energy. The plants are then eaten by animals and the energy is passed upward to a new level in the food chain.
Researchers have determined that the intensity of ultraviolet radiation falling on the Earth has increased sharply in recent years. [How about plain, old-fashioned radiation?]
AIDS ON THE INCREASE
In an article from THE TORONTO STAR (Reuter's), GENEVA [quoting
The estimated number of full-blown AIDS cases worldwide increased from 2.5 million to 4 million in the past 12 months--a rise of 60 percent, the World Health Organization said today.
The U.N. agency said the epidemic was spreading fastest in Asia, where there was an eight-fold jump in estimated cases of AIDS to 250,000 cases from 30,000 in July, 1993.
The largest number of estimated AIDS cases--more than 2.5 million--is in sub-Saharan Africa. The region also has more than 10 million adults infected with the HIV virus which causes the killer disease, according to the WHO report.
[Can you imagine what the real numbers are?]
BUBONIC PLAGUE
In an article from the July 6 edition of THE ALBUQUERQUE JOURNAL, SANTA FE--"New Mexico's fifth case this year of bubonic plague was confirmed Tuesday in a 53-year-old woman from a rural area in Otero County.
"The state Health Department said she is hospitalized and is recovering.
"Plague is rare in Southern New Mexico, so the department's Epidemiology Division is notifying doctors in the area of symptoms that could indicate plague.
"Symptoms of bubonic plague in humans resemble those of flu, including headache, fever, chills and possibly painfully swollen lymph nodes in the armpit, groin or neck areas. In its pneumonic form, the disease spreads to the lungs."
ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH
In an article appearing in a recent edition of Southern California's DAILY NEWS, "In November, Dr. Avi Ben-Abraham, president of the American Cryogenics Society, told an audience in Washington, D.C., that several high-ranking Roman Catholic Church leaders support human embryo cloning, despite the church's public stance against such research. According to Ben-Abraham, those church leaders hope to reproduce Jesus Christ from DNA fibers found on the Shroud of Turin."
SHAKY REACTORS
In an article from the July 1 edition of THE JOHNSON CITY PRESS, CHICAGO--"As many as 10 U.S. nuclear reactors have developed cracks in steel shrouds surrounding radioactive fuel, a problem the Nuclear Regulatory Commission says could lead to a meltdown in the event of an earthquake.
"Cracks were first found last fall in a reactor in North Carolina, but industry officials expressed surprise at the number and the extent of fractures found in recent inspections.
"A reactor operators group reported cracks in welds at 10 reactors, including two in Europe and China, and indications of cracking at two others in the United States."
URANIUM
In an article from the July 6 edition of THE JOHNSON CITY PRESS, written by Duncan Mansfield, KNOXVILLE--[quoting:]
As plans draw near to bring enriched uranium from warheads in Russia to East Tennessee for storage and possible processing, some environmentalists have begun worrying about how it is going to get here.
Nuclear Fuel Services, Erwin [TM], is negotiating to reap some of the post-Cold War commercial benefits of U.S.-Russian nonproliferation agreements announced in January.
The United States Enrichment Corp., created by Congress, will buy $12 billion worth of weapons-grade uranium--550 tons--over the next 20 years. The material will be diluted and sold for nuclear fuel to atomic power stations worldwide.
All shipping is classified because of the nature of the work, the same as when we're producing fuel for the United States nuclear navy (from the late 1950s until last year). We have never publicly discussed transportation issues at NFS."
RUSSIA'S FLYING SAUCER
In an article appearing in the June 26 edition of THE SUNDAY TIMES, [quoting:]
Since THE SUNDAY TIMES broke the news in April that a Russian aerospace factory was building a flying saucer called the Ekip, Alexander Yermishin, director of the project at Saratov, 400 miles southeast of Moscow, has had a busy time, writes Dorothy Dawson.
More than 80 American companies have expressed an interest, and Yermishin spent last week negotiating with the Lockheed Missiles and Space Corporation in California.
The Ekip has some attractive characteristics; it is versatile, cheap to run and cheap to build (a passenger version could be developed in Russia for 2 billion, as opposed to 10 billion in the West). Yermishin believes its potential merits development by an international consortium.
Yermishin says the stability problems that have upset flying saucers' poise in the past were overcome after the former communist regime committed vast funds to finding design solutions for the Ekip.
Ten years' research, including extensive tests in wind tunnels and hydro-canals, preceded flight tests of small, radio-controlled models in the early 1990s.
Work is also under way at Saratov on a number of all-metal 15m-wide radio-controlled models, one of which is currently in Moscow under the aegis of the Energiya space-research body. Although it did not actually manufacture the orbiter, Energiya had links with the development of the automatic control system for the Russian space shuttle, Buran.
The yaw/roll control on the Ekip is similar to that on Buran. Its jets, which work on bleed air from the first stage of the engines, are positioned at the craft's wingtips and underneath it. If they are as effective as the system on Buran, the notorious instability problems of the flying saucer may well have been solved."
RUSSIAN COPS IN AMERICA
In an article from the July 5 edition of THE TORONTO STAR, MOSCOW--[quoting:]
Russian police could help bust crime in the United States in a new era of co-operation between the former Cold War foes, the head of the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation says.
FBI director Louis Freeh, on a tour of central and eastern Europe, said co-operation and communication are important to both sides as crime in Russia mounts.
"We talked about exchanging police officers, not just for training purposes but for operational, investigative purposes, "Freeh said after a meeting with Yuri Baturin, chief security adviser to President Boris Yeltsin.
"We spoke about sharing crime information that leads not only to the solving of crimes but to the prevention of crimes, particularly international crimes relating to organized criminality and terrorism." [Your papers, please.]
Tags, 상세검색
응답: PJ#103, CONFRONT THE NOW * CREATE THE FUTURE
