and pothead hair styles remind of the days when the chant was  
"Hey, hey LBJ! How many kids have you killed today."     
     Joel Achenbach in the Washington Post's Style section (1/17)
conceded that in fact the new movement represented a broader 
coalition: "What has been most distinctive has been the presence
of so many people lacking distinction at all, what you might 
perilously call regular folks.  Men in suits and ties have 
chanted 'no blood for oil' in unison with angry members of the 
America-is-always-wrong brigade."  Were the well-groomed 
"regular" folks really just the usual suspects disguised in 
suits?   
     But while Achenbach was as scornful of the movement's
diversity as he is of its message, Newsweek's Vern E. Smith and 
Annetta Miller did one of the most thorough profiles of the new
voices of opposition. "Though the antiwar activists defied 
popular sentiment, they were not just rebellious kids," they 
wrote.  "Compared with the Vietnam protests, which at the outset
were overwhelmingly the work of students, opposition to the gulf
war enlists a much broader constituency.  Its leaders are 
veterans of the various peace movements--Vietnam, Central 
America, nuclear disarmament --many of them now middle-aged and 
middle class.  The heads of unions, including the United Auto 
Workers and the Communications Workers of America signed an 
-More-
anti-war advertisement in the week before hostilities began.  
Families of servicemen and women play a bigger role now than they
did in the '60s.  So do churches.  And so do minority 
members...Even mainstream Republican figures like John Connally 
and H. Ross Perot have expressed opposition a Gulf War in recent
weeks.  The protesters are people who don't have a reason to be 
radicalized or estranged from their society."   
     US News Columnist John Leo (Feb 4) tarred war opponents with
many different brushes.  "The anti-war movement is ... home to an
alliance of mostly far-right anti-Semitic groups (including) the
Liberty Lobby, the Lyndon LaRouche organization, and Louis  
Farrakhan's Nation of Islam."  
     Already, this peace movement has gained momentum and turned
out more people in the first two weeks of Desert Storm than in  
the first several years of Vietnam.  But many news accounts have
suggested that the 1990's peace movement will have the staying  
power of the Nehru Jacket.  Just days before more than 100,000  
demonstrated against the war, The New York Times treated us to  
"Protesters Face Conflict in Their Ranks as They Try to Gain  
Momentum" (1/21).  The Miami Herald ran the same piece under the
headline "Anti-War Drive Hits Resistance."  The Washington Post 
in an article the day before the rally said "The Anti-War 
Movement Facing Test, D.C. Protest Saturday May Indicate Whether
-More-
Sentiment is Growing."    
     The movement passed the "test" with turnout exceeding Park 
Service expectations.  That success was unseen in USA Today
(1/29). In "Peace Marchers Fight Disenchantment", Elizabeth 
Snead describes the hundreds of thousands that have taken to the
streets in "scenes reminiscent of the 60s" and tells us that 
"some are already disillusioned."  The Post (1/29) followed up 
with a piece about how disappointed some demonstrators were 
because the police refused to arrest them for civil disobedience. 
 
        For his part, President Bush alluded to Christian tolerance
of pro-peace demonstrators during a 1/28 speech at (where else?)
a religious broadcasters' convention.  Chief of Staff John Sununu
was positively docile in his remarks on protests on the 1/27 ABC
"This Week with David Brinkley."  
 
     On the whole, newspapers did a far better job than TV in
attempting to give protesters a fair shake.  Mary McGrory 
reported in her 1/29 syndicated column that "CBS gave equal time 
to the 300, at most, pro-war demonstrators and the 75,000 at 
least, peace demonstrators.   NBC limited its coverage to 
remarking that the turnout of 75,000 had been accurately 
predicted by the police department."  CNN ran a relatively 
-More-
thoughtful pre-rally profile of war opponents, but TV was largely
a victim of its own self-imposed stereotypes of the marchers.   
 
A newsroom staffer at Washington's, WJLA-TV (ABC) explained the 
equal time given a few hundred pro-war demontrators with, "We 
give everyone equal coverage.  That's what we are supposed to 
do."  When asked if a pro-war demo with two people would merit 
coverage they responded, "sure."  WRC-TV (NBC) responded by 
saying "I'm being blasted for giving the anti-war any coverage at
all."  The best assessment of TV's inherently shallow approach  
came from an eminently qualified source.  Reagan imagemaker- 
turned-journalist David Gergen, who told a journalists' forum at
Columbia University, "TV is inherently a medium of simplicity."  
################ 
What's in a Poll  
################   
     Since the outset of the Persian Gulf crisis public opinion 
polls have been used by politicians to further US policy and by 
the media and war supporters to belittle and dismiss the 
opposition.   In building support for an attack on Baghdad, 
President Bush grossly exaggerated the Iraqi threat of nuclear 
weapons capability after polling showed it played well to the 
American public.  Since the beginning of the war, virtually every
-More-
reference to demonstrators is qualified with a flippant 80% 
percent support level for the war.   
     However, questions or polls that show that the 
"overwhelming" support is softer than it appears have been 
generally been underplayed.  A NPR-Harris Poll released Jan. 27 
showed that 59% of the public would be willing to accept only
"rather light" or no casualties, yet 76% of those surveyed said 
they expected "moderate" to "heavy" casualties.   In an ABC/
Washington Post Poll done just before the 16th, support for war
with Iraq plummeted to around 40% when 1,000 American casualties
were figured in.   
     Washington Post pollster Richard Morin did a revealing piece
in the Post (1/14) casting doubts on the accuracy of polls
gauging public opinion.  Morin showed that just prior to the
16th, support for a U.S. war with Iraq varied by nearly 15% 
depending on how leading the questions were.  At the Jan. 26 
rally, The Post made a first-ever attempt at polling members of a
demonstration in progress.  A sampling of the marchers showed 
that a vast majority of them were not first-timers and were
overwhelmingly "liberal" in their politics.  The revelation that
the 700 Club and the Republican National Committee were
underrepresented in the march may not have deserved a front page
story.  But the Post deserves credit for what Morin told PW was
-More-
its effort to  "go beyond traditional reporting."   Earlier, Post
polling had underscored the divergence from national opinion by
D.C. residents, who oppose the war by a roughly 60-40 split.  
   But an important argument against the value of daily polling 
comes from the pollsters themselves.  Every Gallup poll which has
appeared includes the statement "rally round the flag effect"," 
the often short-lived upsurge in popularity following the 
outbreak of crisis or war. This little 5 word-waiver was largely
ignored in news reports.    
   
Greenpeace's picks for best Anti-war placards  
1. If You Really Want to Destroy Iraq, Send Over a Team of Our  
Experts to Set Up an S&L for  them.  
2. George, We're sorry we called you a wimp.  We promise we won't
do it again.  
3. Kuwaitus Interruptus. George, Pull out Now  
                           ***********  
   
OIL ADDS TO TROUBLED WATERS  
   
While oil is flowing in untold quantities into the Persian Gulf,
stateside oil company profits for 1990's fourth quarter are
gushing.  The nine largest U.S. oil companies are expected to
-More-
total $7.2 billion in profits for the final quarter of 1990, up
69 percent from 1989.  
   
With gasoline prices finally returning to pre-war levels, the
price of crude oil dropped significantly after the start of the 
war and is now as low as 1989 figures of about 40 cents a gallon. 
At present rates, an oversupply would lower crude prices more as
the war continues.  
   
So as not to sound "unpatriotic" in this time of war, oil company
executives have taken great pains to play down huge profit  
increases and are rushing to speculate that the trend can't last.
On Jan 16, Mobil, which listed a 46 percent rise in fourth-
quarter earnings of $651 million, opted to freeze prices for U.S.
petroleum products in what Mobil CEO Allen E. Murray called "a
show of support for American policy and a demonstration of our
determination to do our part in the national effort during this
critical juncture in American history."  This price freeze held
gasoline prices at a relatively high level while the price of
crude continued to drop, allowing Mobil to profit.   
   
Murray asked customers to limit gasoline use and "join Mobil in
its pledge not to profit from the uncertainties that now exist in
-More-
the worldwide oil market.  We pledged to show restraint at the
time Iraq invaded Kuwait and we can do no less now," he said.   
   
By way of apology, Murray added that while price rises helped  
Mobil, the company reported "depressed profit margins in 
marketing and refining" and an outlay of $40 million to pay for 
future environmental cleanups at U.S. service stations.  
   
Mobil took its profits case to the public in its January 6 weekly
ad.  It featured excerpts from a letter responding to 
Congressional questions about Mobil's price system and profits. 
Why did consumers not feel the significant drop Mobil passed on 
to consumers?  The December 1 five-cent increase in the Federal 
gasoline tax for which Congress was responsible.  Mobil said that
a look at gasoline and crude oil price changes from July to 
December should "Refute the ill-conceived notion that there has
been any 'price gouging' on our part," except Mobil's 46 percent
increase in quarterly earnings.  
   
In another Mobil ad (NY Times, Jan 31) the company provided a  
detailed chart decrying federal, state and local taxes which
burden their customers. With the national average of these taxes
in mind, Mobil claims consumers are paying some "$35 billion a
-More-
year in direct taxes" for their gasoline.     
   
But in its January 24 ad the company pulled out all the stops
with an economics lesson on the difference between profits and  
profitability.  Lest we forget the difference, Mobil reminds us 
that "No matter how many pennies there are in our profit total--
and, because of our size and sales volumes, there are a lot of  
them--bare numbers never tell the whole story."  
  
Matt Wald's article in the 2/3 New York Times "Week in Review" 
challenged the oil industry's benign self-portrait.  Wald quoted
oil analysts at John S. Herold, Inc.:  "For shareholders in most
major oil companies, total returns -- capital gains plus 
dividends -- were higher than for the Dow Jones index as a whole
for the last five years." 
#####################  
SIDEBAR  
#####################  
   
PAYING THE PAPER  
Mobil's message is distributed weekly through opinion page ads in
most of America's largest newspapers and newsweeklies.  The  
company's message has not missed a Thursday on the New York Times
-More-
op-ed page in years.  While neither the Times nor Mobil would 
cite the cost of these ads, standard rates for similar weekly 
space in the Times costs $939,000 annually, according to numbers
provided by a Times salesperson.  (An account executive for a 
major Washington ad agency termed that figure "conservative.")  
Mobil's largesse is not limited to the ad coffers of major news 
organizations -- it's also second only to AT&T in Public 
Broadcasting Service program grants.  
######################  
   
Amoco, the nation's largest natural gas producer and the fifth 
largest refiner of gasoline, reported a 69 percent jump in their
fourth-quarter earnings of $538 million thanks to the crisis in 
the Middle East.  Company executives ducked criticism that those
earnings were made by high gas prices by stating that the boom 
would cease when the world returned to business as usual.    
   
Texaco, the nation's third largest oil company, showed a 35 
percent increase over last year's earnings with fourth-quarter  
profits of $388 million.  
   
Chevron:  Chevron USA Chair Kenneth Derr (USA TODAY, 1/15) said 
his firm's profits were "going to be high, and they're going to 
-More-
create a lot of flack.  When oil prices go up we make more 
money."  Chevron came in at $688 million for the fourth quarter,
over a reported quarterly loss of $883 million a year earlier.  
   
Exxon:  A 121 percent jump in quarterly earnings over the fourth
quarter of 1989, when a horde of 11,000 Alaskan rock-wipers  
assaulted the company's profit margins.  
   
Arco:  An increase of 40.4 percent in earnings to $566 million. 
 
Phillips:  46.5 percent rise in quarterly earnings over 1989.  
 
Shell: A 68.9 percent jump in quarterly earnings over 1989.  
 
Unocal:  54.2 percent rise in profits for the full year.  
 
SOURCES:  NY Times, Wall St. Journal, Associated Press, Reuters.
 
##########################   
President Bush made a passing reference to conserving energy in 
his State of the Union speech.  But Energy Secretary James 
Watkins was more forthright about Administration plans, stating 
"If I thought that there was one element that was critical to the
-More-
nation('s energy strategy) it is the opening of the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge."  (Reuters, 1/23).  
##########################   
**************  
   
Greenpeace experienced a fleeting moment at the gates of Pundit 
Heaven for the worst of all reasons.  The paucity of information
on the war -- and the number of military pensioners willing to 
comment on it -- had an environmental parallel during the first 
days of the oil spill.  Environmentalists, including our own, 
were called on to float theories on the damage despite the lack 
of solid spill information.  While we tried our best to cite the
theoretical damage to the Gulf based on the effects of past 
spills, we also tried to stress the most relevant fact of the 
spill's potential:  We just don't know how bad it will be. No one
else does, either.  Retired Generals, please take note. 
<Greenpeace's Military Research Staff published a comprehensive 
listing of hard information, with admirably little punditry, on 
2/1.  "Situation Report 15," part of a series of daily reports on
the war, is available from Greenpeace in Washington.>   
 
KEEPING HOPE ALIVE FOR ALTERNATIVE VOICES?  
        Former Reagan Arms Control Chief Ken Adelman, Former NBC 
-More-
News reporter and State Department mouthpiece Bernard Kalb, and 
the Brookings Institute's William Kaufman:  Persian Gulf "expert"
guests on Firing Line?  No, just some of the predominantly white,
male, and conservative guests on the 1/27 Jesse Jackson Show.  
  Other panelists included conservative counterterrorism expert
Neil Livingstone, George Washington U. Economics Professor Robert
Dunn (who declared war "good for the economy"); and member to
George Bush's Middle East Task Force Joy Starr, who stated 
that war was needed to "stabilize" the Middle East Region.  
  
VIETNAM WINS AGAIN:  According to a Congressional Quarterly 
report cited on Fox TV's "Off the Record," (1/27) Vietnam was 
invoked in the pre-war congressional debate on Iraq 413 times.  
Adolf Hitler finished second with 198 mentions, while Winston 
Churchill was the show-horse with 46.  His predecessor and the 
right wing's favorite historical lesson for everything, Neville 
Chamberlain, finished out of the money with 45.  President Bush 
has also played the name-dropping game, prompting Christopher 
Hitchens to tell his "Off the Record" pals, "If George Bush 
quotes Churchill once more, we're going to throw up everything 
we've ever eaten."  
   
FOR ALL THE WRONG REASONS:  London's Birkbeck College distributed
-More-
tips to American students with tips on how to avoid drawing
terrorist attack.  The pamphlet cautions against appearing overly
American.  Students should thus avoid McDonald's and the Hard 
Rock Cafe, and should not "conspicuously purchase or carry USA 
Today."  (Washington Times, 1/29).  
   
SADDAM PARTS THE PERSIAN GULF, Film at Eleven:  NBC Consultant  
Edward Peck explained on 1/16 that Americans had a New Testament
heritage of "turning the other cheek," while Iraqis were "an Old
Testament people."  
   
AN EXTRAORDINARILY LARGE POLLING SAMPLE:  The Washington Post  
reported (1/30) that "millions of Americans have told pollsters 
they support the US intervention."  
   
OBSERVATION OF THE WEEK:  "Q:  Suddenly, it seems we have more  
military analysts than Elvis impersonators.  Who are these so-  
called experts?  A:  Same people as the Elvis impersonators."  
J. Taylor Buckley, USA TODAY (2/1).
##################################
Next Week in Pundit Watch:  Has the dominance of TV news coverage
in the Gulf made newspapers irrelevant to public opinion?
##################################
-More-
Pundit Watch 2 was written by Peter Dykstra, Blair Palese, and
Andrew Davis.




-Press Any Key-


Bulletins Menu
==============

<R>-Read Bulletins
<D>-Download Bulletins
<N>-Exit to News & Information Menu
<M>-Exit to Main Menu
<T>-Terminate Session

Command: n



News & Information Menu
=======================

<A>-Antarctic Chronicles
<B>-Bulletins
<E>-Environet System Information
<F>-Files
<G>-Global Greenpeace Headlines
<I>-Information Banner
<N>-New User Information
<P>-Press Releases
<S>-Search for a User
<M>-Exit to Main Menu
<T>-Terminate Session

Command: p



Press Release Menu
==================

Questions regarding the daily press releases
should be directed to ENVIRONET NEWS

<R>-Read Releases
<D>-Download Releases
<N>-Exit to News & Information Menu
<M>-Exit to Main Menu
<T>-Terminate Session

Command: r


Type P to Pause, S to Stop listing


Via Environet:
=================================================================
February 8, 1991


        GOVERNMENT HARASSMENT OF PEACE PROTESTS DENOUNCED 

 SAN FRANCISCO, February 6, 1991 (GP) -- A broad coalition of 
peace activists Wednesday denounced the increasing level of 
government harrassment of peaceful anti-war protesters during 
recent demonstrations in the Bay Area.   

In a news conference at San Francisco City Hall, representatives 
of Greenpeace, the Pledge of Resistance and the National Lawyers 
Guild charged that crowd control and arrest tactics used by 
police during recent demonstrations amount to intimidation of 
people exercising their right of dissent. 

 "The peace movement was encouraged when, during the first days 
of the demonstrations, Mayor [Art] Agnos spoke out in support of 
-More-
the right of nonviolent protest," said Chet Tchozewski, regional 
director of Greenpeace. "But we have been dismayed in the days 
and weeks since by police tactics which clearly are designed to 
discourage people from attending and taking part in 
demonstrations." 

 Tchozewski and others said the police had violated both the law 
and the San Francisco Police Department's guidelines, through  
the use of massive police force, indiscriminate sweeps and 
breaking up of peaceful legal demonstrations, illegal searches of 
activists, preventive detention of arrestees, and the presence at 
the Federal Building of SWAT teams armed with semi-automatic 
weapons. 

 On Friday, Jan. 25, protesters at the Chevron oil company 
headquarters in San Francisco were met by hundreds of police who 
broke up a peaceful demonstration shortly after it began. 
Passersby as well as people protesting legally were caught in a 
police sweep. Many of those arrested on citable offenses were 
detained with high bails and exaggerated charges, such as 
"failing to leave the scene of a riot." All observers agreed 
nothing resembling a riot ever took place. Police delayed the 
booking process and used a "repeat offender" provision in state 
-More-
law in an attempt to keep people in jail over the weekend.   

 "The police sweep was a blatant violation of our constitutional 
rights to free speech and assembly," said Darla Rucker of the 
Pledge of Resistance. "Mayor Agnos said he wants our protests to 
be peaceful, yet he sends in the police to break up our peaceful 
gatherings. This is not South Africa or Lithuania, and we will 
not be intimidated by government repression." 

 "Illegal government police tactics have no place in our 
society," said Tchozewski. "We will not allow the First Amendment 
to become the next victim of this war. Our voices for peace will 
not be silenced." 

CONTACT: Bill Walker, Greenpeace Pacific Southwest
         (415) 512-9025 
         Darla Rucker, Pledge of Resistance
         (415) 655-1177

                              ####



-More-

Via Environet:
=================================================================
February 8, 1991


ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS OF GULF WAR TOO HIGH, SAYS GREENPEACE REPORT 

LONDON, February 7, 1991 [GP] -- The oil slicks in the Gulf are 
the visible signs of the more general environmental devastation 
which will occur as the war continues, according to a report 
published today by Greenpeace. The 14-page report, POSSIBLE 
ENVIRONMENTAL THREATS FROM THE CURRENT GULF WAR, was commissioned 
by Greenpeace from Dr A R G Price, of the Tropical Marine 
Laboratories, University of York. It covers all aspects of the 
environmental impact of conventional war, and concludes that the 
war could have catastrophic effects on the Gulf. 

The report emphasises that the Gulf was already a stressed 
environment before the outbreak of the current war, as a result 
of human pressures over the past 20-30 years. A 1989 survey 
showed that beach tar levels in the Gulf were far higher than 
anywhere else in the world. 
-More-

The Gulf is an especially fragile environment, being a shallow, 
semi-enclosed sea - the average depth of water is only 35 metres. 
Many aspects of the region, such as the coral reefs, mangroves 
and tidal flats, are vulnerable to oil and other pollutants. "The 
heart-rending sight of oiled birds is only the beginning -the 
only way to prevent further environmental catastrophe is for 
hostilities to cease" said Peter Melchett, Executive Director of 
Greenpeace UK.  "Greenpeace opposes this war, as it would any 
situation which resulted in environmental devastation." 

The recent oilspills not only threaten wildlife, but could affect 
the water desalination plants, which provide the majority of 
freshwater to the region's population. 

TOXIC THREATS 

In addition to oil installations, many petrochemical and other 
industrial plants are situated in the Gulf region. Any number of 
these could be destroyed : 26 toxic substances are stored or 
manufactured in Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait (eg. benzene, 
phenol, hydrochloric acid, sulphuric acid, ethylene and carbon 
disulphide).   
-More-

"Release of large amounts of these toxic substances ... could 
cause loss of life both to humans, and to terrestrial and marine 
wildlife. The effects on wildlife could be considerably more than 
the effects of oil" Dr Price's report says. 

THREATS TO WILDLIFE 

The Gulf is particularly important for BIRDS - 21 species of 
wintering waders, including oystercatchers, plovers and others. 
Offshore islands provide a major nesting site for terns. Green 
and hawksbill TURTLES - both endangered species have both 
resident and transitory populations, the latter breeding on 
offshore coral islands. Several species of MARINE MAMMAL are 
present in the Gulf - the dugong is classed as a 'vulnerable' 
species; humpback whales and dolphins, bottle nose dolphins and 
bryde's whales are also present in the area.  

FISHERIES are particularly at risk. Apart from the economic 
impact of loss of fisheries, they provide food for marine 
mammals.  

WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION 
-More-

Although not dealt with in detail in Dr Price's report, 
Greenpeace campaigns against the use of all weapons of mass 
destruction. Chemical and nuclear weapons pose risks both in 
their use, and in their presence in the region. The detonation of 
NUCLEAR WEAPONS would devastate the area and have impacts in 
other parts of the world. Fires or explosions affecting nuclear 
warheads and the bombing of nuclear installations could also 
release amounts of radioactivity into the environment, causing 
long-term effects. 

Use of CHEMICAL WEAPONS would cause widespread deaths of human 
and wildlife populations. Bombing of chemical weapons plants 
could also result in widespread deaths.

                              ####



-Press Any Key-


Press Release Menu
==================

Questions regarding the daily press releases
should be directed to ENVIRONET NEWS

<R>-Read Releases
<D>-Download Releases
<N>-Exit to News & Information Menu
<M>-Exit to Main Menu
<T>-Terminate Session

Command: n



News & Information Menu
=======================

<A>-Antarctic Chronicles
<B>-Bulletins
<E>-Environet System Information
<F>-Files
<G>-Global Greenpeace Headlines
<I>-Information Banner
<N>-New User Information
<P>-Press Releases
<S>-Search for a User
<M>-Exit to Main Menu
<T>-Terminate Session

Command: g



Global Headlines Menu
=====================

<R>-Read Headlines
<D>-Download Headlines
<N>-Exit to News & Information Menu
<M>-Exit to Main Menu
<T>-Terminate Session

Command: d


Select from the following transfer protocols:

1 - TYPE file to your screen
2 - ASCII with DC2/DC4 Capture
3 - ASCII only, no Control Codes
4 - XMODEM
5 - YMODEM/YMODEM-g
6 - YMODEM/YMODEM-g Batch
7 - SEAlink
8 - KERMIT
9 - SuperKERMIT (Sliding Windows)

Choose one (Q to Quit): l 
spills is seldom  possible even in peacetime, and the  conditions 
prevailing in a war zone allow for only a small degree of  damage  
control.  Chemical  dispersants do not remove pollution  but   in  
fact  introduce  additional toxic chemicals to the   environment.  
Eleven  thousand people took part in the "clean up" of the  Exxon 
-More-
Valdez  spill  in  Alaska in 1989, yet not  a  single  beach  was 
completely clean as a result. [0129rigg.fm]
     Among the efforts to limit the damage is the Dutch offer  to 
send  10  special booms that can be mounted on either side  of  a 
ship,  skim oil from the surface, and suck it into tanks  in  the 
ship.  British planes will also fly up to 90 tonnes of  equipment 
from  the British - based Oil Spill Service Center, according  to 
British  Environment secretary Michael Heseltine. The prime  goal 
of  the British efforts is to protect the intake pipes of   Saudi  
water  desalination  plants and of power stations which  use  sea 
water   as a coolant.  The best hope for limitsng harm to  birds, 
dolphins, turtles and fish therefore seems to  lie  in staunching 
the flow of oi  at the source. 
     Greenpeace spokesman Paul Horsman said that species at  risk 
include  hump-backed  dolphins, killer whales, seabirds  and  the 
rare,   endangered dugong or sea cow.  [reuter 28.1.91]  [0129gb] 
The  Gulf  is  relatively shallow, and the  water  within  it  is 
estimated to require a period of 100 to 200 years to be  entirely 
renewed. 
 
     ARMAMENTS:  According to the Stockholm  International  Peace 
Research Institute (SIPRI), Iraq had the highest military expend
iture  in  the  Middle East during the 1980s,  peaking  at  $33.3 
-More-
billion  in 1984. As late as 1989, Saddam spent $15  bi0lion.  In 
1982,  the  Reanan administration removed Iraq from the  list  of 
those  countries which supported terrorism and in  1984  restored 
full diplomatic relations. Iraq received artillery from  Austria, 
armored  cars from Brazil, aircraft from France  and  helicopters 
from  Chile  and Italy among others. Even after the  invasion  of 
Kuwait,  Iraq actually sent machinery back to the  United  States 
for repair. 
     Led  by  West Germany and France,  European  countries  have 
supplied  Iraq with the raw materials for one of the most  effec
tive chemical and biological production facilities in the  world. r
Twelve  nwtions  that  trobably have a  chemical  capability  are 
Burma,  China, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, North  Korea, 
South Korea, Syria, Taiwan and Vietnam, according to  specialists 
who  monitor  global  arms trafficking. They said  that  18  more 
countries may also have succeeded in obtaining chemical weapons.
     In June 1985 representatives from Australia, Canada,  Japan, 
New Zealand, the United States and the European Community met  to 
limit the spread of chemical weapons. This "Australian Group" now 
includes  Norway, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland and  the  European 
Commission  as well. The Group has drawn up a list  of  chemicals 
commonly used in the manufacture of weapons, and eight  chemicals 
now  require  export licenses from member states.  A  further  30 
-More-
chemicals  were  placed on a watch list. However, the  Group  can 
impose no sanctions on any country or government - even a  member 
of the Group - that ignores its advice.  
     Ballistic  missiles  as  well as chemical  weapons  are  far 
cheaper  for developing countries than trying to buy  or  develop 
nuclear weapons. In April 1987 the United States, Canada, France, 
Britain,  Italy,  Japan and West Germany signed an  agreement  to 
curb exports of equipment that mght be used to develop m ssilesc     
They  agreed  not to export "complete rocket  systems  (including 
ballistic  missile  systems, space launch vehicles  and  sounding 
rockets)  and  unmanned  air vehicle  systems  (including  cruise 
missile systems, target drones and reconnaissance drones.)" 
     The development of new weapons makes action to control  pro
liferation  all  the more urgent.  [wp27.1.91]  
 
     OIL  WELLS: Iraq could easilyEset fire to  Kuwait's  shallow 
oil  wells before abandoning the country since they are close  to 
the  surface  and would burn easily,  engineers  say.  Skillfully 
placed  explosives could destroy even deep,  inaccessible  safety 
valves,  according to experts. Kuwait had 1080 onshore oil  wells 
prodacing  1.5 million barrels of oil a day before the  August  2 
invasion,  though industry sources said that only 365 wells  were 
active  at that time. In more than 90% of the wells,  oil  gushes 
-More-
naturally to the surface without pumps. [reuter  22.1.91]  
     Dr.  John Cox, a  chemical and environmental  engineer,  has 
claimed  that the most worrying threat of the oil well  fires  is 
the  disruption  of the monsoon, upon which millions  depend  for 
their existence. 
 
     THE  PRESS: Most journalists have been ordered out of  Iraq, 
and those in Saudi Arabia and other parts of the Gulf are subject 
to  military  censorship by US, British amd  French  authorities. 
They are not allwed t report specific numbers of troops, ships, 
aircraft,  and  armaments, details  of  operations,  intelligence 
activities  and security precautions unless such  information  is 
officially  released. They are restricted in their  reporting  of 
casualties  and loss or damage to aircraft or  warships.  Reports 
from  Israel  are also subject to  military  censorship.  [reuter 
26.1.91] 

I  r a n: Black, greasy rain poured onto the Iranian province  of 
Bushehr  about  250 km east of Kuwait, according to  the  Iranian 
news agency IRNA. Iranian environment specialists attributed  the 
filthy rain to the fires in the Kuwaiti oil wells and other areas 
of the Gulf.   [reuter 23.1.91] 
 
-More-
U S A: David Chatfield, Chairman of the Board of Greenpeace  USA, 
and David Brower, Chairman of Earth Island Institute, have joined 
representatives of more than a dozen other environmental  organi
zations,  including  the  Arms  Control  Research  Center,  Earth 
First!,  and the U.S. Greens Committee, at a news  conference  to 
make  clear  the environmental issues behind the  war  and  share 
information about the extent and impacts of the oil spill,  which 
the  Pentagon says could be more than 40 times as severe  as  the 
Exxon Valdez spill. Participating organizations represent a broad 
range of environmental issues and approaches to activism, yet all 
are united in opposing the war. [gp  28.1.91] 
 
     As the $1 - billion - a - day war over oil continues in  the 
Persian Gulf, United Nations talks on an agreement to protect the 
world's  climate  are beginning in Virginia. Of  the  world's  24 
leading industrialized countries of the Organisation of  Economic 
Cooperation and Development, the US and Turkey alone have  failed 
to  agree  national  commitments either to  stabilize  or  reduce 
emissions  of carbon dioxide. The US Administration has  consist
ently termed "global warming" "possible climate change",  opposed 
any commitment to limit emissions of carbon dioxide, and  refused 
to  commit itself to transfer technological and financial aid  to 
the   Third World to limit climate change. Germany, on the   con
-More-
trary,  plans  for  a  25% cut in CO2  emissions  over  the  next 
15 years.
     A  UN  study of climate change conducted from  1988  -  1990 
concluded  that  an immediate 60 per cent cut in  carbon  dioxide 
(CO2) emissions would be needed just to stabilize current  levels 
of  CO2  in  the air. Delays  will  necessitate  increased  cuts.  
Burning  of  oil -- the largest source of carbon  dioxide  and  a 
major  contributor to global warming -- accounts for over 40%  of 
world  carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel.   [gp  30.1.91] 
 
U  S S R: The World Health Organisation has endorsed an  interna
tional  elan  to aid victims of the Apr l '86  Chernobyl  nuclear 
disaster  in  the  USSR. Half a million people  were  exposed  to 
radiation  and 1000 km2 (400m2) of land were left  uninhabitable. 
An  internaitonal  centre for radiation and  health  problems  is 
planned  at  Obninsk, 100km southwest of Moscow  to  provide  and 
monitor  health care for victims and to develope  guidelines  for 
dealing with future nuclear accidents. The resolution urged WHO's 
165  member states to support and implement it. [Reuter  23.1.91] 
 
     The  Soviet  Union has sbrappee plans to  build  60  nuclear 
power plants with a total capacity of moe than 160 million  kilo
watts,  according  to Izvestia. [TASS  26.1.91]  
-More-
 
                          *     *     *


-Press Any Key-


Global Headlines Menu
=====================

<R>-Read Headlines
<D>-Download Headlines
<N>-Exit to News & Information Menu
<M>-Exit to Main Menu
<T>-Terminate Session

Command: n



News & Information Menu
=======================

<A>-Antarctic Chronicles
<B>-Bulletins
<E>-Environet System Information
<F>-Files
<G>-Global Greenpeace Headlines
<I>-Information Banner
<N>-New User Information
<P>-Press Releases
<S>-Search for a User
<M>-Exit to Main Menu
<T>-Terminate Session

Command: i


Type P to Pause, S to Stop listing


System Information for February 8 - 11, 1991
===============================================================================
<P>-Press Releases

Government Harassment of Peace Protests Denounced

Environmental Costs of Gulf War Too High, Says Greenpeace Report
===============================================================================
<B>-Bulletins

Pundit Watch 2 - Second in a Series of Reports on News Coverage of the 
     Persian Gulf War
===============================================================================


-Press Any Key-


News & Information Menu
=======================

<A>-Antarctic Chronicles
<B>-Bulletins
<E>-Environet System Information
<F>-Files
<G>-Global Greenpeace Headlines
<I>-Information Banner
<N>-New User Information
<P>-Press Releases
<S>-Search for a User
<M>-Exit to Main Menu
<T>-Terminate Session

Command: t



Care to leave a private message for your SYStem OPerator?

<Y>-Yes
<N>-No Thanks, Proceed With Log Off
<A>-Abort Log Off, Return to Main Menu

Command: n







Logged on at 18:25:05
Logged off at 18:39:26

Environet is sponsored by Greenpeace Action as part of an outreach
program to the environmental and disarmament communities.  We appreciate
your participation.

Modems by US Robotics


ø
NO CARRIER