Exiles: Iran Has Bomb Blueprints

Exiles: Iran Has Bomb Blueprints
Thursday, November 18, 2004

VIENNA, Austria — Iran bought blueprints of a nuclear bomb from the same black-market network that gave Libya such diagrams and continues to enrich uranium despite a commitment to suspend the technology that can be used for atomic weapons, an Iranian opposition group said Wednesday.

Farid Soleimani, a senior official for the National Council for Resistance in Iran, said the diagram was provided by Abdul Qadeer Khan, the Pakistani head of the nuclear network linked to clandestine programs in both Iran and Libya.

"He gave them the same weapons design he gave the Libyans as well as more in terms of weapons design," Soleimani told reporters in Vienna. He said the diagram and related material on how to make nuclear weapons was handed to the Iranians between 1994 and 1996.

Mark Gwozdecky, spokesman for the International Atomic Energy Agency said, "we follow up every solid lead," but added the U.N. nuclear watchdog would have no further comment.

A diplomat familiar with the agency and its investigations into Libya's and Iran's nuclear programs said the IAEA has long feared that Iran might have received bomb-making blueprints from Khan.

"The IAEA has found that Iran received pretty much the same things Libya did from his network," said the diplomat, who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity. "The one thing that they have not been able to find was the blueprint."

Libya bought engineers' drawings of a Chinese-made bomb through the Khan network as part of a covert nuclear program that it renounced last year.

Iran says it does not have such drawings, and no evidence has been found to dispute that claim. But experts say it is possible that Iran possesses a copy.

Former U.N. nuclear inspector David Albright earlier this year described the Chinese design that Libya owned up to having as something "that would not take a lot of modifying" to fit it on Iran's successfully tested Shahab-3 ballistic missile.

The opposition group made its claim days after Iran announced it would suspend all activities related to nuclear enrichment as part of an agreement with three European nations aimed at heading off a confrontation over its nuclear program.

Soleimani said centrifuges and other equipment needed to produce enriched uranium had been covertly moved from a facility at Lavizan-Shian to a nearby site within Tehran's city limits.

The opposition group says Lavizan-Shian was home to the Center for Readiness and New Defense Technology and was part of the covert attempt to develop nuclear weapons.

The diplomat said the IAEA was looking into the possibility equipment was moved from Lavizan-Shian to an unknown location.

A report detailing IAEA investigations into Iran's nuclear programs prepared for the agency's Nov. 25 board meeting notes that Iran has failed to produce a trailer that apparently contained nuclear equipment at Lavizan-Shian for IAEA inspection.

The IAEA report also said Iran has "declined to provide a list of equipment used" at Lavizan-Shian, which the government says was home to research on how to reduce casualties in case of nuclear attack.

"The agency investigation of Lavizan ... is still open," said the diplomat. "They are still pursuing what happened to the equipment at Lavizan."

Refering to the new, secret location, Soleimani said that "as we speak, the site continues to produce (enriched) uranium" and said it "is not the only one that is being kept secret."

"There is a huge network devoted to this activity in Iran, and unfortunately the IAEA has hitherto understood the apparatus in only a small way," he said.

Soleimani's organization is the political wing of the People's Mujahedeen, or Mujahedeen Khalq, banned in the United States as a terrorist organization. While much of its information has not been confirmed, it was instrumental in 2002 in revealing Iran's enrichment program at Natanz.

Enrichment at low levels generates fuel for nuclear power — and Iran says that is its sole interest. But the United States and other countries suspect Iran wants to produce weapons-grade enriched uranium for nuclear warheads.

Lavizan-Shian was razed by the Iranian government earlier this year as IAEA inspectors prepared to visit it. The government says it was destroyed to make way for a park. But suspicions remain about the extent of the work done there — including the removal of top soil, which reduced the effectiveness of environmental samples taken by IAEA inspectors looking for unreported nuclear activity at the site.

The IAEA says it will start monitoring Iran's commitment to halt enrichment activities starting early next week.

The suspension pledge reduced U.S. hopes of having the board refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council for alleged violations of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

Under the agreement, Tehran is to suspend all uranium enrichment in return for European guarantees that Iran has the right to pursue a peaceful nuclear program. The suspension holds only until a comprehensive agreement is sealed, but European diplomats hope the freeze will turn into a long-term arrangement.

Iranian President Mohammad Khatami called the agreement a "great victory" but said Wednesday that Tehran won't respect its commitment if Europeans fail to support his country at the IAEA board meeting.

"If the IEAE board of governors adopts a correct decision, it will be a step in the direction that will give us more hope that our rights will be exercised," Khatami said.

"If we see that they don't keep their promise, it's natural that we won't fulfill our promise," he said.

The America Haters

The America Haters
Thursday, November 18, 2004
by John Gibson, FoxNews Channel

The anti-American Europeans had worked themselves into a fever pitch in the days leading up to the U.S. election, in anticipation of what they were sure would be a result that would prove they had been right all along (about Bush, about the Kyoto Accords, about WMD, about the Iraq Invasion and Occupation, etc.), and that they had finally been able to educate and raise the consciousness of the American voter. When George W. Bush was returned to the White House the gasp across the Atlantic was nearly audible here in the United States.

This week French President Jacques Chirac has gone out of his way to be especially dismissive and insulting of both the United States and its chief ally in the Iraq war, Great Britain. France has decided it's national policy is to be a rival "pole" of power to the United States to try to undermine American leadership, and at the same time to declare loudly that France is America's best friend. France isn't fooling anybody, except perhaps itself.

Tony Blair understands the importance of American leadership, and in the days after the election, he has told the world that Britain should be a bridge between the United States and Europe. Britain may continue to fulfill that role, but it will be a contested issue, as most Britons don't want to be quite so close to the U.S., polls show.

The Germans have decided they want to get along with the United States better, but it's only the shock of the U.S. election result. Germany will still not agree to send troops to assist in U.S. military operations in Iraq, and it will insist its willingness to train Iraqi troops who have been flown to Germany is adequate assistance and all that America should hope for.

In the Middle East, of course, people have perhaps the greatest interest in a re-elected George Bush succeeding in Iraq, but he will have to do so without the cheers and support of Arabs. They continue to fester in the world's most virulent form of anti-Americanism, partially because it is culturally fashionable and partly because a pan-Arabic sense of pride and honor will not let them see that the Bush vision for Iraq is a big win for them. Not a single Arab country is a democracy. Arabs everywhere yearn for the freedom of a functional democracy, but the humiliation of Iraqi military defeats makes it impossible for Arabs to see the good that will come from an Iraqi democracy.

Half of America (the half that voted for George W. Bush) has been pitted against the other half of America, and virtually the entire rest of the world. It would be naive to think the pre-election bitterness and anger against the U.S. has truly abated. If anything it is worse, but less obviously so. The America haters are quiet, but only for the moment.

Euro-Iran Nuke Deal in Jeopardy

Euro-Iran Nuke Deal in Jeopardy
Thursday, November 18, 2004

VIENNA, Austria — A deal committing Iran to suspend activities that Washington says are part of a nuclear arms program was close to collapse Friday, with diplomats suggesting that Tehran had reneged on an agreement reached with European negotiators just days ago.

As envoys for both sides tried to salvage the deal, the International Atomic Energy Agency delayed a report on Iran's nuclear activities that had been scheduled for limited circulation Friday.

A diplomat familiar with the IAEA said the delay was meant to give the two sides a chance to resolve the dispute and allow agency head Mohamed ElBaradei to include in his report an Iranian commitment to full suspension of uranium enrichment and related activities.

The IAEA overview on nearly two decades of clandestine activities that the United States asserts is a secret weapons program is being prepared for review by the agency's 35-nation board of governors when it meets Nov. 25. Based on the report, they will decide on possible referral of Iran to the U.N. Security Council, which could call for sanctions.

After ending talks in Paris with Iranian envoys last weekend, European diplomats said there was tentative agreement on the part of Tehran to suspend uranium enrichment — which can be used to make nuclear arms — and all related activities.

The deal leaves open the exact length of the suspension but says it will be in effect at least as long as it takes for the two sides to negotiate a deal on European technical and financial aid, including help in the development of Iranian nuclear energy for power generation.

But on Friday the diplomats told The Associated Press that Iranian officials had presented British, French and German envoys in Tehran with a version of the agreement that was unacceptable to the three European powers.

The key dispute was over conversion of uranium into gas, which when spun in centrifuges can be enriched to lower levels for producing electricity or processed into high-level, weapons-grade uranium, said the diplomats, speaking on condition of anonymity.

"The processing of what is to be enriched is the main problem," said the diplomat.

The diplomats — all of them briefed on the dispute and based in Vienna or other European capitals — said Iran was insisting that the deal allowed it to process uranium into a precursor of uranium hexafluoride, the gas introduced into centrifuges for enrichment. The diplomats said that was not allowed under the tentative deal reached in Paris.

Tehran already had drafted a letter for the U.N. agency, saying it was committed to voluntary suspension that was less than what was agreed on in Paris and would "ask for the next step, which is IAEA inspections" to shore up support before the board meeting, one of the diplomats said.

Iran suspended uranium enrichment last year but has repeatedly refused to stop other related activities such as reprocessing uranium or building centrifuges, insisting its program is intended purely for the production of fuel for nuclear power generation.

But even if Iran agrees to full suspension of nuclear activities — as demanded by the Europeans — the deal would be short of U.S. calls for an indefinite suspension.

The IAEA unanimously passed a resolution in September demanding Iran freeze all work on uranium enrichment and related activities, and the U.N. nuclear watchdog is to judge Iran's compliance Nov. 25.

Tehran has defied the agency by continuing to build centrifuges and by already converting a few tons of raw uranium into hexafluoride gas.

Iran is not breaching its Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty obligations by seeking to enrich uranium but is under international pressure to drop such plans as a good faith gesture.

Secretary-General's Press Encounter Following Security Council Meeting on Sudan

Secretary-General's Press Encounter Following Security Council Meeting on Sudan
Nairobi, Kenya, 18 November 2004

SG: Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen.

It is good to be in Nairobi, and I think significant that the Security Council decided to meet here on this continent where there are so many conflicts that we are trying to settle.

I hope this sends the message of solidarity, the determination of the international community to work with the African leaders and peacemakers to resolve conflicts on this continent.

On Sudan in particular, I was very pleased by what I heard from Vice President Ali Taha and Dr. John Garang.

They both gave us the assurance that they are going to do everything possible to try and conclude the agreement by end of December.

We believe such an agreement will have a very positive effect on other crises within that country, because it's a question of governance, and the governance issues, and the issues that are confronting Sudan in Darfur, have already been agreed to in the Naivasha peace process and can be a basis for resolving similar conflicts in other regions, so that is very encouraging.

On Somalia, I am also encouraged, since we are in this region, by the recent development where they came together, set up a parliament, named the President and the Prime Minister and are determined to go back home and rebuild their nation.

Obviously they are going to lots of help. Lots of help from the international community, from their neighbours, but in the final analysis, it is only the Somalis themselves who can make this, the others are just helping them to get along as they try to stabilize their country and live in peace.

Finally I was very pleased this afternoon, to be able to receive the Protocol, the Kyoto Protocol, from the Russian Ambassador.

I think he sent the message that in ninety days time, the Protocol will go into force and that those who are already fighting greenhouse emissions should be encouraged by this act, and even those who have not joined I hope would pay attention to the environment and act as if they are part of the Protocol or they have already signed it.

I will take your questions.

Q: Mr. Secretary General, Vice President Taha contradicted you about the violation. He said the records show through observers that the violations are not by the government.

My second question is, do you believe that the approach of the carrot without the stick will bring results?

SG: I think in these kinds of situations we always need hope. We need the carrot and the stick. If you can do it with carrot all the better.

Q: Well you don't have a stick.

SG: Well it has not emerged yet, but I will not say that one will not use a stick sometime.

You need a combination. How you define the stick is something that… I hope we don't get there because they will honour their commitment, but if it becomes necessary, the international community will have to live up to its obligations.

Q: About the violations….

SG: About the violations, let me say that we believe that both parties have an obligation to honour the ceasefire agreement.

Neither party has the right to break the agreement, and neither party should assume that the international community is being harder on the other and therefore they need not do anything, just sit back and wait for the international community to deliver for them.

Both the rebel groups and the government have undertaken responsibilities which they have to honour.

Q: Mr. Kofi Annan, you are the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

SG: I think so. [Laughter]

Q: Do you agree with me that there was not a single woman in the Security Council? Is there no way you can use your power, at least to amend the act so that you have a woman even though we know there is proportional representation, they go by the countries, is there no way we can have a woman in the Security Council in the event that we do not have countries that have ambassadors who are willing?

SG: I think it is a very good question and is something that I would want to see. I would want to see a woman or women in the Council, and we have had women in the Council when the countries have sent women ambassadors to the United Nations. And I think that is something else you can do: encourage your governments to send as many women ambassadors as possible. We've had some outstanding and fabulous ones, and I think next year we may have a woman on the Council.

Q: Thank you very much. At the end of your speech this morning, you said that while it was good that the Council worked through African organizations, they should remember that peace and security remains their primary responsibility. Can we understand that in any way as a kind of a rebuke that the international community has fobbed off a crisis of international proportions onto the African Union without taking its own responsibilities seriously?

SG: I think my statement was very clear. The African Union is doing its best and it is also clear that the African Union needs lots of support from the international community financially, logistically and otherwise. Without our support, it is not likely to succeed, and I think it is important that we support them to succeed.

In the event that additional effort is needed, and they are not able to offer that, I think the Security Council has the responsibility as the guarantor of peace to the international community, and this is what I mean. And we have seen it in other situations, where regional organizations have gone in and done reasonably well, but in the end the Council has had to go in, and that is a reminder and that we cannot take this as end of the road, we really need to sustain the effort and to help.

Q: Secretary-General, given that there have been so many promises, and the peace talks have been ongoing, do you have any guarantees about this Memorandum of Understanding, that the December 31st date will be respected, and what can the UN do if they don't?

SG: You mean on Darfur or on Naivasha?

Q: The memorandum from Naivasha.

SG: Yes, well I think the Council came here to deliver a message, and I hope the parties heard the message loud and clear. They have given an indication that they are going to try and conclude the discussions and the peace negotiations by end of December.

It is not too far off, but we are all watching. If the question is: 'if that were to fail what would the Council do?' let me say that we will have to jump that bridge when we get there, but the Council is determined to persevere, is actively seized of this matter, and my advice to the parties is to really honour this obligation, not just for the sake of the Council but their own people and for their country.

The people have suffered for far too long not to be a given probably a New Year present of peace.

Q: What makes you confident that the draft resolution on Darfur will have any more effect than former resolutions?

SG: I don't know how to answer that question. I think the message has gone out, and I have indicated that we need to try and put in the international presence, increase the African military force on the ground, and the police who will have to go in. I think once you have that, and the government cooperates, we should be able to calm the situation.

If that were to fail, it is something that the Council, as I said, will have to jump that bridge when the time comes, but I really hope that the parties are going to make an effort. We are all trying very hard to encourage them, we are trying very hard to support their efforts.

Q: Mr. Secretary-General, aren't they moving too slow on Darfur? You said this yourself, there's been more violations of the ceasefire. It appears that the government is unwilling or unable to stop the atrocities that are going on there. I mean, at what point does your organization step and say enough is enough? What's needed is definitive action there to stop the crisis that seems to be getting worse.

SG: I don't think that it is as simple as that. What is definitive action? March in with a military force? Impose sanctions? A combination of measures? Some of these measures the Security Council has discussed, and obviously there is no total agreement on some of these issues, but at least they all agree that they should do everything to support the African forces to go in. They should give us the resources to maintain our humanitarian effort, and it has also been clear that the more international presence, the police, military and otherwise, that you have on the ground, the more peaceful the environment is, and in the situations where you have that presence, somehow it has dissuaded the kind of attacks we see, and this is why it is so urgent to get in the troops as quickly as possible. In fact, I just spoke to my representative this morning and he said he is beginning to see the difference already in areas where they are and have been active, so what we need is more of them and quickly.

Q: As you know, Secretary of State—still—Colin Powell has suggested that the reason the four countries on the Security Council are opposing sanctions or anything tougher than language, is because they have business interests in Sudan. What is your comment on the possibility that the Security Council failure to take a stronger stance [inaudible] is being held hostage to economic interests of these countries?

SG: The think the Council as a whole should always look at the broader interest, the broader interest of the wider international community, and I think their own national interest should not be the dominant issue because they are really working on behalf, sitting in the council on behalf, of all the other members of the organisation, and I think the people out there, the people in the world, are also looking to them, and when we do not, when we are not perceived as acting in the broader interest it is not good for the credibility of the Council.

Q: Mr. Secretary-General, you said the Security Council was here to deliver a message, because to some ears the message is they are hoping for peace they are hoping for action in Darfur, but nothing will happen…..[inaudible].

SG: Well, the Security Council in a way today did talk about carrots. That if they were to make a peace agreement, they were to sign an agreement, there will be peace dividends for both sides, and given the misery that the people have lived through, hopefully this will induce them to move faster and make peace.

If that doesn't happen, the question then is what is at stake, which has come up in this discussion, and as I have indicated, it could be a range of actions that the Council will have to find a way of producing a real stake when it is needed.

Q: Isn't Vice President Ali Othman Taha one of organizers of the Janjaweed… [inaudible]…

Well, I can't comment on the first part of your question, but let me say he did indicate that it is not the government forces who are committing the atrocities, but the rebels are to a great extent responsible for that, but of course we reminded all of them that both sides have a responsibility to honour the ceasefire. I would hope that as we increase the African monitors and police and the protective force, we will be able to have the capacity to investigate and determine who did what, so that we don't get into this trouble question of its not me, its the other the person and of course once you have monitored, once you have identified the individual and verified, there has to be also consequences, and this is another hurdle we have to jump when we get there or should be part of our modus operandi.

Clinton Presidential Library Opens

Clinton Presidential Library Opens
Thursday, November 18, 2004

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — Former President Bill Clinton said his new library, dedicated Thursday in Little Rock, Ark., represents the changes that took place in the United States during his eight years as president.

"We moved out of the Cold War into an age of interdependence," Clinton told a crowd of rain-soaked supporters after a two-hour ceremony in a nonstop downpour. "We moved out of ... an industrial economy into an Information Age economy. We moved out of a period when we were obsessed with overcoming the legacy of slavery and discrimination."

Four of the five living presidents were in attendance to help dedicate the Clinton Presidential Library. Designed to reflect Clinton's eight-year-long theme of building a bridge to the 21st century, the $165 million glass and steel home of Clinton memorabilia and artifacts, holds memories the president can be proud of as well as a few recollections he may prefer to forget.

Despite the rain, the dedication served not only as a tribute to the former president, but also something of a roast. The three ex-presidents who spoke credited Clinton with not only being an astute politician, but a man who could get personal with a wide array of people.

"A fellow in Saline County was asked by his son why he liked Governor Clinton so much. He said, 'Son, he'll look you in the eye, he'll shake your hand, he'll hold your baby, he'll pat your dog -- all at the same time," President Bush said.

"Of course, it always has to be said that Bill Clinton was one of the most gifted American political figures in modern times. Trust me, I learned this the hard way," said former President George H.W. Bush, who was defeated by Clinton in 1992. "Here in Arkansas you might say he grew to become the Sam Walton of national retail politics."

Revealing that they first met 30 years ago when Clinton was a congressional candidate, former President Carter said Thursday that the two men now have a lot in common — aside from being former presidents.

"Neither the news media nor any members of the House or Senate can tell us how to do our jobs, unless you happen to be married to one of them, like Bill is," Clinton said, referring to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Sen. Clinton was among several of the famous faces from the Clinton White House that were in attendance Thursday. Former Vice President Al Gore and his wife, Tipper, had choice seats. Also appearing were top-ranking Clinton Cabinet members, including former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, former Health and Human Services chief Donna Shalala and former chief of staff Leon Panetta. U2's Bono and The Edge sang three songs, which Bono dedicated to the man who he said helped put Ireland on a path to peace.

Prior to the dedication, the city where Clinton lived as the state's governor before becoming president was transformed into a tourist hub, hosting 30,000 visitors in anticipation of the opening. The privately funded center exposes not only highlights from the 42nd president's terms in office but some lowlights, too, including the president's impeachment by the House of Representatives.

"Presidential libraries are not about rewriting history. Presidential libraries are about preserving history, and they reflect the good and the bad, the success and failures and the victories and defeats," said Skip Rutherford, head of the Clinton Presidential Library Foundation.

Even Monica Lewinsky's name appears in the library, in the alcove titled "The Fight for Power," which details the legal battles between Clinton and special counsel Kenneth Starr and congressional Republicans. The display is taken from Clinton's point of view, but historians say that is to be expected in any presidential library.

"We really let our visitors and all the people who come and visit this library over the next 20 years to decide whether or not it is objective," said presidential library director David Alsobrook.

In that alcove are also other memorable moments from the Clinton era, including the Republican-led legislation called the "Contract With America" and the Whitewater investigation, which includes Whitewater figure Susan McDougal in her U.S. Marshals-provided orange jumpsuit.

"We had to show this was a systematic attempt by Republican leaders to delegitimize Bill Clinton and the administration," said former Clinton adviser Bruce Lindsey, who worked with the ex-president through much of the exhibit-design process.

A presidential timeline opens with Clinton's 1993 inaugural address and his dream for the nation: "There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America."

In a series of eight 18-foot-wide panels, the library marks highlights and lowlights from each year of Clinton's presidency, such as the Oklahoma City bombing, Clinton-led peace efforts in Northern Ireland and the Middle East, and Clinton's impeachment and acquittal over the Monica Lewinsky affair.

Included in this story is a life-size replica of the Oval Office and one of the Cabinet meeting rooms. Anyone will be able to access every official document from the Clinton administration — 80 million in all, plus 2 million photographs and 80,000 artifacts, including every gift to Clinton from heads of state and citizens.

On the back of each display panel, visitors can access an electronic version of Clinton's daybook. Eight touch-screen monitors call up a specific day in Clinton's presidency to discover what was on his official schedule.

"A lot of memories, but unfortunately for Democrats, it's all we have right now," said Democratic strategist James Carville.

Big-name Democrats are in Little Rock for the occasion, talking about the future of the party. Democrats have lost two consecutive presidential elections since Clinton held office.

"We're just two weeks from the election. It's too early to be making a lot of plans. Let's drop back and reorganize," said former Ohio Sen. John Glenn.

"I think I speak for most of the Democrats. This is a bipartisan week and not a partisan time, and we've got a lot of time to worry about 2008," said Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe.

The end of the ceremony saw daughter Chelsea Clinton, whose voice has rarely been heard publicly since her father became president in 1993, handing over the library keys to the National Archives and Records Administration, which takes over management of the institution from Clinton's private foundation.

When the building opens to the public Friday, visitors paying $7 can peruse the library's 14 alcoves detailing different aspects of Clinton's Oval Office years — one of which is dedicated to scandal.

FOX News' Phil Keating and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

* * * * *

The Clinton's won't reveal the people behind the donations to build the library. Could it be they're hiding something? Let's see, who could be on the list they don't want us to know about? Marc Rich? He benefitted from the Oil-For-Food scam he ran with the full and complete knowledge of the United Nations, receiving monies and favors from Saddam Hussein. Anyone else? None I can think of this moment.

Volcker: Oil-for-Food Probe Could Bring Charges

Volcker: Oil-for-Food Probe Could Bring Charges
Thursday, November 18, 2004

WASHINGTON — The head of the United Nations' in-house investigation into the Oil-for-Food scandal says it could lead to criminal prosecution in the U.S.

Paul Volcker told FOX News that he believes his investigation could uncover evidence that will be turned over to Justice Department prosecutors now weighing possible criminal cases.

In an exclusive interview, Volcker said he's getting the cooperation of people across the globe as he delves into how the United Nations let Saddam Hussein get away with illegally turning the Oil-for-Food program into his own personal multibillion-dollar piggybank. Saddam allegedly stole an estimated $21 billion from the U.N. program and from oil smuggling.

Volcker is also investigating allegations that a high-ranking U.N. official was bribed by Saddam. Congress this week has held two hearings probing the scandal-ridden program.

Volcker defended his decision not to provide 55 U.N. audits of Oil-for-Food, or let U.N. officials testify at Senate Oil-for-Food hearings, saying that doing so now could hurt his own investigation. But he vowed everything will become public when he issues his final report next year.

The Senate Subcommittee on Investigations wants to question Benon Sevan, the former head of the program, who has been accused of — but denies — receiving $1 million in bribes while running Oil-for-Food. Volcker said his team will take on Sevan, as well.

"We will find all the evidence we can," he said. "With respect to Mr. Sevan, we will confront him and whatever it is we have. We'll see what he says and we'll reach our own conclusions."

Volcker also seemed surprised at the extent of the scandal.

"I don't like the fact that the accusations are made in the first place," Volcker said. "I don't like to think that this organization [is] that challenged, but the fact is it is."

He said a priority of his investigation is to examine what went wrong in the U.N. bureaucracy that allowed the scandal to occur in the first place.

"Our first priority is to look inside the U.N. and look at their management of the program, look at the allegations of corruption inside the U.N. and report the facts to the American people and to people all over," the former Federal Reserve chairman said.

Some critics express doubt about Volcker's task, noting that his investigators don't even have subpoena power and his panel is funded by the very organization he is investigating.

But Volcker insists he has everything at his disposal and has the tools and independence to get the job done.

FOX News' Eric Shawn contributed to this report.

Chirac Says War in Iraq Spreads Terrorism

November 18, 2004
Chirac Says War in Iraq Spreads Terrorism
By CRAIG S. SMITH

PARIS, Nov. 17 - On the eve of a visit to Britain, President Jacques Chirac said Wednesday that the world was more dangerous because of the American-led invasion of Iraq.

"To a certain extent Saddam Hussein's departure was a positive thing," Mr. Chirac said in an interview broadcast on the BBC Newsnight television program. "But it also provoked reactions, such as the mobilization in a number of countries of men and women of Islam, which has made the world more dangerous."

Ensuring that his country's relations with the United States and Britain will remain cool, he said, "There is no doubt" that terrorism around the world has increased because of the war in Iraq.

President Chirac's comments followed an equally acerbic assessment of American-led foreign policy that he made in an interview published in British newspapers on Tuesday. In that interview, he expressed doubt that "with America as it is these days," Britain or any other country could be an "honest broker" in improving trans-Atlantic relations.

The comments were a pointed rebuke of Mr. Bush's contention that the world is safer since Mr. Hussein was deposed, and of Prime Minister Tony Blair's view that Britain is a bridge between the United States and Europe.

French-American relations, rarely easy, have lingered near historic lows since Mr. Chirac's government fought bitterly last year to avert the war. His unwillingness to reach out to the United States as the Bush administration heads into a second term is certain to keep those relations at a low ebb for now.

Perhaps more striking than Mr. Chirac's disdain for the Bush administration (he referred in the newspaper interview to the secretary of defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld, as "that nice guy, I've forgotten his name, who talked about Old Europe") was his dismissal of Mr. Blair's unyielding support for Mr. Bush.

Recalling a French-British meeting on the eve of the Iraq war, Mr. Chirac told the British reporters that he had counseled Mr. Blair to get something from Washington in return for Britain's support for the war.

"Well, Britain gave its support but I did not see much in return," the French president was quoted as saying in The Times of London. "I am not sure it is in the nature of our American friends at the moment to return favors systematically."

The unvarnished tone of Mr. Chirac's remarks surprised many people in the normally discreet diplomatic corridors of Europe. But several senior foreign policy analysts remarked that if Mr. Chirac's view of the Bush administration is borne out in the next four years, the weight of Europe may swing behind him.

"Chirac is in a fairly strong position," said Guillaume Parmentier, director of the French Center on the United States, an independent research organization at the French Institute of International Relations.

He argued that Mr. Chirac is appealing to both the British public and people within Mr. Blair's own party to work with France. "Blair needs to show that his support for Bush hasn't broken his ties with Europe," he said.

Mr. Chirac's strong words are also likely to resonate in other European countries, particularly Germany, where frustration with American foreign policy runs high. European support for the war in Iraq has faltered, with both the Netherlands and Hungary planning to follow Spain by withdrawing their troops from Iraq.

In his interviews, Mr. Chirac repeated his vision of a "multipolar" world in which "there will be a great American pole, a great European pole, a Chinese one, an Indian one, eventually a South American pole," with the United Nations mediating.

Despite his remarks, Mr. Chirac insisted that he feels no anger toward the United States and said that French-British relations were always based on mutual esteem. "We enjoyed hating each other," he said in the newspaper interview. "It was a kind of violent love."

Mr. Chirac's two-day visit to Britain, which begins Thursday, is meant to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Entente Cordiale, a pact that ended centuries of intermittent warfare between the two countries. The French president, who turns 72 next month, will be the guest of Queen Elizabeth II and stay at Windsor Castle, where he will be treated to a production of the musical Les Misérables.