While Clear Channel Defends Itself To Washington (NY Times), the San Francisco Bay Guardian provides a first hand account of one of its radio station takeovers (KMEL, San Francisco):
Urban radio rage
When Clear Channel bought KMEL, it destroyed the so-called people's station. Now the people want it back.
By Jeff Chang.
If the changes that began in 1996 began to turn off some longtime KMEL listeners, the Oct. 1, 2001, firing of radio personality and hip-hop activist David "Davey D" Cook – shortly after his show Street Knowledge aired Rep. Barbara Lee's and the Coup's Boots Riley's objections to the war in Afghanistan – was the final straw. Cook's firing seemed to symbolize the end of an era in which community input, local music, and progressive politics had a place at KMEL, and it triggered thousands of e-mails, faxes, and letters; rowdy picket lines at the station; and the current round of accountability meetings...Clear Channel's vast media empire caught the public's attention during the aftermath of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, when executives allegedly circulated a list of so-called sensitive songs to be banned from the airwaves. By then corporate media critics were already describing Clear Channel as the Godzilla of the radio industry. Indeed, no other firm has benefited more from the Telecommunications Act. It has gone from owning 40 stations in 1996 to owning 1,240 today, commanding over a quarter of all radio revenues and listeners. (In the Bay Area it holds a similar market share.) Its closest competitor, Cumulus Media, owns just 248 stations. "Clear Channel is the monster that destroyed radio," veteran Bay Area radio-industry watcher and columnist Bill Mann said.
Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:
http://sfbg.com/37/18/cover_kmel.html
January 22, 2003
Urban radio rage
When Clear Channel bought KMEL, it destroyed the so-called people's station. Now the people want it back.
By Jeff Chang
THERE AREN'T MANY visitors to Clear Channel Communications Inc.'s South of Market fortress these days, other than ad buyers, talent managers, and contest winners. The first floor looks like a tiny security bunker with silent music videos flickering on small wall-mounted TVs. So on Jan. 6, when a group of hip-hop activists showed up – a bunch of teens and twentysomethings, battle-hardened, some of them anyway, by campaigns against globalization and Proposition 21 – the gatekeeper alerted management before allowing them up to the fourth-floor waiting room.
They were there for a meeting with representatives of KMEL, 106.1 FM. In the skylighted penthouse conference room, Malkia Cyril, executive director of Youth Media Council, part of the listeners' group calling itself the Community Coalition for Media Accountability (CCMA), pressed their case. Since Clear Channel took over KMEL in 1999, she said, there has been no access to the airwaves for social justice organizations, an imbalance in programming and content, and no avenues for community accountability.
KMEL representatives listened, sometimes confused, often baffled. Pop radio executives aren't used to going face-to-face with angry, politicized listeners. But then again, KMEL has never been an ordinary radio station. In recent years such meetings – in which community leaders air grievances and radio execs scratch their heads – seem to have become a regular thing. Once known as "the people's station," KMEL has become a target for the people's anger.
For more than 15 years, KMEL has been a national radio powerhouse. It is the number-two music station in the fourth-largest radio market in the country, commanding the largest radio audience among the highly coveted 18-to-34 demographic. But perhaps more important, KMEL holds an almost mythical place in Bay Area hip-hop. During the '90s, KMEL helped launch rappers like Tupac Shakur, Hammer, and E-40. It produced on-air personalities, including Trace Dog and Franzen Wong (of the Up All Night Crew) and Renel Lewis, who seemed as around-the-way as hip-hop itself. Through its innovative community-affairs programming, it engaged the social issues of the hip-hop generation. The arrival in 1992 of a fierce competitor, KYLD-FM, also known as "Wild," which billed itself as "the party station," only reinforced KMEL's populist image.
But an unprecedented wave of consolidation swept the radio industry after Congress passed the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which removed station-ownership caps. Before the ink was dry, KMEL's then-parent company, Evergreen Media, ended the ratings war with KYLD by purchasing it – and the changes didn't stop there. A series of ever larger mergers culminated in 1999 with a whopping $24 billion deal in which KMEL and KYLD passed from AMFM Inc. into the hands of Clear Channel. That, critics say, is when everything that was once so right began to go so wrong.
An outcry for media justice
If the changes that began in 1996 began to turn off some longtime KMEL listeners, the Oct. 1, 2001, firing of radio personality and hip-hop activist David "Davey D" Cook – shortly after his show Street Knowledge aired Rep. Barbara Lee's and the Coup's Boots Riley's objections to the war in Afghanistan – was the final straw. Cook's firing seemed to symbolize the end of an era in which community input, local music, and progressive politics had a place at KMEL, and it triggered thousands of e-mails, faxes, and letters; rowdy picket lines at the station; and the current round of accountability meetings. Gang-peace organizer Rudy Corpuz of United Playaz said the message to KMEL remains clear: "Check your priorities. Without the community, your station would never have been made."
The KMEL protests are a big part of a swelling national backlash in urban communities against the shock jocks, autopilot programming, and mind-numbing hype of their radio stations. On Jan. 14, Cook joined with Afrika Bambaataa and the Universal Zulu Nation, rapper Chuck D, Bob Law of the National Leadership Alliance, and black activist organizations the December 12th Movement and the Code Foundation to denounce what they say is the lack of positive black music and community voices on stations like Emmis Communications-owned Hot 97 and Clear Channel-owned Power 105.1. Many have begun calling it a movement for media justice.
Cook, who hosts the Hard Knock Radio and Friday Night Vibe shows on KPFA, 94.1 FM, has now quietly – and somewhat reluctantly – become one of the movement's most prominent spokespeople. Speaking to the Bay Guardian from New York, he sketched out the issues. "The main complaint I've heard for three days," he explained, "is the lack of positive music, lack of access, and just the feeling that there's something foul about what I am listening to. People are really pissed from coast to coast."
Radio Godzilla
Clear Channel's vast media empire caught the public's attention during the aftermath of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, when executives allegedly circulated a list of so-called sensitive songs to be banned from the airwaves. By then corporate media critics were already describing Clear Channel as the Godzilla of the radio industry. Indeed, no other firm has benefited more from the Telecommunications Act. It has gone from owning 40 stations in 1996 to owning 1,240 today, commanding over a quarter of all radio revenues and listeners. (In the Bay Area it holds a similar market share.) Its closest competitor, Cumulus Media, owns just 248 stations. "Clear Channel is the monster that destroyed radio," veteran Bay Area radio-industry watcher and columnist Bill Mann said.
Critics say Clear Channel's KMEL has been distinguished by bland on-air personalities, reactionary politics, and the repetitive seven-song rotation that's found on every urban station. Bay Area political rapper Paris notes that in 1990, KMEL helped artists like him and Digital Underground blow up nationally. During the Gulf War the station even aired a remix of a Sway and Tech track called "Time for Peace" that featured all of them. "There was a lot more willingness to support local talent. Now that willingness is not there," he said. "Especially in this political climate, even in what many would argue is the cradle of liberalism, there's no room for anything that's progressive. Everything is rampant negativity."
Wong thinks the station is a shell of its former self. "They don't care about the streets anymore," he said.
Radio for everyone
The calls for change at KMEL are coming from a powerful source: angry youths of color from the station's target audience. Last fall a group of listeners began subjecting KMEL to some hard listening. The result was a scathing critique of the station issued by the Youth Media Council and the CCMA (www .media-alliance.org/action/KMEL.pdf). The CCMA's broad front includes the Mindzeye Artist Collective, hip-hop activist organization Let's Get Free, and global justice group Just Act.
They argue that since Cook was fired, progressives have lost their voice. They charge that the last remaining community-affairs program, Street Soldiers, excludes their views. They note that local artists – who make up one of the most vibrant and diverse rap music scenes in the country – are rarely heard on the station. The title of their report pointedly asks the question "Is KMEL the People's Station?"
"They say that they're the people's station," said Just Act program coordinator and CCMA spokesperson Saron Anglon, a 25-year-old who has listened to KMEL for 15 years. "They're not talking about social change or peace. They're focusing on things like crime and war. Our communities are listening to this quote-unquote people's station, and the people are not necessarily being represented."
A recent study by the Future of Music Coalition (www.futureofmusic.org), an artists' rights-public interest organization, provides a context for urban radio rage. Radio deregulation, the report argues, has left the public airwaves dominated by companies that have laid off hundreds, decimated community programming, and all but standardized playlists across the country. The report also found that an overwhelming majority of listeners want playlists with more variety and more local artists. It cites research pointing out that the time an average listener spends with the radio has dropped to a 27-year low.
On Jan. 6 the newest FCC commissioner, Jonathan Adelstein, spoke to attendees at a Future of Music Coalition conference in Washington, D.C. He echoed the concerns of media justice activists across the country, saying, "We must ask ourselves: At what point does consolidation come at the cost of the local expression that makes radio so unique and so special in this country? At what point does allowing consolidation undermine the public interest – and the quality of what we hear on the radio?"
For a growing number of alienated urban radio listeners, the answer is "Now."
Building the people's station
During the early '80s, Bay Area urban radio was stagnating, dominated by slick, disposable R&B. At the same time, college- and community-radio stations like KPOO-FM, KZSU-FM, KUSF-FM, and KALX-FM were championing hip-hop. Danyel Smith, the author of More like Wrestling and a former Vibe magazine editor in chief, was a columnist for the Bay Guardian during the years hip-hop broke.
"You had to know where Billy Jam was gonna be playing, where Davey D was gonna be playing," she said. "To the rest of the world, they were very little radio stations that came in staticky, and the show was on in the middle of the night, but you were in the know, and things were really exciting. And as much as I think we all liked being part of our little secret thing, we all thought, 'Wow this music needs to be heard by everyone. Someone needs to take it and blow it up, give it the respect that it deserves.' And for the Bay Area, that station was KMEL."
During the mid '80s, KMEL changed from a rock format to a "contemporary hits" format and became one of the first crossover pop stations in the nation to target young multiracial audiences with hip-hop, house, and reggae music. To make it work, KMEL desperately needed street credibility. College- and community-radio jocks, such as KALX's Cook, Sadiki Nia, and Tamu du Ewa, and local artists, including (now-MTV personality) Sway and King Tech, were recruited to the station. "They took what we were doing at community radio and brought it to the station," said KPOO personality KK Baby, who joined KMEL in 1991. "They would use us to attract the rest of the pop music audience."
Most of the jocks were never offered full-time positions, but they brought their audiences with them and became the central force in pushing KMEL to play cutting-edge music and offer community-oriented programming. Street Soldiers evolved from Hammer's idea to have a forum for young people to talk candidly about issues like gang violence. (The syndicated show is now hosted by Joe Marshall and Margaret Norris of the Omega Boys Club.) Davey D's hugely influential Street Knowledge program debuted in 1995 as a talk show for the hip-hop generation, dealing with topics spanning race, gender, and class. On his second show Davey D hosted a roundtable on the state of civil rights that featured Jesse Jackson, then-assembly speaker Willie Brown, Chuck D, Paris, and Belva Davis.
With a formula of underground-friendly playlists, activism-savvy programming, and street promotions, the station's ratings soared in the early '90s. KMEL's approach – progressive, edgy, multicultural, inclusive – fit the Bay Area well. Listeners embraced the people's station with open arms. KMEL's music shows and community-affairs programming, even its popular Summer Jam events, were soon imitated throughout the country.
The 1992 ratings war with KYLD brought out the best in most people. Michael Martin, who was then KYLD's program director and now serves as Clear Channel's regional vice president of programming, said, "We felt KMEL was a little lazy, so we came in with a vengeance." It was in this fierce competition that mainstays like Sway and Tech's Wake-Up Show, Street Soldiers, Street Knowledge, and KYLD's Doghouse stepped forward. At the same time, the dueling stations let the mix-show DJs experiment with local music, resulting in hits for artists like Tha Click, Conscious Daughters, Mac Mall, and the Luniz. The audience expanded to include listeners from San Jose to Pittsburg.
All around the world, the same song
Then the Telecommunications Act was passed. FCC chair Reed Hundt defended the legislation by arguing, "We are fostering innovation and competition in radio." But by all accounts, KMEL's innovative years were over. After a dustup between Too $hort and the Luniz at the 1995 Summer Jam, local artists were reportedly pushed off playlists. Mix-show DJs increasingly found their mixes subject to approval by higher-ups. Specialty shows were quietly eliminated. The battle for young urban ears ended with KMEL's purchase of KYLD. Three years later, Clear Channel swallowed them both.
To the listener, consolidation is probably most apparent in what the stations play. Just listen to KMEL's and KYLD's nightly countdowns of the seven "most requested" (their own words) songs. On any given night the stations may share as many as four of their seven "most requested" songs – the same 50 Cent, Ashanti and Ja Rule, LL Cool J, and P. Diddy tracks that are playing across the country. The exception, "Closer," by the Bay Area's Goapele, which was added to KMEL's rotation last month, stands out like a diamond for its rarity.
"Programming is more or less centralized," columnist Mann argued. "This is not guesswork. They've got too much money and too many shareholders at stake to leave much to chance." But Martin, who programs KMEL, KYLD, and K101-FM while overseeing the playlists of all of the other Clear Channel stations in northern California, denies this. "There is no centralization of programming at Clear Channel," he said. "There is no such thing as a national type of playlist."
Still, this is small consolation for local artists like E-A-Ski, who, despite producing records for Master P and Ice Cube that have sold millions of copies and holding a national fan base for his own rap records, still finds himself knocking from the outside. After Clear Channel took over, he and other local artists went to KMEL to protest their exclusion. As a result, Davey D got the green light to begin broadcasting the short-lived Local Flavas show. These days E-A-Ski is one of a tiny number of local artists heard on KMEL, but only because he is on a remix of Atlanta rapper Lil' Jon's "Who U Wit." "If you look at the South, they got all their DJs and their radio to support their records. The same system they have, we had," he said. "Everybody else is supporting their music, but KMEL isn't doing it."
Martin dismisses such complaints, saying, "No matter what market you go into, you hear the same complaint from the same people: you don't support local artists, you don't play this. Bottom line is, if they would put out hit records that are equal in hit quality to the other stuff we're playing on the air, there wouldn't be an issue."
He does concede that playlists have tightened over the years. "I will tell you that, around the country, the stations that play less have bigger ratings. Power 106 in L.A., who has huge ratings, their most-spun record in a day can go up to 16 times in a day. My most-played will hit 11, maybe 12, that's it," he said. "Because, at the end of the day, the hits are the hits. And the audience comes to you for a reason – to hear the hits.
"The listeners don't care who owns us, or whether or not [stations] are owned by the same company, or the same person is programming them," he added.
Who stole the soul?
Martin's canny management took KYLD from "worst to first," as he puts it. But as KYLD caught up to KMEL in ratings and revenue during the late '90s, the people's station suffered a slow death. "There were four different mergers. People were cut all along. People were just getting frustrated, and then when Clear Channel came in, that was the worst [part] of it all," onetime KMEL DJ Nia said.
Shortly before she was laid off, Nia's cohost, du Ewa, who also engineered the overnight shows, was shown her own obsolescence when she was trained on the programming system created by Clear Channel subsidiary Prophet Systems Innovation. "The [software] has the music, commercials, and in-house station-promotions elements. I could look on there and find Wild's and [KISS-FM's] programming as well," she said. "Their idea was to cut late-night shifts, cut as many people as they can, and have more voice-overs. The late shift I used to do from 2 a.m. to 6 a.m. on the weekends is now digitally preprogrammed."
For the listener, this process, known as "voice tracking," crushes the notion that all radio is local. Jocks may prerecord vocal drops and listener calls to send out to other Clear Channel stations throughout the region. Labor unions argue that Clear Channel utilizes voice tracking to violate labor contracts, according to Peter Fuster, vice president of the American Federation of Radio and Television Artists' New York chapter. Consumer groups say it undercuts radio's public mission to provide news, information, and color for local communities. The practice is so controversial that it has already provoked a National Labor Relations Board charge against KMEL's New York counterpart, Power 105, which imported former KMEL DJ Theo Mizuhara's voice for overnight programming.
Mann said, "For years I've been calling them Cheap Channel, because they consolidate and they lay people off." Other industry insiders speculate that Clear Channel is in a bind because it overpaid for its radio properties.
Many former KMEL employees say it was Martin who presided over Clear Channel's gutting of KMEL. During the summer of 2000, he replaced the station's fired program director, Joey Arbagey, and was handed programming responsibilities for both stations. "All these years you're competing with him, now he's your boss," du Ewa said. "He was on this personal vendetta to prove that he could make that place totally successful with his people. And eventually that's who he had in there, a whole new staff of his people."
Despite being among the highest-rated radio personalities in the Bay Area, the Up All Night Crew's Wong was dismissed. He had started at KMEL as a 14-year-old intern and worked his way up to become one of the station's key assets. He was cohost of a popular video show on the California Music Channel, one of the most visible Asian American radio DJs in the country, a big supporter of local artists, and a bona fide Bay Area street hero. "My contract was up January 1, 2001. I had the meeting with [Martin] on January 2, 2001, and that's when I got let go," Wong, now a radio personality in Las Vegas, said. "I told him, 'Thank you,' and I walked out. The thing that burned me the most is that I didn't get to say good-bye to my listeners." (Martin says Wong was fired "due to insubordination" and will not comment further.)
On Oct. 1, Davey D was fired. He recalls his last few weeks at the station as being surreal: "I remember after 9/11, I got a call, and they wondered where the candlelight vigil was for the night. I said, 'The candlelight vigil?' And it was like, 'Yeah, we need to send the street team there.' That's typical of radio these days."
'Why support them?'
Execs at Clear Channel note that its stations' ratings are higher than ever. In the just-concluded books for fall 2001, KMEL rose to a 4.3 share, which they say represents an audience of nearly 692,000 listeners, up from 562,000 when Davey D was fired. "When you start to see ratings slip, you need to make changes, and the changes that we have made have made KMEL a higher-ranked, higher-rated radio station," Martin said.
But Davey D argues that the numbers don't measure whether people are satisfied or simply have nowhere else to go. "You may have more listeners than you ever had before, but you also have more complaints than they ever had before. You have people dissatisfied in a way they never were before. You have people meeting, doing demonstrations, writing letters, doing monitoring and hearings and all this stuff that never happened before."
Thembisa Mshaka, former rap editor for the Gavin Report trade magazine and now a Columbia Records executive and Emixshow magazine columnist, argues that companies like Clear Channel no longer care about "stationality" – an industry term for how well a station distinguishes itself by its personality, as reflected in the styles of the DJs and the presentation of local music and news. With the growth of alternative radio outlets, via satellite and Internet, addressing community complaints may represent Clear Channel's last, best chance to keep Bay Area listeners interested. "There are still as many listeners out there to keep these stations going, but they've gotta be concerned about their future. They're kidding themselves if they're not," Mshaka said.
KMEL has allowed the past half decade of successful local R&B and hip-hop acts to pass it by, including important artists like Meshell Ndegeocello and the Coup. "They're excluding themselves from the musical renaissance happening in the Bay Area," KPOO's KK Baby said. And since Street Knowledge ended with Davey D's firing, no current programming reflects the brilliant voices of the burgeoning local hip-hop-activist movement, which has been instrumental in setting the national agenda for post-boomer progressives.
Recently, Clear Channel execs have made some concessions. Since the release of the CCMA's report in November, they have added a battle-of-the-rappers segment and a Friday-night local artist mix show hosted by Big Von and have brought back the Wake-Up Show. They've also agreed to open an ongoing dialogue with the CCMA. In fact, execs and activists left the Jan. 6 meeting optimistic that they could work together.
But others are skeptical. "Now people in the streets are talking," rapper E-A-Ski said. "I've had cats that just really want to say, 'If they ain't gon' support us, then why are we supporting them? Don't let them come out to the streets and the clubs.' "
Yet he continues to work with the station. "Big Von said to me yesterday we got a lot more work to do. So I take that as we're moving towards trying to make a new era in Bay Area rap, and I'ma hold cats to that. But when I don't see it, I'll be the first one to make a record letting them know."
But will it get played? He paused to consider the irony. "What am I supposed to do? Sit around here and just keep begging motherfuckers? I'm not gon' keep begging."
Jeff Chang is the author of Can't Stop Won't Stop: A History of the Hip-Hop Generation, out later this year on St. Martin's Press. Research assistance by David Moisl.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/business/media/31RADI.html
January 31, 2003
Radio Giant Defends Its Size at Senate Panel Hearing
By JENNIFER 8. LEE
WASHINGTON, Jan. 30 ˜ The chief executive of the nation's
largest radio conglomerate faced pointed questions today about his
company's
business practices at a Senate committee hearing on the
consolidation of media owners.
L. Lowry Mays, the chairman and chief executive of Clear Channel
Communications Inc., said that deregulation and economies of scale had
allowed his
company to make investments to offer more choices to listeners. "The
industry is healthier and more robust than ever before," Mr. Mays said
at a hearing of the
Senate Commerce Committee.
But several Democrats and Republicans and other witnesses, including Don
Henley, a member of the Eagles who started the Recording Artists'
Coalition,
accused the company of using its size to intimidate competitors and
coerce artists into promotional deals that benefit the company.
They cited anecdotes they said illustrated advertising pricing policies
that undermine competing stations, payment deals that skirt laws
prohibiting payola,
purchases of stations across the Mexican border to bypass domestic
ownership caps and the strong-arming of artists to perform with Clear
Channel's concert
production arm.
Mr. Mays denied that his company had pay-for-play practices or in any
way coerced artists. He argued that his company was not anticompetitive.
"The Justice
Department has a lot of interaction with us, and they have approved
every one of our applications," he said.
Today's hearing was the first of several planned by Senator John McCain,
the Republican chairman of the committee, on the radio, newspaper and
television
industries.
Michael K. Powell, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission,
has indicated he wants to relax ˜ or completely drop ˜ several
media-ownership
regulations.
Critics have said that the radio industry is a harbinger. Radio
consolidation was spurred by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which
significantly relaxed
ownership limits to help the struggling industry achieve economies of
scale.
Since then, Clear Channel Communications, based in San Antonio, has
grown to 1,240 stations from fewer than 40. The country's largest radio
conglomerate
and the largest concert promoter, it is one of the 250 largest publicly
traded companies in the country with $8 billion in revenue.
As a monolith in a formerly diffuse industry, the company has attracted
increasing scrutiny. Senator Russell Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin,
has
reintroduced legislation that is a thinly veiled attack on what some
have called Clear Channel's practice of cross-leveraging its radio and
concert division.
Clear Channel has become acutely aware of its heightened profile in
Washington. In November, it opened a Washington office and hired Andrew
W. Levin, 40,
as its top lobbyist. Mr. Levin had been the telecommunications counsel
to Representative John D. Dingell, Democrat of Michigan, the ranking
minority member
of the House Commerce Committee.
Just how big Clear Channel has become, or how concentrated the radio
industry has become, was a subject of debate. Mr. Mays and Mr. Powell
have argued
that Clear Channel owns only about 10 percent of 11,000 stations
nationwide, hardly a monopoly figure, they say.
Clear Channel, however, takes in about 20 percent of the advertising
revenue and attracts about 25 percent of total listeners nationwide ˜
about a third of the
population.
Mr. Mays noted that radio was by far the least consolidated of any of
the media industries, with the 10 largest companies taking in a smaller
share of the
revenue compared with movie studios, cable, television stations,
newspapers or record studios.
But Mr. Henley argued that comparing radio with other industries was
misleading because airwaves are public domain. "The airwaves belong to
the public, just
like national forests belong to the public," he said.
When examined market by market, the industry begins to resemble an
oligopoly, said Jenny Toomey, executive director of the Future of Music
Coalition, who
also testified. In a recent report, the coalition said that four or
fewer companies control 70 percent or more of market share in nearly all
local markets. In New
York City, the top four companies control 80 percent of the market.
Media ownership has special resonance for all politicians because they
depend on access to local media outlets to reach constituents through
both advertising
and news coverage.
Two weeks ago at another Senate Commerce Committee hearing, Mr. Powell
appeared to sympathize with the senators, saying he was troubled and
concerned
about the radio industry's consolidation. But in a meeting with
reporters this week, Mr. Powell questioned the methods of measuring
consolidation.
He pointed out that the owner of the second-largest number of radio
stations, Cumulus Media, is much smaller than Clear Channel, with fewer
than 250
stations. In terms of revenue, Cumulus, which focuses on small and
midsize markets, has only 1.5 percent of industry revenue, making it the
ninth-largest radio
company by this measure.
Here's the actual public report by Chief UN Weapons Inspector Hans Blix.
US is misquoting my Iraq report, says Blix
By Judith Miller and Julia Preston for NY Times Agencies (Australia)
In an interview on Wednesday, Dr Blix, the United Nations chief weapons inspector, seemed determined to dispel any impression that his report was intended to support the United States' campaign to build world support for a war to disarm Saddam Hussein."Whatever we say will be used by some," Dr Blix said, adding that he had strived to be "as factual and conscientious" as possible. "I did not tailor my report to the political wishes or hopes in Baghdad or Washington or any other place."
Dr Blix took issue with what he said were US Secretary of State Colin Powell's claims that the inspectors had found that Iraqi officials were hiding and moving illicit materials within and outside of Iraq to prevent their discovery. He said that the inspectors had reported no such incidents.
Similarly, he said, he had not seen convincing evidence that Iraq was sending weapons scientists to other countries to prevent them from being interviewed.
Nor had he any reason to believe, as President George Bush charged in his State of the Union speech, that Iraqi agents were posing as scientists, or that his inspection agency had been penetrated by Iraqi agents and that sensitive information might have been leaked to Baghdad.
Finally, he said, he had seen no persuasive indications of Iraqi ties to al-Qaeda.
Here is the full text of the entire article in case the link goes bad:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/31/1043804520548.html
SMH Home
Home > World News > Target Iraq > Article
- national
- world
snapshots
- opinion
- business
- technology
- sport
- entertainment
- multimedia
..........
classifieds
jobs
property
cars
place an ad
- - - -
extra
personal finance
travel
education
- - - -
subscribe
home delivery
eNewsletter
- - - -
archives
- - - -
today's edition: am
past 10 days
- - - -
site guide
- - - -
US is misquoting my Iraq report, says Blix
By Judith Miller and Julia Preston in New York
February 1 2003
Chief weapons inspector Hans Blix arrives at UN headquarters in New York. Photo: AFP
Days after delivering a broadly negative report on Iraq's cooperation with international inspectors, Hans Blix challenged several of the Bush Administration's assertions about Iraqi cheating and the notion that time was running out for disarming Iraq through peaceful means.
In an interview on Wednesday, Dr Blix, the United Nations chief weapons inspector, seemed determined to dispel any impression that his report was intended to support the United States' campaign to build world support for a war to disarm Saddam Hussein.
"Whatever we say will be used by some," Dr Blix said, adding that he had strived to be "as factual and conscientious" as possible. "I did not tailor my report to the political wishes or hopes in Baghdad or Washington or any other place."
Dr Blix took issue with what he said were US Secretary of State Colin Powell's claims that the inspectors had found that Iraqi officials were hiding and moving illicit materials within and outside of Iraq to prevent their discovery. He said that the inspectors had reported no such incidents.
Similarly, he said, he had not seen convincing evidence that Iraq was sending weapons scientists to other countries to prevent them from being interviewed.
Nor had he any reason to believe, as President George Bush charged in his State of the Union speech, that Iraqi agents were posing as scientists, or that his inspection agency had been penetrated by Iraqi agents and that sensitive information might have been leaked to Baghdad.
Finally, he said, he had seen no persuasive indications of Iraqi ties to al-Qaeda. "There are other states where there appear to be stronger links," such as Afghanistan, Dr Blix said. "It's bad enough that Iraq may have weapons of mass destruction."
Russia has also denied any knowledge of links between Iraq and al-Qaeda extremists. The Russian Foreign Minister, Igor Ivanov, said on Thursday that "so far, neither Russia nor any other country has information about Iraq's ties with al-Qaeda".
"If we receive such information we will analyse it," he said. "Statements made so far are not backed by concrete documents and concrete facts."
Meanwhile the founder of a militant Islamist group in northern Iraq has denied US reports that his organisation was the secret link between Baghdad and al-Qaeda.
Mullah Krekar, a refugee in Norway, said Saddam was his foe, and the Kurdish Islamist said he had no contact with al-Qaeda.
He said that he could prove that his Ansar al-Islam (Supporters of Islam) organisation, which controls a sliver of land in northern Iraq, had "no contact with al-Qaeda, with Osama [bin Laden], with Saddam Hussein, with Iran or Iraq".
Ansar's role is at the heart of the US's latest attempt to demonstrate a connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq.
The New York Times, agencies
Wow. I'm still speechless and left trying to even fathom this one.
Ten years from now this may be regarded as an urban legend, but...
The official story is that a couple INS managers lost it one day and started having incoming INS mail professionally shredded because there was just too much of it. (A new variation on going postal!)
I.N.S. Shredder Ended WorkBacklog, U.S. Says
By John M. Broder for the NY Times.
Tens of thousands of pieces of mail come into the huge Immigration and Naturalization Service data processing center in Laguna Niguel, Calif., every day, and as at so many government agencies, it tends to pile up. One manager there had a system to get rid of the vexing backlog, federal officials say. This week the manager was charged with illegally shredding as many as 90,000 documents.Among the destroyed papers, federal officials charged, were American and foreign passports, applications for asylum, birth certificates and other documents supporting applications for citizenship, visas and work permits.
The manager, Dawn Randall, 24, was indicted late Wednesday by a federal grand jury, along with a supervisor working under her, Leonel Salazar, 34. They are accused of ordering low-level workers to destroy thousands of documents from last February to April to reduce a growing backlog of unprocessed paperwork...
By the end of March, the backlog had been cut to zero, and Ms. Randall ordered her subordinates to continue destroying incoming paper to keep current, the government says.
"There was no I.N.S. policy that required this, nor was she ordered to do it by any superior, as far as we know," said Greg Staples, the assistant United States attorney handling the case. "The only motive we can think of is just the obvious one of a manager trying to get rid of a nettlesome problem."
Ms. Randall and Mr. Salazar were each charged with conspiracy and five counts of willfully destroying documents filed with the I.N.S. The conspiracy charge carries a maximum penalty of five years in federal prison. Each of the other counts can bring three years in prison.
Their subordinates were not charged because they were low-level workers acting on instructions, the government said.
After the shredding was discovered, the immigration service opened a hotline for people who suspected their paperwork had been destroyed. Agency officials helped petitioners reconstruct their files and gave applicants the benefit of the doubt if they could not replace the documents they had submitted, said Lori Haley, a spokeswoman for the I.N.S.'s western regional office.
She said the agency made an effort last year to publicize the problem and was confident that it had rebuilt most of the lost files. She also said that additional staff members had been hired at the center and that oversight had been tightened...
The four document processing centers are operated under a $325 million contract with JHM Research and Development of Maryland, which in turn subcontracts the operations to two other companies. John Macklin, president of JHM, was unavailable for comment.
Mr. Staples, the federal prosecutor, said the contractors were cooperating with the investigation and would not be charged unless more evidence against them was developed.
"If we had found criminal liability, we would have indicted the companies," he said.
Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/national/31FILE.html
I.N.S. Shredder Ended WorkBacklog, U.S. Says
By JOHN M. BRODER
OS ANGELES, Jan. 30 — Tens of thousands of pieces of mail come into the huge Immigration and Naturalization Service data processing center in Laguna Niguel, Calif., every day, and as at so many government agencies, it tends to pile up. One manager there had a system to get rid of the vexing backlog, federal officials say. This week the manager was charged with illegally shredding as many as 90,000 documents.
Among the destroyed papers, federal officials charged, were American and foreign passports, applications for asylum, birth certificates and other documents supporting applications for citizenship, visas and work permits.
The manager, Dawn Randall, 24, was indicted late Wednesday by a federal grand jury, along with a supervisor working under her, Leonel Salazar, 34. They are accused of ordering low-level workers to destroy thousands of documents from last February to April to reduce a growing backlog of unprocessed paperwork.
Ms. Randall was the file room manager at the I.N.S. center. Mr. Salazar was her file room supervisor. The Laguna Niguel center handles paperwork for residents ofCalifornia, Arizona, Nevada, Hawaii and Guam and is one of four immigration service centers around the country operated by private contractors under I.N.S. supervision.
According to the federal indictment, Ms. Randall ordered her subordinates last January to count the number of unprocessed papers in the filing center. They reported that about 90,000 documents were waiting to be handled. In February, the government says, she ordered at least five night-shift workers to begin shredding many boxes of papers.
By the end of March, the backlog had been cut to zero, and Ms. Randall ordered her subordinates to continue destroying incoming paper to keep current, the government says.
"There was no I.N.S. policy that required this, nor was she ordered to do it by any superior, as far as we know," said Greg Staples, the assistantUnited States attorney handling the case. "The only motive we can think of is just the obvious one of a manager trying to get rid of a nettlesome problem."
Mr. Staples said one frustrating thing about the case was that most of the evidence had been carted out with the trash and that it was impossible to identify all of the victims.
"It's like a murder case without a body," he said. "We will never really know what was destroyed."
The shredding was discovered in April by an agency supervisor who witnessed what appeared to be unauthorized destruction of documents. The I.N.S. office of internal audit, the Justice Department's inspector general and theUnited States attorney's office for Southern California conducted the investigation that led to this week's indictments.
Ms. Randall and Mr. Salazar were each charged with conspiracy and five counts of willfully destroying documents filed with the I.N.S. The conspiracy charge carries a maximum penalty of five years in federal prison. Each of the other counts can bring three years in prison.
Their subordinates were not charged because they were low-level workers acting on instructions, the government said.
After the shredding was discovered, the immigration service opened a hotline for people who suspected their paperwork had been destroyed. Agency officials helped petitioners reconstruct their files and gave applicants the benefit of the doubt if they could not replace the documents they had submitted, said Lori Haley, a spokeswoman for the I.N.S.'s western regional office.
She said the agency made an effort last year to publicize the problem and was confident that it had rebuilt most of the lost files. She also said that additional staff members had been hired at the center and that oversight had been tightened.
"Monitoring of the activities of the support services contractor has been enhanced at the service center," Ms. Haley said. "All materials to be shredded or destroyed are reviewed first by I.N.S. personnel to make sure that no unauthorized materials are destroyed."
Ms. Randall's lawyer, Joseph G. Cavallo, said today that he had not read the charges and would not comment. He said, however, that Ms. Randall would plead not guilty at her arraignment on Monday. Mr. Salazar's lawyer, Tom Brown, did not return calls seeking comment.
The four document processing centers are operated under a $325 million contract with JHM Research and Development of Maryland, which in turn subcontracts the operations to two other companies. John Macklin, president of JHM, was unavailable for comment.
Mr. Staples, the federal prosecutor, said the contractors were cooperating with the investigation and would not be charged unless more evidence against them was developed.
"If we had found criminal liability, we would have indicted the companies," he said.
You probably didn't hear a whole lot about the vital information contained in this report that was published on Tuesday because of all the Shrub's war mongering going on at the same time (that, in all fairness, had to be reported on, I suppose).
So now that that's all over...Meanwhile, back here in reality, some of us would like to know what the inspectors over there in Iraq actually had to say in their report to the U.N. Security Council. (And it's on FOX News online, of all places :-)
The document also provides a great backgrounder on the last eleven years of weapons inspections in Iraq, right up until yesterday.
There's good news and bad news -- but at least you can read it all here for yourselves. (Thanks Pat.)
Hans Blix's Report to the U.N.
Mr President, I must not conclude this "update" without some notes on the growing capability of UNMOVIC.In the past two months, UNMOVIC has built-up its capabilities in Iraq from nothing to 260 staff members from 60 countries. This includes approximately 100 UNMOVIC inspectors, 60 air operations staff, as well as security personnel, communications, translation and interpretation staff, medical support, and other services at our Baghdad office and Mosul field office. All serve the United Nations and report to no one else.
Furthermore, our roster of inspectors will continue to grow as our training program continues — even at this moment we have a training course in session in Vienna. At the end of that course, we shall have a roster of about 350 qualified experts from which to draw inspectors.
A team supplied by the Swiss Government is refurbishing our offices in Baghdad, which had been empty for four years. The Government of New Zealand has contributed both a medical team and a communications team. The German Government will contribute unmanned aerial vehicles for surveillance and a group of specialists to operate them for us within Iraq. The Government of Cyprus has kindly allowed us to set up a Field Office in Larnaca.
All these contributions have been of assistance in quickly starting up our inspections and enhancing our capabilities. So has help from the UN in New York and from sister organizations in Baghdad.
In the past two months during which we have built-up our presence in Iraq, we have conducted about 300 inspections to more than 230 different sites. Of these, more than 20 were sites that had not been inspected before. By the end of December, UNMOVIC began using helicopters both for the transport of inspectors and for actual inspection work.
We now have eight helicopters. They have already proved invaluable in helping to "freeze" large sites by observing the movement of traffic in and around the area.
Setting up a field office in Mosul has facilitated rapid inspections of sites in northern Iraq. We plan to establish soon a second field office in the Basra area, where we have already inspected a number of sites.
Mr. President, we have now an inspection apparatus that permits us to send multiple inspection teams every day all over Iraq, by road or by air. Let me end by simply noting that that capability which has been built-up in a short time and which is now operating, is at the disposal of the Security Council.
Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,76710,00.html
Raw Data: Hans Blix's Report to the U.N.
Tuesday, January 28, 2003
The following is the text of UNMOVIC Executive Chairman Hans Blix's report to the United Nations on Jan. 27, 2003:
The resolution adopted by the Security Council on Iraq in November last year asks UNMOVIC and the IAEA to "update" the Council 60 days after the resumption of inspections. This is today. The updating, it seems, forms part of an assessment by the Council and its Members of the results, so far, of the inspections and of their role as a means to achieve verifiable disarmament in Iraq.
As this is an open meeting of the Council, it may be appropriate briefly to provide some background for a better understanding of where we stand today.
With your permission, I shall do so.
I begin by recalling that inspections as a part of a disarmament process in Iraq started in 1991, immediately after the Gulf War. They went on for eight years until December 1998, when inspectors were withdrawn. Thereafter, for nearly four years there were no inspections. They were resumed only at the end of November last year.
While the fundamental aim of inspections in Iraq has always been to verify disarmament, the successive resolutions adopted by the Council over the years have varied somewhat in emphasis and approach.
In 1991, Resolution 687 (1991), adopted unanimously as a part of the cease-fire after the Gulf War, had five major elements. The three first related to disarmament. They called for:
• Declarations by Iraq of its programs of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles;
• Verification of the declarations through UNSCOM and the IAEA;
• Supervision by these organizations of the destruction or the elimination of proscribed programs and items.
After the completion of the disarmament:
• The Council would have authority to proceed to a lifting of the sanctions (economic restrictions); and
• The inspecting organizations would move to long-term ongoing monitoring and verification.
Resolution 687 (1991), like the subsequent resolutions I shall refer to, required cooperation by Iraq but such was often withheld or given grudgingly. Unlike South Africa, which decided on its own to eliminate its nuclear weapons and welcomed inspection as a means of creating confidence in its disarmament, Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance — not even today — of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace.
As we know, the twin operation "declare and verify," which was prescribed in resolution 687 (1991), too often turned into a game of "hide and seek." Rather than just verifying declarations and supporting evidence, the two inspecting organizations found themselves engaged in efforts to map the weapons programs and to search for evidence through inspections, interviews, seminars, inquiries with suppliers and intelligence organizations.
As a result, the disarmament phase was not completed in the short time expected. Sanctions remained and took a severe toll until Iraq accepted the Oil for Food Program and the gradual development of that program mitigated the effects of the sanctions.
The implementation of resolution 687 (1991) nevertheless brought about considerable disarmament results. It has been recognized that more weapons of mass destruction were destroyed under this resolution than were destroyed during the Gulf War: large quantities of chemical weapons were destroyed under UNSCOM supervision before 1994.
While Iraq claims — with little evidence — that it destroyed all biological weapons unilaterally in 1991, it is certain that UNSCOM destroyed large biological weapons production facilities in 1996. The large nuclear infrastructure was destroyed and the fissionable material was removed from Iraq by the IAEA.
One of three important questions before us today is how much might remain undeclared and intact from before 1991; and, possibly, thereafter; the second question is what, if anything, was illegally produced or procured after 1998, when the inspectors left; and the third question is how it can be prevented that any weapons of mass destruction be produced or procured in the future.
In December 1999 — after one year without inspections in Iraq — Resolution 1284 (1999) was adopted by the Council with four abstentions. Supplementing the basic resolutions of 1991 and following years, it provided Iraq with a somewhat less ambitious approach: In return for "cooperation in all respects" for a specified period of time, including progress in the resolution of "key remaining disarmament tasks", it opened the possibility, not for the lifting, but the suspension of sanctions.
For nearly three years, Iraq refused to accept any inspections by UNMOVIC. It was only after appeals by the Secretary-General and Arab states and pressure by the United States and other Member States, that Iraq declared on 16 September last year that it would again accept inspections without conditions.
Resolution 1441 (2002) was adopted on 8 November last year and emphatically reaffirmed the demand on Iraq to cooperate. It required this cooperation to be immediate, unconditional and active. The resolution contained many provisions, which we welcome as enhancing and strengthening the inspection regime. The unanimity by which it was adopted sent a powerful signal that the Council was of one mind in creating a last opportunity for peaceful disarmament in Iraq through inspection.
UNMOVIC shares the sense of urgency felt by the Council to use inspection as a path to attain, within a reasonable time, verifiable disarmament of Iraq. Under the resolutions I have cited, it would be followed by monitoring for such time as the Council feels would be required. The resolutions also point to a zone free of weapons of mass destruction as the ultimate goal.
As a subsidiary body of the Council, UNMOVIC is fully aware of and appreciates the close attention, which the Council devotes to the inspections in Iraq. While today's "updating" is foreseen in Resolution 1441 (2002), the Council can and does call for additional briefings whenever it wishes. One was held on 19 January and a further such briefing is tentatively set for 14 February.
I turn now to the key requirement of cooperation and Iraq's response to it. Cooperation might be said to relate to both substance and process. It would appear from our experience so far that Iraq has decided in principle to provide cooperation on process, notably access. A similar decision is indispensable to provide cooperation on substance in order to bring the disarmament task to completion through the peaceful process of inspection and to bring the monitoring task on a firm course. An initial minor step would be to adopt the long-overdue legislation required by the resolutions.
I shall deal first with cooperation on process.
Cooperation on Process
It has regard to the procedures, mechanisms, infrastructure and practical arrangements to pursue inspections and seek verifiable disarmament. While inspection is not built on the premise of confidence but may lead to confidence if it is successful, there must nevertheless be a measure of mutual confidence from the very beginning in running the operation of inspection.
Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field. The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt. We have further had great help in building up the infrastructure of our office in Baghdad and the field office in Mosul. Arrangements and services for our plane and our helicopters have been good. The environment has been workable.
Our inspections have included universities, military bases, presidential sites and private residences. Inspections have also taken place on Fridays, the Muslim day of rest, on Christmas Day and New Year's Day. These inspections have been conducted in the same manner as all other inspections. We seek to be both effective and correct.
In this updating I am bound, however, to register some problems. Firstly, relating to two kinds of air operations.
While we now have the technical capability to send a U-2 plane placed at our disposal for aerial imagery and for surveillance during inspections and have informed Iraq that we planned to do so, Iraq has refused to guarantee its safety, unless a number of conditions are fulfilled. As these conditions went beyond what is stipulated in Resolution 1441 (2002) and what was practiced by UNSCOM and Iraq in the past, we note that Iraq is not so far complying with our request. I hope this attitude will change.
Another air operation problem — which was solved during our recent talks in Baghdad — concerned the use of helicopters flying into the no-fly zones. Iraq had insisted on sending helicopters of their own to accompany ours. This would have raised a safety problem. The matter was solved by an offer on our part to take the accompanying Iraq minders in our helicopters to the sites, an arrangement that had been practiced by UNSCOM in the past.
I am obliged to note some recent disturbing incidents and harassment. For instance, for some time farfetched allegations have been made publicly that questions posed by inspectors were of intelligence character. While I might not defend every question that inspectors might have asked, Iraq knows that they do not serve intelligence purposes and Iraq should not say so.
On a number of occasions, demonstrations have taken place in front of our offices and at inspection sites.
The other day, a sightseeing excursion by five inspectors to a mosque was followed by an unwarranted public outburst. The inspectors went without any UN insignia and were welcomed in the kind manner that is characteristic of the normal Iraqi attitude to foreigners. They took off their shoes and were taken around. They asked perfectly innocent questions and parted with the invitation to come again.
Shortly thereafter, we receive protests from the Iraqi authorities about an unannounced inspection and about questions not relevant to weapons of mass destruction. Indeed, they were not. Demonstrations and outbursts of this kind are unlikely to occur in Iraq without initiative or encouragement from the authorities. We must ask ourselves what the motives may be for these events. They do not facilitate an already difficult job, in which we try to be effective, professional and, at the same time, correct. Where our Iraqi counterparts have some complaint they can take it up in a calmer and less unpleasant manner.
Cooperation on Substance
The substantive cooperation required relates above all to the obligation of Iraq to declare all programs of weapons of mass destruction and either to present items and activities for elimination or else to provide evidence supporting the conclusion that nothing proscribed remains.
Paragraph 9 of Resolution 1441 (2002) states that this cooperation shall be "active". It is not enough to open doors. Inspection is not a game of "catch as catch can". Rather, as I noted, it is a process of verification for the purpose of creating confidence. It is not built upon the premise of trust. Rather, it is designed to lead to trust, if there is both openness to the inspectors and action to present them with items to destroy or credible evidence about the absence of any such items.
The Declaration of 7 December
On 7 December 2002, Iraq submitted a declaration of some 12,000 pages in response to Paragraph 3 of Resolution 1441 (2002) and within the time stipulated by the Security Council. In the fields of missiles and biotechnology, the declaration contains a good deal of new material and information covering the period from 1998 and onward. This is welcome.
One might have expected that in preparing the Declaration, Iraq would have tried to respond to, clarify and submit supporting evidence regarding the many open disarmament issues, which the Iraqi side should be familiar with from the UNSCOM document (S/1999/94) of January 1999 and the so-called Amorim Report of March 1999 (S/1999/356). These are questions which UNMOVIC, governments and independent commentators have often cited.
While UNMOVIC has been preparing its own list of current "unresolved disarmament issues" and "key remaining disarmament tasks" in response to requirements in resolution 1284 (1999), we find the issues listed in the two reports as unresolved, professionally justified. These reports do not contend that weapons of mass destruction remain in Iraq, but nor do they exclude that possibility. They point to lack of evidence and inconsistencies, which raise question marks, which must be straightened out, if weapons dossiers are to be closed and confidence is to arise.
They deserve to be taken seriously by Iraq rather than being brushed aside as evil machinations of UNSCOM. Regrettably, the 12,000 page declaration, most of which is a reprint of earlier documents, does not seem to contain any new evidence that would eliminate the questions or reduce their number. Even Iraq's letter sent in response to our recent discussions in Baghdad to the President of the Security Council on 24 January does not lead us to the resolution of these issues.
I shall only give some examples of issues and questions that need to be answered and I turn first to the sector of chemical weapons.
Chemical Weapons
The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed.
Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few [metric] tons and that the quality was poor and the product unstable. Consequently, it was said, that the agent was never weaponized. Iraq said that the small quantity of agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.
UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared.
There are also indications that the agent was weaponizied. In addition, there are questions to be answered concerning the fate of the VX precursor chemicals, which Iraq states were lost during bombing in the Gulf War or were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq.
I would now like to turn to the so-called "Air Force document" that I have discussed with the Council before. This document was originally found by an UNSCOM inspector in a safe in Iraqi Air Force Headquarters in 1998 and taken from her by Iraqi minders. It gives an account of the expenditure of bombs, including chemical bombs, by Iraq in the Iraq-Iran War. I am encouraged by the fact that Iraq has now provided this document to UNMOVIC.
The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 [metric] tons. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.
The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions.
The investigation of these rockets is still proceeding. Iraq states that they were overlooked from 1991 from a batch of some 2,000 that were stored there during the Gulf War. This could be the case. They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for.
The finding of the rockets shows that Iraq needs to make more effort to ensure that its declaration is currently accurate. During my recent discussions in Baghdad, Iraq declared that it would make new efforts in this regard and had set up a committee of investigation. Since then it has reported that it has found a further four chemical rockets at a storage depot in Al Taji.
I might further mention that inspectors have found at another site a laboratory quantity of thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor.
Whilst I am addressing chemical issues, I should mention a matter, which I reported on 19 December 2002, concerning equipment at a civilian chemical plant at Al Fallujah. Iraq has declared that it had repaired chemical processing equipment previously destroyed under UNSCOM supervision, and had installed it at Fallujah for the production of chlorine and phenols. We have inspected this equipment and are conducting a detailed technical evaluation of it. On completion, we will decide whether this and other equipment that has been recovered by Iraq should be destroyed.
Biological Weapons
I have mentioned the issue of anthrax to the Council on previous occasions and I come back to it as it is an important one.
Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 liters of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.
There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991.
As I reported to the Council on 19 December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kg, of bacterial growth media, which was acknowledged as imported in Iraq's submission to the Amorim panel in February 1999. As part of its 7 December 2002 declaration, Iraq resubmitted the Amorim panel document, but the table showing this particular import of media was not included. The absence of this table would appear to be deliberate as the pages of the resubmitted document were renumbered.
In the letter of 24 January to the President of the Council, Iraq's Foreign Minister stated that "all imported quantities of growth media were declared". This is not evidence. I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 liters of concentrated anthrax.
Missiles
I turn now to the missile sector. There remain significant questions as to whether Iraq retained SCUD-type missiles after the Gulf War. Iraq declared the consumption of a number of SCUD missiles as targets in the development of an anti-ballistic missile defense system during the 1980s. Yet no technical information has been produced about that program or data on the consumption of the missiles.
There has been a range of developments in the missile field during the past four years presented by Iraq as non-proscribed activities. We are trying to gather a clear understanding of them through inspections and on-site discussions.
Two projects in particular stand out. They are the development of a liquid-fueled missile named the Al Samoud 2, and a solid propellant missile, called the Al Fatah. Both missiles have been tested to a range in excess of the permitted range of 150 km, with the Al Samoud 2 being tested to a maximum of 183 km and the Al Fatah to 161 km. Some of both types of missiles have already been provided to the Iraqi Armed Forces even though it is stated that they are still undergoing development.
The Al Samoud's diameter was increased from an earlier version to the present 760 mm. This modification was made despite a 1994 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNSCOM directing Iraq to limit its missile diameters to less than 600 mm. Furthermore, a November 1997 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNSCOM to Iraq prohibited the use of engines from certain surface-to-air missiles for the use in ballistic missiles.
During my recent meeting in Baghdad, we were briefed on these two programs. We were told that the final range for both systems would be less than the permitted maximum range of 150 km.
These missiles might well represent prima facie cases of proscribed systems. The test ranges in excess of 150 km are significant, but some further technical considerations need to be made, before we reach a conclusion on this issue. In the mean time, we have asked Iraq to cease flight tests of both missiles.
In addition, Iraq has refurbished its missile production infrastructure. In particular, Iraq reconstituted a number of casting chambers, which had previously been destroyed under UNSCOM supervision. They had been used in the production of solid-fuel missiles. Whatever missile system these chambers are intended for, they could produce motors for missiles capable of ranges significantly greater than 150 km.
Also associated with these missiles and related developments is the import, which has been taking place during the last few years, of a number of items despite the sanctions, including as late as December 2002. Foremost amongst these is the import of 380 rocket engines which may be used for the Al Samoud 2.
Iraq also declared the recent import of chemicals used in propellants, test instrumentation and, guidance and control systems. These items may well be for proscribed purposes. That is yet to be determined. What is clear is that they were illegally brought into Iraq, that is, Iraq or some company in Iraq, circumvented the restrictions imposed by various resolutions.
Mr. President, I have touched upon some of the disarmament issues that remain open and that need to be answered if dossiers are to be closed and confidence is to arise. Which are the means at the disposal of Iraq to answer these questions? I have pointed to some during my presentation of the issues. Let me be a little more systematic.
Our Iraqi counterparts are fond of saying that there are no proscribed items and if no evidence is presented to the contrary they should have the benefit of the doubt, be presumed innocent. UNMOVIC, for its part, is not presuming that there are proscribed items and activities in Iraq, but nor is it — or I think anyone else after the inspections between 1991 and 1998 — presuming the opposite, that no such items and activities exist in Iraq. Presumptions do not solve the problem. Evidence and full transparency may help. Let me be specific.
Find the Items and Activities
Information provided by Member States tells us about the movement and concealment of missiles and chemical weapons and mobile units for biological weapons production. We shall certainly follow up any credible leads given to us and report what we might find as well as any denial of access.
So far we have reported on the recent find of a small number of empty 122 mm warheads for chemical weapons. Iraq declared that it appointed a commission of inquiry to look for more. Fine. Why not extend the search to other items? Declare what may be found and destroy it under our supervision?
Find Documents
When we have urged our Iraqi counterparts to present more evidence, we have all too often met the response that there are no more documents. All existing relevant documents have been presented, we are told. All documents relating to the biological weapons program were destroyed together with the weapons.
However, Iraq has all the archives of the Government and its various departments, institutions and mechanisms. It should have budgetary documents, requests for funds and reports on how they have been used. It should also have letters of credit and bills of lading, reports on production and losses of material.
In response to a recent UNMOVIC request for a number of specific documents, the only new documents Iraq provided was a ledger of 193 pages which Iraq stated included all imports from 1983 to 1990 by the Technical and Scientific Importation Division, the importing authority for the biological weapons program. Potentially, it might help to clear some open issues.
The recent inspection find in the private home of a scientist of a box of some 3,000 pages of documents, much of it relating to the laser enrichment of uranium support a concern that has long existed that documents might be distributed to the homes of private individuals.
This interpretation is refuted by the Iraqi side, which claims that research staff sometimes may bring home papers from their work places. On our side, we cannot help but think that the case might not be isolated and that such placements of documents is deliberate to make discovery difficult and to seek to shield documents by placing them in private homes.
Any further sign of the concealment of documents would be serious. The Iraqi side committed itself at our recent talks to encourage persons to accept access also to private sites. There can be no sanctuaries for proscribed items, activities or documents. A denial of prompt access to any site would be a very serious matter.
Find Persons to Give Credible Information: A List of Personnel
When Iraq claims that tangible evidence in the form of documents is not available, it ought at least to find individuals, engineers, scientists and managers to testify about their experience. Large weapons programs are moved and managed by people. Interviews with individuals who may have worked in programs in the past may fill blank spots in our knowledge and understanding. It could also be useful to learn that they are now employed in peaceful sectors. These were the reasons why UNMOVIC asked for a list of such persons, in accordance with resolution 1441.
Some 400 names for all biological and chemical weapons programs as well as their missile programs were provided by the Iraqi side. This can be compared to over 3,500 names of people associated with those past weapons programs that UNSCOM either interviewed in the 1990s or knew from documents and other sources. At my recent meeting in Baghdad, the Iraqi side committed itself to supplementing the list and some 80 additional names have been provided.
Allow Information Through Credible Interviews
In the past, much valuable information came from interviews. There were also cases in which the interviewee was clearly intimidated by the presence of and interruption by Iraqi officials. This was the background of Resolution 1441's provision for a right for UNMOVIC and the IAEA to hold private interviews "in the mode or location" of our choice, in Baghdad or even abroad.
To date, 11 individuals were asked for interviews in Baghdad by us. The replies have invariably been that the individual will only speak at Iraq's monitoring directorate or, at any rate, in the presence of an Iraqi official. This could be due to a wish on the part of the invited to have evidence that they have not said anything that the authorities did not wish them to say.
At our recent talks in Baghdad, the Iraqi side committed itself to encourage persons to accept interviews "in private", that is to say alone with us. Despite this, the pattern has not changed. However, we hope that with further encouragement from the authorities, knowledgeable individuals will accept private interviews, in Baghdad or abroad.
UNMOVIC's Capability
Mr President, I must not conclude this "update" without some notes on the growing capability of UNMOVIC.
In the past two months, UNMOVIC has built-up its capabilities in Iraq from nothing to 260 staff members from 60 countries. This includes approximately 100 UNMOVIC inspectors, 60 air operations staff, as well as security personnel, communications, translation and interpretation staff, medical support, and other services at our Baghdad office and Mosul field office. All serve the United Nations and report to no one else.
Furthermore, our roster of inspectors will continue to grow as our training program continues — even at this moment we have a training course in session in Vienna. At the end of that course, we shall have a roster of about 350 qualified experts from which to draw inspectors.
A team supplied by the Swiss Government is refurbishing our offices in Baghdad, which had been empty for four years. The Government of New Zealand has contributed both a medical team and a communications team. The German Government will contribute unmanned aerial vehicles for surveillance and a group of specialists to operate them for us within Iraq. The Government of Cyprus has kindly allowed us to set up a Field Office in Larnaca.
All these contributions have been of assistance in quickly starting up our inspections and enhancing our capabilities. So has help from the UN in New York and from sister organizations in Baghdad.
In the past two months during which we have built-up our presence in Iraq, we have conducted about 300 inspections to more than 230 different sites. Of these, more than 20 were sites that had not been inspected before. By the end of December, UNMOVIC began using helicopters both for the transport of inspectors and for actual inspection work.
We now have eight helicopters. They have already proved invaluable in helping to "freeze" large sites by observing the movement of traffic in and around the area.
Setting up a field office in Mosul has facilitated rapid inspections of sites in northern Iraq. We plan to establish soon a second field office in the Basra area, where we have already inspected a number of sites.
Mr. President, we have now an inspection apparatus that permits us to send multiple inspection teams every day all over Iraq, by road or by air. Let me end by simply noting that that capability which has been built-up in a short time and which is now operating, is at the disposal of the Security Council.
New subpage format. Let me know what you think, because I'm about to make a lot more like this:
Lisa Rein's Videos, Photos, MP3s and Transcripts of Congresswoman Barbara Lee
All on one page:
Give Peace A Chance - Footage from January 18, 2003 March - San Francisco, CA
From the "we say 'rip mix burn' but we don't really mean it" department.
It's like Apple saying "when we gave you a telephone connectivity kit, we thought you were only going to call these kinds of people on these kinds of phones -- not these other people. Why would you want to use a phone to talk to them? We only wanted you to talk to these kinds of people who are using these kinds of our phones (which we would also like you to buy please)."
"Don't you see. Although it feels like you're using your phone to talk to who you want and get the information you need, you're talking to the wrong people on the wrong kinds of phones (although we also manufacture and distribute the phones you'd like to converse with)."
"Look we have our reasons, ok? So you'd better just give your phone-making kit back! And don't try anything funny -- like making your own phone kit.
We'll tell you who to talk to and what for from this point on. Got it buddy?"
Here Apple -- now you can put this in your pipe and smoke it:
Developer to revive iTunes file-sharing
By Matthew Broersma, Special to CNET News.com.
The developer of a peer-to-peer file-sharing plug-in for
Apple Computer's iTunes music application has decided
to give the software a new lease on life, after it was put
out of commission by the computer maker's lawyers
earlier this month.Two weeks ago, Apple ordered developer James Speth
to return his iTunes software developer kit and to stop
distributing the iCommune plug-in for iTunes. The plug-in
allowed iTunes to play or download music from other Macs
via a network or Internet connection, potentially giving
the music player a peer-to-peer feature.In a recent message sent to iCommune users, Speth
said that he will honor, Apple's request to stop
distributing his software, but he will build the same
features into a standalone application. The next
version of iCommune will work with iTunes and
potentially other digital music players and will use
Rendezvous, Apple's implementation of a protocol
for automatic discovery of network-connected devices.Speth also said that the new version will be open
source under the General Public License, the
same license used by the GNU/Linux operating system.
Open-source software can be freely modified and
redistributed, as long as the modified code is
returned to the community...Apple itself has publicly demonstrated the use
of Rendezvous to allow iTunes to access other
\playlists across a network, but has given no
indication of when such a version of iTunes
might appear. The current version 3 of the
program shares playlists with other version 3
"iLife" applications, such as iMovie, iDVD and iCal.ICommune differs from Apple's concept, however,
in that it enables music downloads. Services such
as Napster, Aimster, Morpheus and Kazaa have
incurred the legal wrath of the music industry for
enabling users to trade song files, which record
companies say has resulted in mass piracy and
declining CD sales.However, Apple has said that legal fears played
no part in its decision to pull the plug on iCommune.
The proprietary iTunes software developer kit used by
Speth was intended only for making iTunes connect
to hardware devices, not to other Macs, according to Apple.
Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:
Developer to revive iTunes file-sharing
By Matthew Broersma
Special to CNET News.com
January 28, 2003, 11:09 AM PT
http://news.com.com/2100-1040-982441.html
The developer of a peer-to-peer file-sharing plug-in for Apple Computer's
iTunes music application has decided to give the software a new lease on life,
after it was put out of commission by the computer maker's lawyers earlier this
month.
Two weeks ago, Apple ordered developer James Speth to return his iTunes
software developer kit and to stop distributing the iCommune plug-in for
iTunes. The plug-in allowed iTunes to play or download music from other Macs
via a network or Internet connection, potentially giving the music player a
peer-to-peer feature.
In a recent message sent to iCommune users, Speth said that he will honor
Apple's request to stop distributing his software, but he will build the same
features into a standalone application. The next version of iCommune will work
with iTunes and potentially other digital music players and will use
Rendezvous, Apple's implementation of a protocol for automatic discovery of
network-connected devices.
Speth also said that the new version will be open source under the General
Public License, the same license used by the GNU/Linux operating system.
Open-source software can be freely modified and redistributed, as long as the
modified code is returned to the community.
"I'm going to get the basics of the next version done, then get it out the
door, with source. Hopefully, from there it will take on a life of its own and
get even better," Speth said in the message.
Apple itself has publicly demonstrated the use of Rendezvous to allow iTunes to
access other playlists across a network, but has given no indication of when
such a version of iTunes might appear. The current version 3 of the program
shares playlists with other version 3 "iLife" applications, such as iMovie,
iDVD and iCal.
ICommune differs from Apple's concept, however, in that it enables music
downloads. Services such as Napster, Aimster, Morpheus and Kazaa have incurred
the legal wrath of the music industry for enabling users to trade song files,
which record companies say has resulted in mass piracy and declining CD sales.
However, Apple has said that legal fears played no part in its decision to pull
the plug on iCommune. The proprietary iTunes software developer kit used by
Speth was intended only for making iTunes connect to hardware devices, not to
other Macs, according to Apple.
ZDNet U.K.'s Matthew Broersma reported from London .
US buys up Iraqi oil to stave off crisis
Seizing reserves will be an allied priority if forces go in
By Faisal Islam and Nick Paton Walsh in Moscow for The Observer.
Facing its most chronic shortage in oil stocks for 27 years, the US has this month turned to an unlikely source of help - Iraq.Weeks before a prospective invasion of Iraq, the oil-rich state has doubled its exports of oil to America, helping US refineries cope with a debilitating strike in Venezuela.
After the loss of 1.5 million barrels per day of Venezuelan production in December the oil price rocketed, and the scarcity of reserves threatened to do permanent damage to the US oil refinery and transport infrastructure. To keep the pipelines flowing, President Bush stopped adding to the 700m barrel strategic reserve.
But ultimately oil giants such as Chevron, Exxon, BP and Shell saved the day by doubling imports from Iraq from 0.5m barrels in November to over 1m barrels per day to solve the problem. Essentially, US importers diverted 0.5m barrels of Iraqi oil per day heading for Europe and Asia to save the American oil infrastructure.
The trade, though bizarre given current Pentagon plans to launch around 300 cruise missiles a day on Iraq, is legal under the terms of UN's oil for food programme...
But, in the run-up to war, the US oil majors will this week report a big leap in profits. ChevronTexaco is to report a 300 per cent rise. Chevron used to employ the hawkish Condoleezza Rice, Bush's National Security Adviser, as a member of its board.
Five years ago the then Chevron chief executive Kenneth Derr, a colleague of Rice, said: 'Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas - reserves I'd love Chevron to have access to.'
Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:
http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,882512,00.html
Guardian Unlimited
US buys up Iraqi oil to stave off crisis
Seizing reserves will be an allied priority if forces go in
Faisal Islam and Nick Paton Walsh in Moscow
Sunday January 26, 2003
The Observer
Facing its most chronic shortage in oil stocks for 27 years, the US has this month turned to an unlikely source of help - Iraq.
Weeks before a prospective invasion of Iraq, the oil-rich state has doubled its exports of oil to America, helping US refineries cope with a debilitating strike in Venezuela.
After the loss of 1.5 million barrels per day of Venezuelan production in December the oil price rocketed, and the scarcity of reserves threatened to do permanent damage to the US oil refinery and transport infrastructure. To keep the pipelines flowing, President Bush stopped adding to the 700m barrel strategic reserve.
But ultimately oil giants such as Chevron, Exxon, BP and Shell saved the day by doubling imports from Iraq from 0.5m barrels in November to over 1m barrels per day to solve the problem. Essentially, US importers diverted 0.5m barrels of Iraqi oil per day heading for Europe and Asia to save the American oil infrastructure.
The trade, though bizarre given current Pentagon plans to launch around 300 cruise missiles a day on Iraq, is legal under the terms of UN's oil for food programme.
But for opponents of war, it shows the unspoken aim of military action in Iraq, which has the world's second largest proven reserves - some 112 billion barrels, and at least another 100bn of unproven reserves, according to the US Department of Energy. Iraqi oil is comparatively simple to extract - less than $1 per barrel, compared with $6 a barrel in Russia. Soon, US and British forces could be securing the source of that oil as a priority in the war strategy. The Iraqi fields south of Basra produce prized 'sweet crudes' that are simpler to refine.
On Friday, Pentagon sources said US military planners 'have crafted strategies that will allow us to secure and protect those fields as rapidly as possible in order to then preserve those prior to destruction'.
The US military says this is a security issue rather than a grab for oil, after a 'variety of intelligence sources' indicated that Saddam planned to damage or destroy his oil fields - which would inflict up to $30bn damage on the US economy and cause irreparable environmental damage.
But the prospect of British and US commandos claiming key oil installations around Basra by force has pushed global oil diplomacy into overdrive. International oil companies have been jockeying position to secure concessions before 'regime change'.
Last weekend a Russian delegation flew to Baghdad to patch up relations after Iraq's cancellation of its five-year-old contract to develop the huge West Qurna oil field - worth up to $600bn at today's oil price. Lukoil was punished by Baghdad for negotiating with the US and Iraqi exiles on keeping its concession in a post-Saddam Iraq.
The delegation of Ministers and oil executives returned to Moscow with three signed contracts. Oil is the state budget's lifeblood, and Russia requires an oil price of at least $18. Russians fear a US grip on a large reserve of cheap oil could send prices tumbling.
But Saddam has offered lucrative contracts to companies from France, China, India and Indonesia as well as Russia.
It is only the oil majors based in Britain and America - now the leading military hawks - that don't have current access to Iraqi contracts.
Richard Lugar, the hawkish chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, suggests reluctant Europeans risk losing out on oil contracts. 'The case he had made is that the Russians and the French, if they want to have a share in the oil operations or concessions or whatever afterward, they need to be involved in the effort to depose Saddam as well,' said Lugar's spokesman.
A delegation of senior US Republicans was in Moscow last Tuesday trying to persuade Kremlin officials and oil companies that a war in Iraq would not compromise their concessions. A leaked oil analyst report from Deutsche Bank said ExxonMobil was in 'pole position in a changed-regime Iraq'.
Washington is split along hawk-dove lines about the role of oil in a post-Saddam Iraq. Two sets of meetings sponsored by the State Department and Vice-President Dick Cheney's staff have been attended by representatives of ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco, ConocoPhilips and Halliburton, the company that Cheney ran before his election.
The dovish line, led by Colin Powell, places the emphasis on 'protection' of Iraq's oil for Iraq's people. His State Department has pointed to a precedent in the US interpretation of international law set in the 1970s. Then, when Israel occupied Egypt's Sinai desert, the US did not support attempts to transfer oil resources.
While the State Department is mindful of cynical world opinion about US war aims, officials do not always stick to the script. Grant Aldonas, Under Secretary at the US Department of Commerce, said war 'would open up this spigot on Iraqi oil which certainly would have a profound effect in terms of the performance of the world economy for those countries that are manufacturers and oil consumers'.
The US economy will announce zero growth this week, prolonging three years of sluggish performance. Cheap oil would boost an economy importing half of its daily consumption of 20m barrels.
But a cheaper oil price could have been reached more easily by lifting sanctions and giving the US oil majors access to Iraq's untapped reserves.
Instead, war stands to give control over the oil price to 'new Iraq' and its sponsors, with Saudi Arabia losing its capacity to control prices by altering productive capacity.
Paul Wolfowitz, Assistant Defence Secretary, and Richard Perle, a key Pentagon adviser, see military action as part of a grand plan to reshape the Middle East.
To this end, control of Iraqi oil needs to bypass the twin tyrannies of UN control and regional fragmentation into Sunni, Shia and Kurdish supplies. The neo-conservatives plan a market structure based on bypassing the state-owned Iraqi National Oil Company and backing new free-market Iraqi companies.
But, in the run-up to war, the US oil majors will this week report a big leap in profits. ChevronTexaco is to report a 300 per cent rise. Chevron used to employ the hawkish Condoleezza Rice, Bush's National Security Adviser, as a member of its board.
Five years ago the then Chevron chief executive Kenneth Derr, a colleague of Rice, said: 'Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas - reserves I'd love Chevron to have access to.'
If US and UK forces have victory in Iraq, the battle for its oil will have only begun.
Fair use under assault
EFF co-founder John Perry Barlow argues the case against DRM
By Steve Gillmor for InfoWorld.
InfoWorld: What is the message that you feel needs to be made about DRM?Barlow: I think that anybody who cares about the future of technology --
anybody who cares about the future, period -- ought to be awfully
concerned about this. But people who work in technology have been
agnostic on the subject so far. They need to recognize that they're
going to be faced with a fairly stark choice, which is a gradual
concentration around certain trusted platforms that cannot be broken
out of and are filled with black boxes that you can't code around and
can't see the inside of.You have to get politically active and stop it from happening, because
Congress has been bought by the content industry. The choice is being
made at a very complex and subterranean political level. It's being
done in standard settings, with the FCC, in amendments to obscure bills
in Congress, in the closed door sessions to set the Digital Broadcast
Standard. It has very significant long-term effects [for] the technical
architecture of cyberspace, because what we're talking about embedding
into everything is a control and surveillance mechanism for the purpose
of observing copyright piracy, but [it] can be used for anything...InfoWorld: You obviously feel strongly as an artist about the need to
protect fair use of content.Barlow: We can't be creative without having access to other creative
work. [If] I have to make sure that the rights are cleared every time I
download something or somebody wants me to hear something, it's going
to cut way back on what I hear, which is going to cut way back on my
capacity to create. Imagine what it would be like to write a song if
you'd never heard one. Fair use is essential. But it is under assault.
Here is the full text of the entire article in case link goes bad:
http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/01/24/030124hnbarlow_1.html
JOHN PERRY BARLOW is a retired Wyoming cattle rancher, a lyricist for
the Grateful Dead, co-founder of the EFF (Electronic Frontier
Foundation), and an outspoken advocate for fair use of content. In an
interview with InfoWorld Test Center Director Steve Gillmor, Barlow
discusses his opposition to DRM (digital rights management),
intellectual property law, and copyright extension.
InfoWorld: What is the message that you feel needs to be made about DRM?
Barlow: I think that anybody who cares about the future of technology --
anybody who cares about the future, period -- ought to be awfully
concerned about this. But people who work in technology have been
agnostic on the subject so far. They need to recognize that they're
going to be faced with a fairly stark choice, which is a gradual
concentration around certain trusted platforms that cannot be broken
out of and are filled with black boxes that you can't code around and
can't see the inside of.
You have to get politically active and stop it from happening, because
Congress has been bought by the content industry. The choice is being
made at a very complex and subterranean political level. It's being
done in standard settings, with the FCC, in amendments to obscure bills
in Congress, in the closed door sessions to set the Digital Broadcast
Standard. It has very significant long-term effects [for] the technical
architecture of cyberspace, because what we're talking about embedding
into everything is a control and surveillance mechanism for the purpose
of observing copyright piracy, but [it] can be used for anything.
InfoWorld: Don't you think it's ironic that the computer industry is
going along with this?
Barlow: I think it's unfathomable. But Microsoft and Intel are going to
make their pact with the Hollywood devil and they're going to create a
huge, trusted platform that's going to be the institutional platform.
Apple, every Linux publisher, AMD, Motorola, Transmeta, and various
different hardware manufacturers are not going to sign on, and there's
going to be another open platform. But there are efforts under way to
make that unlawful. There's a bill being proposed that would forbid the
United States government to use anything that was under a GPL [General
Public License]. That's significant, and it's obscure. ... I'm not
saying the GPL needs to be protected, but I think if you're going to
have critical mass, technological mass around a set of standards, that
not being able to have the United States government as a customer for
those standards is a significant matter.
InfoWorld: You obviously feel strongly as an artist about the need to
protect fair use of content.
Barlow: We can't be creative without having access to other creative
work. [If] I have to make sure that the rights are cleared every time I
download something or somebody wants me to hear something, it's going
to cut way back on what I hear, which is going to cut way back on my
capacity to create. Imagine what it would be like to write a song if
you'd never heard one. Fair use is essential. But it is under assault.
InfoWorld: Why is it a difficult proposition to make this case?
Barlow: It's a difficult proposition because the content industry has
done a marvelously good job of getting people to believe that there's
no difference between a song and a horse, whereas for me, if somebody's
singing my song, I think that's great. They haven't stolen anything
from me. If somebody rides off on my horse, I don't have anything and
that is theft. Otherwise intelligent people think that there's no
difference between stealing my horse and stealing my song. [The content
industry] has also managed to create the simplistic and basically
fallacious notion that unless we strengthen dramatically the existing
copyright [regime], that artists don't get paid anymore. First of all,
artists aren't getting paid much now. Second, making the institutions
that are robbing them blind even stronger is not going to assure
[their] getting paid more. And it's going to make it very difficult for
us to create economic [and] business models that would create a more
interactive relationship with the audience, which would be good for us
economically and good for us creatively.
InfoWorld: Do we have to wait for an artist to do this?
Barlow: We need to start giving people a mechanism that they can use to
compensate the artist themselves.
InfoWorld: Which is?
Barlow: I think there are a variety of ways. They're doing it already
[with] the performance model, which I don't think is perfect but it's
actually better than it's given credit for being. Think about it: $17
billion in CD sales last year [and] of that the artists themselves got
less than 5 percent. There was $60-some billion in concert proceeds
last year, and of that the artists got closer to 35 or 40 percent. ...
There is already a system of compensation that's working, and I think
that there will be other systems of compensation that can work. ... We
have the assumption that unless you're selling 200,000 units of work,
you're not successful. Well that's true -- under the current
conditions -- because it takes at least that much before [the artist]
ever sees a dime. But if you're not dealing with this piratical
intermediary, you can do just fine with an audience of 5,000 or 6,000.
InfoWorld: Demonizing the record companies is easy to do but it doesn't
seem to have much effect.
Barlow: It's gradually having an effect. New artists don't
automatically want to go out and find a manager; there's a huge
defection. The guy who I'm writing songs with at the moment, [he's] in
a young band; they have nothing to do with the record industry. They
sold out Radio City Music Hall two nights running in August, so they're
doing quite well. They've got their own record company, [which] sells
direct on the Web [and] does quite well but will never make a Billboard
chart. But they get the whole proceeds. So it's working.
InfoWorld: Why do you see .Net and Web services as another one of the
dominos being lined up as DRM points of control?
Barlow: .Net is full of stuff to guarantee that the message that's
[being] passed does not have a copyright flag set on it. All those Web
services are built to watch what's going through the service. They have
the capacity to analyze the nature of the material that's passing
through.
InfoWorld: Why not create an additional flag that's set at the
discretion of the artist?
Barlow: I think that would be great. [And] I think that the industry
would fight it to the death and they'd have the money to win.
InfoWorld: Wouldn't they have a hard time fighting a free flag?
Barlow: No, they wouldn't.
InfoWorld: But isn't that what the battle is about?
Barlow: No, the battle is [about] who makes the most contributions to
Congress. It's that simple.
InfoWorld: Then why are we talking about this, if it's that cut and
dried?
Barlow: Because we have to figure out either a way to come up with a
pool of political contributions in defense of the creative common or we
have to come up with an organized and massive system of civil
disobedience. We need to start organizing boycotts, and one of the
first things that needs to be boycotted is copy-protected CDs. I don't
think anybody should buy one.
InfoWorld: How can the EFF make a difference in this?
Barlow: We're actually at the table for these discussions on the
Digital Broadcasting [Standard]. And we're fighting copyright
extensions, which we believe have reached a point where there's no
possibility of fair use. The problem with intellectual property law is
that it tries to take something that is extremely difficult to define
and put hard definitions around it. It's not a system that we want to
try to embed in cyberspace in the early days of this development. ...
We're creating the architecture, the foundation for the social space
where everybody in humanity is going to gather. And if we jigger the
foundation design to suit the purposes of organizations that will
likely be dead in 15 years, how shortsighted is that?
Steve Gillmor is director of the InfoWorld Test Center. Contact him at
steve_gillmor@infoworld.com.
I love it. Even Schwarzkopf couldn't, in good conscience, not speak out against this war. Thanks Norman. It means a lot.
Desert Caution
Once 'Stormin' Norman,' Gen. Schwarzkopf Is Skeptical About U.S. Action in Iraq
By Thomas E. Ricks for the Washington Post.
And don't get him started on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.In fact, the hero of the last Gulf War sounds surprisingly like the man on the street when he discusses his ambivalence about the Bush administration's hawkish stance on ousting Saddam Hussein. He worries about the Iraqi leader, but would like to see some persuasive evidence of Iraq's alleged weapons programs.
"The thought of Saddam Hussein with a sophisticated nuclear capability is a frightening thought, okay?" he says. "Now, having said that, I don't know what intelligence the U.S. government has. And before I can just stand up and say, 'Beyond a shadow of a doubt, we need to invade Iraq,' I guess I would like to have better information."
He hasn't seen that yet, and so -- in sharp contrast to the Bush administration -- he supports letting the U.N. weapons inspectors drive the timetable: "I think it is very important for us to wait and see what the inspectors come up with, and hopefully they come up with something conclusive."
This isn't just any retired officer speaking. Schwarzkopf is one of the nation's best-known military officers, with name recognition second only to his former boss, Secretary of State Powell. What's more, he is closely allied with the Bush family. He hunts with the first President Bush. He campaigned for the second, speaking on military issues at the 2000 GOP convention in Philadelphia and later stumping in Florida with Cheney, who was secretary of defense during the 1991 war.
But he sees the world differently from those Gulf War colleagues. "It's obviously not a black-and-white situation over there" in the Mideast, he says. "I would just think that whatever path we take, we have to take it with a bit of prudence."
Here is the full text of the entire article in case the link goes bad:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52450-2003Jan27.html
Desert Caution
Once 'Stormin' Norman,' Gen. Schwarzkopf Is Skeptical About U.S. Action in Iraq
Schwarzkopf: "I have gotten somewhat nervous at some of the pronouncements Rumsfeld has made." (Jim Stem -- Silver Images For The Washington Post)
By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 28, 2003; Page C01
TAMPA--Norman Schwarzkopf wants to give peace a chance.
The general who commanded U.S. forces in the 1991 Gulf War says he hasn't seen enough evidence to convince him that his old comrades Dick Cheney, Colin Powell and Paul Wolfowitz are correct in moving toward a new war now. He thinks U.N. inspections are still the proper course to follow. He's worried about the cockiness of the U.S. war plan, and even more by the potential human and financial costs of occupying Iraq.
And don't get him started on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
In fact, the hero of the last Gulf War sounds surprisingly like the man on the street when he discusses his ambivalence about the Bush administration's hawkish stance on ousting Saddam Hussein. He worries about the Iraqi leader, but would like to see some persuasive evidence of Iraq's alleged weapons programs.
"The thought of Saddam Hussein with a sophisticated nuclear capability is a frightening thought, okay?" he says. "Now, having said that, I don't know what intelligence the U.S. government has. And before I can just stand up and say, 'Beyond a shadow of a doubt, we need to invade Iraq,' I guess I would like to have better information."
He hasn't seen that yet, and so -- in sharp contrast to the Bush administration -- he supports letting the U.N. weapons inspectors drive the timetable: "I think it is very important for us to wait and see what the inspectors come up with, and hopefully they come up with something conclusive."
This isn't just any retired officer speaking. Schwarzkopf is one of the nation's best-known military officers, with name recognition second only to his former boss, Secretary of State Powell. What's more, he is closely allied with the Bush family. He hunts with the first President Bush. He campaigned for the second, speaking on military issues at the 2000 GOP convention in Philadelphia and later stumping in Florida with Cheney, who was secretary of defense during the 1991 war.
But he sees the world differently from those Gulf War colleagues. "It's obviously not a black-and-white situation over there" in the Mideast, he says. "I would just think that whatever path we take, we have to take it with a bit of prudence."
So has he seen sufficient prudence in the actions of his old friends in the Bush administration? Again, he carefully withholds his endorsement. "I don't think I can give you an honest answer on that."
Now 68, the general seems smaller and more soft-spoken than in his Riyadh heyday 12 years ago when he was "Stormin' Norman," the fatigues-clad martinet who intimidated subordinates and reporters alike. During last week's interview he sat at a small, round table in his skyscraper office, casually clad in slacks and a black polo shirt, the bland banks and hotels of Tampa's financial district spread out beyond him.
His voice seems thinner than during those blustery, globally televised Gulf War briefings. He is limping from a recent knee operation. He sometimes stays home to nurse the swelling with a bag of frozen peas.
He's had time to think. He likes the performance of Colin Powell -- chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Gulf War, now secretary of state. "He's doing a wonderful job, I think," he says. But he is less impressed by Rumsfeld, whose briefings he has watched on television.
"Candidly, I have gotten somewhat nervous at some of the pronouncements Rumsfeld has made," says Schwarzkopf.
He contrasts Cheney's low profile as defense secretary during the Gulf War with Rumsfeld's frequent television appearances since Sept. 11, 2001. "He almost sometimes seems to be enjoying it." That, Schwarzkopf admonishes, is a sensation to be avoided when engaged in war.
The general is a true son of the Army, where he served from 1956 to 1991, and some of his comments reflect the estrangement between that service and the current defense secretary. Some at the top of the Army see Rumsfeld and those around him as overly enamored of air power and high technology and insufficiently attentive to the brutal difficulties of ground combat