I think it’s fascinating that the world hardly recognizes that the "new millennium" is based on the birth of Jesus. It was interesting to hear President Clinton today say something to that effect.

For Jews, Jan. 1 falls in the year 5760, for Muslims 1420, and for the Chinese 4698.
I wonder when the world will realize we’ve all just celebrated the influence of Jesus Christ on the entire world!

This came across the internet today from the pastor of Calvary Chapel in Sydney, Australia,

I remember a brother at Calvary Anaheim who went off of a doctrinal sidetrack and decided that we were already in the Tribulation. That was seven or eight years ago.

If we were already in the Tribulation, and past the halfway mark, then we would have seen the abomination of desolation. I don’t think you can try and make the abomination of desolation something that has secretly happened. Jesus said that people would see it, recognize it, and the Jewish believers would need to respond by heading for the hills.

For some who see the Rapture happening at the end of the Tribulation, there is a problem here. What aspect of Jesus’ coming could be a surprise, not knowing the day or hour, when we’ll be able to calculate the day of His return (and supposed Rapture) when the abomination occurs?

There is no temple in Jerusalem. Yet.

Fifty years ago, the prospect of a temple was unthinkable. No longer so.

ISRAEL -- The Temple Institute has completed the construction of a Menorah, similar to the one used in the Holy Temple. Institute Head Rabbi Yisrael Ariel told (Arutz-7's) Yosef Zalmanson that the Menorah was constructed not for profane or for personal use, but rather "for the sake of the commandment." On the other hand, the Menorah was not officially consecrated for Temple use, so as to avoid the Halakhic (Jewish-legal) prohibition of deriving benefit from Temple property. "It, or other Menorahs, will be consecrated when the Temple is rebuilt," Rabbi Ariel said. The Menorah is two meters high, and is made of 42 kilograms of pure gold.

--9/28 Harpazo

ISRAEL -- Some 40,000 people crowded the Western Wall plaza this morning to receive the traditional Sukkot holiday Priestly Blessing. Attending the ceremony were Chief Rabbis Yisrael Meir Lau and Eliyahu Bakshi-Doron, and Minister of Religion Yitzchak Cohen. Thousands are expected tonight at yet another gathering involving Kohanim (Priests) and Levites. At the Jerusalem Convention Center, several organizations will take the first steps towards reinstituting the system of shifts (mishmarot) that functioned during Temple times.

--9/28 Arutz 7

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1999 19:02:55 ET XXXXX

Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott believes the United States may not exist in its current form in the 21st Century -- because nationhood throughout the world will become obsolete!

Talbott, who is profiled in the NEW YORK TIMES on Monday [for the second time in six months], has defined, shaped and executed the Clinton administration's foreign policy. He has served at the State Department since the first day of the Clinton presidency.

Just before joining the administration, Talbott wrote in TIME magazine -- in an essay titled "The Birth of the Global Nation" -- that he is looking forward to government run by "one global authority."

"Here is one optimist's reason for believing unity will prevail ... within the next hundred years ... nationhood as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority," Talbott declared in the July 20, 1992 issue of TIME.

"A phrase briefly fashionable in the mid-20th century -- 'citizen of the world' -- will have assumed real meaning by the end of the 21st."

Talbott continued: "All countries are basically social arrangements, accommodations to changing circumstances. No matter how permanent and even sacred they may seem at any one time, in fact they are all artificial and temporary."

Talbott's belief that the United States of America and other nations are "artificial and temporary" continues to cause a rift inside of the State Department, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

"I think we are losing sight that we work for the American taxpayer, not Russia, not Asia," one State Department veteran told the DRUDGE REPORT in Washington. "Mr. Talbott is completely consumed with world order and has alienated many career employees here. [His] attitude borders on obsession."

In recent months, Talbott has come under fire for his stand on Russia. The policy of financial and political engagement with Russia as revelations pour forth of massive money-laundering schemes has made Talbott the target of critics, reports John Broder at the TIMES.

"We have to be calm and steady and have a clear sense of purpose," Talbott tells Monday's NEW YORK TIMES.

"One of my modest suggestions to the world is strategic patience. We have to be calm and steady and have a clear sense of purpose when that dynamic is discouraging, as it is today," Talbott explains.

Global government has proven to be slightly more complicated than one optimist dreamed.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Filed by Matt Drudge

Reports are moved when circumstances warrant

http://www.drudgereport.com for updates

(c)DRUDGE REPORT 1999

Not for reproduction without permission of the author

By Toby Helm, EU Correspondent in Brussels

London Telegraph, ISSUE 1316 Friday 1 January 1999

EUROPEAN leaders yesterday set themselves the goal of achieving full-blown political union in Europe after taking the historic step of launching a single currency in 11 EU nations with a total population of 290 million. From midnight last night, the euro became a reality in an area representing just under a fifth of the global economy - only marginally less than the US - and 18.6 per cent of world trade.

The new currency was born after EU finance ministers fixed irrevocably the exchange rates of the 11 currencies against the euro at a special meeting in Brussels. Euros will be used only for non-cash payments for the first three years of the single currency's existence, with notes and coins going into circulation in 2002.

The advent of the euro will lead automatically to the abolition of the 11 national currencies at the end of June 2002 at the latest. The locking of exchange rates and arrival of the euro are the most ambitious steps since the formation of the European Community in 1957.

Rudolf Edlinger, the Austrian president of the finance ministers council, said after signing the legal regulation to lock the rates: "The single currency has become a reality. We have opened a new chapter in the history of Europe."

France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, Spain, Italy, Ireland, Portugal, Finland and Austria are taking part in the single currency. Britain, Sweden and Denmark have opted to wait and see how it works, while Greece failed to qualify.

The first big test of the euro, which has been 30 years in the planning, will come on Monday when the major foreign exchange markets in London, New York and Tokyo re-open after the New Year holiday.

Yesterday, the pound fell almost two pfennigs against the German mark in the last hours of trading. The exchange rate of 2.77 marks to the pound makes sterling worth around 1.41 euros, in line with expectations. No sooner had the technicalities of the launch been completed than leader after leader vowed to go even further - forming a full political union "between countries of euro-zone".

Jacques Santer, President of the European Commission, said political union would inevitably follow. "It is now up to us to see that we embark on the next stage leading to political unity, which I think is the consequence of economic unity, so that Europe can in the future also play a political role on the international stage, leading even as far as a common defence policy."

Carlo Azeglio Ciampi, the Italian finance minister, said: "It is a decisive step towards ever closer political and institutional union in Europe. Above all, it is political." Wim Duisenberg, president of the European Central Bank, which will determine interest rates in the euro area, stressed that countries taking part in the single currency had already surrendered huge powers over the running of their national economies.

He said: "From now on, monetary policy, usually an essential part of national sovereignty, will be decided by a truly European institution." The formation of the euro means transferring authority to set interest rates and run monetary policy to the new Frankfurt-based European Central Bank.

Germany used the launch to warn Britain and other nations over tax harmonisation, insisting that all EU nations would have to co-operate far more closely over tax to ensure the success of Economic and Monetary Union.

Germany's economy and technology minister, Werner Müller, said: "The EU needs economic policy co-ordination in Europe. National policies at the expense of other states would jeopardise the success." It was vital, he added, to implement a code of conduct to eliminate unfair competition over business tax "as soon as possible".

Oskar Lafontaine, Germany's finance minister, was noticeably absent from the proceedings, claiming that he had booked a holiday that could not be broken. Britain was the only country not to be represented by a minister at the meeting. Gordon Brown, the Chancellor, decided to send Sir Stephen Wall, the UK ambassador to the EU, instead.

The Government issued a statement spelling out its policy towards the euro. "Our watch words are prepare and decide," it read. "That decision is for the British Parliament and people. Our financial markets are ready. Many thousands of people are even now at their desks in the City."

Yesterday's launch was clouded by a bitter row between France and Mr Duisenberg over how long the Dutchman should remain as president of the European Central Bank.

He said he had no intention of stepping down after four years as the French claim that he agreed to do last May. One euro will be permanently worth 1.95583 German marks and 6.55957 French francs. Interest rates will be three per cent "for the foreseeable future".

Paris, Friday, December 10, 1999

By Joseph Fitchett International Herald Tribune

PARIS - Hammered out in marathon negotiations that ended Monday at 6 A.M., the European Union's blueprint for its own military force marks a turning point in post-Cold War politics in the West because it could potentially free the EU of its dependence on U.S. troops in future Kosovo-style crises, European and U.S. officials said Thursday.

The text is expected to be approved by EU leaders at their summit meeting this weekend in Helsinki.

While European nations insist that they still count on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and U.S. backing for their security, the document leaves many gray areas about the emerging new relationship between the European allies and the United States on security cooperation, both inside the alliance and in less dangerous situations where the Europeans would choose to act on their own.

''This time we are really there; what so longed seemed a mirage has become a reality,'' Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine of France said. Working with Britain, France has led the way in convincing the other 13 EU member states to take on an independent military role.

Initially encouraged by the Clinton administration, the EU move has recently seemed to cause doubts in Washington as a possible dilution of NATO's leadership. Now the embryonic European force faces major questions about whether it can reverse the slide in Europe's defense spending and modernization.

Beyond the key question of how the proposed European force will interact with NATO, the EU initiative seems bound to have a broad impact on trans-Atlantic political and commercial relations. Coming on the heels of the euro, the political move, at least in the short run, is likely to exacerbate industrial rivalries in the traditionally U.S.-dominated field of military aerospace and high-tech military electronics.

Once the Europeans take the plunge, Washington could hardly hope to see a failure in Europe, officials pointed out, saying that the change could set the stage for healthier trans-Atlantic relations. ''It all depends on how everybody takes it and plays it in practice,'' a U.S. policy-maker said.

European officials agreed, insisting that what they called heavy-handed recent U.S. opposition to the EU plan has become counterproductive. They pointed out that NATO, which still has a monopoly on U.S. high-technology weaponry, is needed by Europeans as a guarantee against a revival of Russian military pressure.

But EU officials in Washington said that the text, unless changed by European leaders, avoids the explicit guarantees sought by Washington and could cause alarm in Congress.

''What we don't want is another Western European Union where the Europeans got into trouble in Bosnia and Washington feared it was going to have to bail them out,'' a NATO official said. European officials, who have now folded the WEU into the EU, agreed: The new European set-up is designed to have teeth, they said.

Pointedly, the Helsinki text ignores a congressional call for the EU to let NATO have a ''right of first refusal'' in deciding whether a crisis should be handled by the alliance or by the Europeans alone. ''You will never, never see that written by the EU,'' a French policymaker said

Instead, the EU text says that decisions will be made by the 15 member states. ''We can cooperate in good faith on this basis,'' the French official said, in deciding whether or not Washington wants to involve U.S. ground troops or let the EU handle the problem alone, presumably with U.S. high-tech help.

''There's enough vagueness for us to live with,'' a U.S. policymaker said. But he acknowledged that Washington may have underestimated the pace of change as Europeans have moved beyond initial cooperation. A joint British-French air command can be built on easily by the U.S. military, but operational integration could raise questions about whether a specific European unit belongs first to NATO or to the EU.

The EU decision marks the first time that European countries have engaged in formal military cooperation among themselves, without U.S. leadership and NATO mediation, since the Suez crisis in 1956. In October that year, Britain, France and Israel mounted a joint attack on Egypt that collapsed in the face of political opposition from the Eisenhower administration.

For 30 years afterward, NATO had a near-monopoly in Western security moves in Europe. But this year, the move to revive European autonomy and lessen European dependence on Washington in defense came within reach when Prime Minister Tony Blair's government dropped Britain's traditional objections to an EU defense role.

Since the French-British summit talks in St. Malo, France, a year ago, Britain and France have succeeded in rapidly persuading the other 13 member states, including neutrals such as Sweden and traditionally staunch NATO loyalists such as the Netherlands, to agree on seeking an independent military role for the EU.

Initially, the EU plans to assemble a multinational army corps backed by airpower and warships, a force strong enough to operate for a year with 50,000 troops in the field.

This mobile, highly professional force, due to be combat-ready by 2002, will have its own planning staff and satellite reconnaissance system to help equip the EU to make its own assessments of unfolding emergencies independently.

For the moment, the thrust of the EU initiative is to arrest the decline in defense spending in all these nations and create political pressure for better spending on more modern forces, particularly in Berlin. Germany has Europe's largest army, but has been reluctant to spend enough to convert its troops from conscripts for defensive war into a professional army that can be sent into action in the Balkans or elsewhere on Europe's periphery.

The emergence of an EU military role does not change the moves inside NATO for the European allies to play a larger role in alliance operations, a plan approved by the alliance at the NATO summit talks in April.

In crises where Washington does not want to send U.S. ground troops, NATO military intervention could be carried out by a European-led force that borrowed U.S. cargo planes, communications, intelligence and even precision-guided missiles.

But the political context of these NATO moves could be affected if tensions arise around Europe's own efforts, U.S. diplomats said. Washington has pressed the Europeans to avoid doing anything to duplicate allied efforts, decouple the U.S. and European parts of the alliance or discriminate against non-EU allies - the United States, Canada, Norway, Iceland and Turkey.

In proceeding now, European leaders apparently are motivated by Kosovo. The campaign exposed Europe's military weakness, but it also alarmed allied leaders about the implications of U.S. military strategy. While Washington is ready to pay for high technology promising zero casualties among U.S. forces, European governments feel that ground warfare is more effective in facing Europe's likely problems - and much more affordable than the U.S.-led strategy of NATO.

SUPERPOWER: By drawing on its unique creative resources, China has a chance to be the next century's dominant international player.

By Jonathan Spence

Newsweek, January 1, 2000

A century ago, China had its first bout of science-fiction fever. There seem to have been three main reasons for this. One was literary, the translation into Chinese of various Western utopian works, and of adventure stories such as Jules Verne's "Around the World in Eighty Days" and "Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea." One was technological, a growing fascination with new developments in science and transportation, from chemistry and electricity to the balloon and the automobile. And one was political, based on the mounting certainty that the reigning dynasty, the Ching, was about to disintegrate under the combined weight of its own incompetence and the overwhelming firepower of the foreign aggressors.

The driving question behind that sci-fi writing was a simple-sounding one: what was China to do next? The country had never before asked that question with such stark simplicity, nor had the stakes ever seemed so high. Between them, as David Wang of Columbia University has recently shown in an absorbing study, these Chinese writers around the turn of the last century came up with a wide range of possibilities, all set at different points in the future, from fifty to a hundred years ahead. In one of these novels, China weathers decades of internal warfare and imperialist aggression to emerge in the 1960s as an independent and powerful republic, guided by a vibrant constitution. In another, an incomparably wise Chinese ruler has created a new civilization blending traditional Chinese virtues with the highest achievements of Europe and the United States. So potent is this culture, peaceful its life and wealthy its economy that dissidents from the bordering "barbarous lands" flee there for sanctuary. In a third, China's women are the guides, creating a new society of sexual independence and technological sophistication, and asserting their power through a secret anarchist organization a million strong, with local chapters spread across the entire country.

Of all these tales, perhaps the most apocalyptic is "New Era." Published in 1908, just before the fall of the Ching dynasty, the novel portrays a series of colossal battles between the Mongoloid and Caucasian races beginning in Eastern Europe in 1999. Overseas Chinese around the world rise up in support of their motherland, creating breakaway Chinese republics in the Western United States and Australia, and seizing the Panama Canal. In the fighting, both sides call on the fullest range of new military technologies, from submarines and bulletproof vests to radioactive dust, electronic deflector shields and poison gas. The combined Chinese armies win the final victory and sign a treaty with the Western powers: China will henceforth control Singapore and Ceylon, Bombay and the Suez Canal, and have bases in the Adriatic Sea. Furthermore, though the Western powers can keep their own calendars, all Chinese will henceforth acknowledge and live by Chinese time, the traditional calendar dating their own history to the reign of the Yellow Emperor in high antiquity. Thus the treaty is dated both "2000 AD" and "Year 4707 of the Yellow Emperor."

These fantasies were constructed at a despairing time of national weakness. China lost Taiwan to Japan in 1895, Beijing was occupied in the year 1900 by an international expeditionary force after the catastrophe of the Boxer Uprising, and many of China's major cities had foreign settlements exempt from Chinese law. Though China now is infinitely stronger than it was a century ago, some of those once fantastical elements have an oddly current ring of reality. Those secret woman anarchists with their cells scattered across the land have a contemporary echo in the crowds of women and men from the Falun Gong, gathering boldly in Beijing and elsewhere. A deadly misplaced bomb on the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade draws Eastern Europe suddenly into the very heart of Sino-Western relations, prompting riots and cries for retaliation in China. China competes aggressively in all international markets for the latest nuclear, rocket and undersea technologies, and are steadily acquiring the potential to reach around the globe. Even that hope for a harmonious and well-ordered republic, though still not realized, is kept alive by many who were not cowed by the repressions of 1989.

How might the 21st century manifest itself as a Chinese one? Obviously it will not be through the exact same means that led to the gradual emergence of the United States as the dominant world force of our own time; nor could it possibly be by the means employed by the British, whose own empire played a similarly dominant role across the 19th century. Nor is it feasible for it to be like that startlingly sudden and ferocious Mongol expansion, checked only by blood and chance in the Balkans in the 13th century. A Chinese century will come, surely, only if the idea and reality of what we call China are merged together in a new kind of synthesis. Such a synthesis would require the creative blending of three components: the territory itself—which, like all empires, is a flexible concept, one that has expanded, contracted and splintered over time; an ability to understand and assimilate the unique richness of China's own cultural and ethnic heritage; and a recognition that those Chinese who have left their core homeland have broadened the idea of being Chinese and given it a truly global dimension.

China's human resources are vast, but its natural resources are limited. To conjure up a future Chinese superpower, we have to imagine scientific advances that will eliminate some of China's glaring weaknesses: nanotechnologies that will transform Chinese ways of warfare, hydroponics that will make the deserts of Xinjiang a shining mass of crops, cloning and genetic engineering that will alter all previous livestock-raising practices, modes of communication swifter and cheaper than any we now dream of. The Chinese science-fiction writers of today may still be nationalists, but they are speaking for and from a multitude of Chinas—from the mainland, from Taiwan, from Hong Kong, from Southeast Asian communities and from the United States and Canada. One of them writes of a China redeemed and restored by democratic currents coming from Taiwan; one of a huge urban block of China that breaks away from the mainland and drifts aimlessly round the world in search of anchor; one of a blighted and politically fragmented China, laid waste by civil war, that sends a billion emigrants out beyond its borders to destabilize the other countries of the world; one, with dark humor, writes of a United States corroded and undone by the crassly insidious commercial energies of Taiwan, condemned to an endless yearning for Chinese food and a passion for playing the market.

Any one of these scenarios could possibly be on the right track. In a world where the newly installed governor general of Canada is a Chinese woman immigrant, Adrienne Poy, and the Hong Kong shipping tycoon Li Ka-shing scoops the cream off the $127 billion Vodafone AirTouch-Mannesmann takeover war (even as Sen. Trent Lott warns of Li's dominating position in the Panama Canal), the past has already blended with the future. What more can the voice of reason attempt to add? Only that the coming century is going to be one of unknown opportunities, demanding hitherto unknown flexibility, and that in such a climate the ebullient and pragmatic Chinese, with their own restless energies to the fore, and the gigantic consumer market and labor force of their country at their back, are going to be among the boldest pursuers of whatever opportunities present themselves. In this broad context—with a multiplicity of Chinas playing an intersecting set of global games—the exact details of specific trade agreements or of specific governmental practices in any one region or segment fade in their significance.

The last time there was a Chinese century was the 11th. During the 11th century, China was both the largest and the most successfully run country on earth: its commanding position sprang from a combination of technological innovation, industrial enterprise, well-managed agriculture, widely available education and traditions of administrative experimentation combined with religious and philosophical tolerance. Its decline was largely due to its military weakness in the face of a formidable array of enemies on its borders, enemies whom the government chose to attempt to bribe away rather than to confront directly. The policy of weakness and accommodation was fatal. If China proves it can defend its borders effectively, limit the disruptive intrusion of foreign forces while utilizing their positive sides, and re-establish that formidable combination of positive attributes it knew 900 years ago, there is just a chance that it will give its name to a century for the second time. Except perhaps for the Roman Empire at the height of its glory, that is not a feat any single state has been capable of before.

Spence is professor of modern Chinese history at Yale. His latest book is a biography of Mao Zedong.

© 2000 Newsweek, Inc

By IAN GRAYSON

30nov99

A GIANT data warehouse containing the personal and financial details of almost every Australian is being constructed by a United States company and will be operational by Christmas.

The warehouse will contain information from a diverse range of sources, including credit companies, retailers, electoral rolls, post office lists, car sales records and housing purchase records.

The power of the warehouse comes from its ability to cross-reference information from many different sources.

Detailed personal records therefore can be built up on anyone in the country.

Its existence has prompted expressions of concern from the Australian Consumers' Association.

ACA senior policy officer Charles Britton said it was "very scary" to think so much information would be stored in a single place.

"Most people would be unaware that all this data about them is being held by a single company," he said.

The warehouse has been constructed by Acxiom, a joint venture between the US company of the same name and the Packer family's Publishing and Broadcasting Limited (PBL).

It also will be fed information from a range of PBL sources including Channel Nine, ninemsn, Crown Casino and Ticketek.

Access to the warehouse, called InfoBase, will be offered to companies seeking to focus their marketing activities or learn more about their customers.

Acxiom Australia chief executive Andrew Robb said the massive database was being populated and would be put to work from the end of the year.

He said Acxiom was in negotiation with a range of information suppliers.

"A bank could have very rich data but it has a very narrow focus," Mr Robb said.

"If you can combine it with, say, lifestyle data, it becomes much more valuable."

Running on a series of Compaq Alpha servers, the data warehouse uses Oracle software. Initially containing more than 15 million records, the database will constantly grow in size and complexity.

In the US, Acxiom has established what it claims is the world's largest database, which holds personal details on 95 per cent of all US households, or some 330 million people.

Acxiom international division head Jerry Ellis said the company's clients could access this vast information reserve and pull out records in seconds.

For example, if a customer called an insurance company, the company's computer system would recognise the incoming telephone number, query InfoBase, and provide a full profile on the customer before the call was answered.

"This is powerful stuff," Mr Ellis said.

"The company can know a caller's income, credit rating, number of children and how many cars they own before they pick up the phone."

Mr Ellis said the company strictly adhered to privacy legislation in every country where it operated.

"We also have what I call the shaving-mirror test," he said.

"If a staff member cannot look at themselves in a mirror and feel comfortable with the information we are collecting and using, they are encouraged to escalate it and it will be checked by management."

Mr Robb said data warehousing technology enabled companies to change the way they interacted with customers.

"The move is very much from being product-focused to being customer-focused," he said.

"This has only been possible with the development of this kind of resource."

Mr Britton said an individual's right to privacy should be protected at all times, but this was becoming increasingly difficult to ensure.

"There are also concerns as to just how accurate the data being held actually is," Mr Britton said.

"People should have the opportunity to check their records and ensure they are accurate."

Although relatively unknown in Australia, Acxiom is a $US2.5 billion company with more than 450 corporate clients, including IBM, American Express, Wal-Mart and AT&T.

Earlier this year Acxiom announced it would be entering the Australian market through a joint venture with the Packers' PBL.

http://www.acxiom.com.au/

Independent News (UK)

The US National Security Agency has patented a new technology for monitoring millions of telephone calls, so watch out, it's now even easier for the spooks to eavesdrop on your conversations

By Suelette Dreyfus

15 November 1999

The US National Security Agency has designed and patented a new technology that could aid it in spying on international telephone calls. The NSA patent, granted on 10 August, is for a system of automatic topic spotting and labelling of data. The patent officially confirms for the first time that the NSA has been working on ways of automatically analysing human speech.

The NSA's invention is intended automatically to sift through human speech transcripts in any language. The patent document specifically mentions "machine-transcribed speech" as a potential source.

Bruce Schneier, author of Applied Cryptography, a textbook on the science of keeping information secret, believes the NSA currently has the ability to use computers to transcribe voice conversations.

"One of the holy grails of the NSA is the ability automatically to search through voice traffic. They would have expended considerable effort on this capability, and this indicates it has been fruitful," he said.

To date, it has been widely believed that while the NSA has the capability to conduct fully automated, mass electronic eavesdropping on e-mail, faxes and other written communications, it cannot do so on telephone calls.

While cautioning that it was difficult to tell how well the ideas in the patent worked in practice, Schneier said the technology could have far-reaching effects on the privacy of international phone calls.

"If it works well, the technology makes it possible for the NSA to harvest millions of telephone calls, looking for certain types of conversations," he said.

"It's easy to eavesdrop on any single phone call, but sifting through millions of phone calls looking for a particular conversation is difficult," Schneier explained. "In terms of automatic surveillance, text is easier to search than speech. This patent brings the surveillance of speech closer to that of text."

The NSA declined to comment on the patent. As a general policy, the agency never comments on its intelligence activities.

Yaman Akdeniz, director of Cyber-Rights & Cyber-Liberties UK, warned that with the new patent and a proposed AT&T and BT joint venture, which will allow US law enforcement agencies to tap the new communications network: "We might have a picture in which all British communications are monitored by the NSA."

The revelation of the NSA's patent is likely to cause tensions with the European Parliament. Over the past two years, the Parliament has commissioned several reports which examined whether the NSA has been using its electronic ears for commercial espionage, particularly in areas where US corporations compete with European and other companies.

The NSA relies on an international web of eavesdropping stations around the world, commonly known as Echelon, to listen into private international communications. The network emerged from a secret agreement signed after the Second World War between five nations including Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Britain and the US. Two of the NSA's most important satellite listening stations are located in Europe, at Menwith Hill in Yorkshire and Bad Aibling in Germany.

Julian Assange, a cryptographer who moderates the online Australian discussion forum AUCRYPTO, found the new patent while investigating NSA capabilities.

"This patent should worry people. Everyone's overseas phone calls are or may soon be tapped, transcribed and archived in the bowels of an unaccountable foreign spy agency," he said.

One of the major barriers to using computers automatically to sift through voice communications on a large scale has been the inability of machines to "think" like humans when analysing the often imperfect computer transcriptions of voice conversations.

Commercial software that enables computers to transcribe spoken words into typed text is already on the market, but it usually requires the machine to spend time learning how to understand an individual voice in order to produce relatively error-free text. This makes such software impractical for a spy agency which might want automatically to transcribe and analyse telephone calls on a large scale.

It is also difficult for computers to analyse voice conversations because human speech often covers topics that are never actually spoken by name. According to the NSA patent application, "much of the information conveyed in speech is never actually spoken and... utterances are frequently less coherent than written language".

US Patent number 5,937,422 reveals that the NSA has designed technology to overcome these barriers in two key ways. First, the patent includes an optional pre-processing step which cleans up text, much of which the agency appears to expect to draw from human conversations. The NSA's "pre-processing" will remove what it calls "stutter phrases" associated with speech based on text.

Second, the patent uses a method by which a computer automatically assigns a label, or topic description, to raw data. If the method works well, this system could be far more powerful than traditional keyword searching used on many Internet search engines because it could pull up documents based on their meaning, not just their keywords.

Dr Brian Gladman, former MoD director of Strategic Electronic Communications, said that while he doubted the NSA had deployed the patented system yet, the new technology could become a "potent future threat" to privacy.

"If the technology does what it says ­ automatically finding and extracting the meaning in messages with reasonable accuracy ­ then it is way ahead of what is being done now," he said.

The best way for people to protect their private communications was to use encryption, he said. Encryption software programs scramble data to prevent eavesdropping. "I'm afraid widespread interception is a fact of life and this is what makes encryption so important," he said.

"The problem in the UK is that our government is working with the US to prevent UK citizens defending themselves using encryption," he said, referring to the continuing use of export controls to hamper the widespread availability of encryption products.

The NSA's current spy technology may be more advanced than methods described in the patent because the application is more than two years old. The US Patent Office approved the patent on 10 August this year, but the NSA originally lodged the application on 15 April 1997. The US Patent office keeps all applications secret until it issues a patent.

By Tabassum Zakaria

Yahoo News

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The National Security Agency, which uses spy satellites and foreign listening posts to monitor threats to U.S. security, denied on Monday that it intended to begin spying on Americans at home.

Newsweek magazine in its Dec. 13 issue said the NSA was drafting a memorandum of understanding to clarify ways in which it could help the FBI track terrorists and criminals in the United States.

``Under Executive Order, NSA is authorized to provide technical assistance to law enforcement,'' a statement from the agency said. ``Any assistance NSA provides is performed in accordance with federal law and regulations.''

The NSA and CIA are supposed to operate overseas and not spy on Americans domestically, while the FBI investigates federal crimes inside the United States.

The Newsweek article said there was a new alliance between the NSA and FBI and posed the question: ``In their zeal, will the crime-fighters and electronic sleuths illegally spy on U.S. citizens?''

But Judith Emmel, NSA spokeswoman, said the intelligence agency would not be snooping on Americans in the United States.

``The National Security Agency operates in strict accordance with U.S. laws and regulations in protecting the privacy rights of U.S. persons,'' she said. ``Its activities are conducted with the highest constitutional, legal and ethical standards.''

The Newsweek article created a stir among some observers, who saw any link between the NSA and FBI on domestic issues as opening the door to possible infringement of individual rights to privacy.

Harvey Kushner, chair of the criminal justice department at Long Island University, said if the NSA helped the FBI track terrorists in the United States it would set ``a dangerous precedent'' and violate the agency's mission.

``Do we really want the NSA to be spying on U.S. citizens?'' Kushner said in a statement reacting to the magazine article.

``Where will it stop? American public opinion over the years has overwhelmingly spoken against covert and clandestine agencies mucking around in domestic affairs,'' he said.

One intelligence official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, after making checks expressed lack of knowledge of the memorandum of understanding that Newsweek referred to in its article.

January 14, 1999

Web posted at: 3:21 p.m. EST (2021 GMT)

by Sam Witt

(IDG) -- Is the human body a fit place for a microchip? The debate is no longer hypothetical. The same computing power that once required an entire building to harness now can be inserted in your left arm.

Better yet, somebody else's left arm.

Professor Kevin Warwick, director of cybernetics at the University of Reading in the U.K., is that somebody else. On Monday, Aug. 24, 1998, Warwick became the first human to host a microchip. During a 20-minute medical procedure described as "a routine silicon-chip implant" by Dr. George Boulos, who led the operation, doctors inserted into Warwick's arm a glass capsule not much bigger than a pearl. The capsule holds several microprocessors.

The British Broadcasting Corp. was on hand to document the historic event - and to trouble the professor's already frayed nerves. "In theory, I was able to see what was going on," Warwick says in a phone interview several days after the operation (which he described as slightly more pleasant than a trip to the dentist), "but I was looking in the opposite direction most of the time."

Although Warwick winces at the comparison, Boulos likens him to a latter-day Edward Jenner, who injected himself with cowpox in 1776 to further his research into a smallpox vaccine.

"The doctor pinched the skin and lifted it up and sort of burrowed a hole . . . underneath the skin and on top of the muscle," Warwick says. "It's well inside my body, in my left arm, just above my elbow. [It's] held in place by three stitches - partly so that the wound is held together, but also so that the capsule doesn't float around anywhere."

Though he declines to reveal the chip's manufacturer, Warwick did disclose that it's a "commercial" product. "For obvious reasons, both positive and negative, they didn't want us shouting about what the name of the exact product was," he says.

The approximately 23mm-by-3mm device stayed in Warwick's arm for only nine days - partly to avoid medical complications, partly because it was fairly limited in power. "Half of it is an electric coil," Warwick says, "and half is a number of silicon chips." The chips used only eight of an available 64 bits of information to communicate with the University of Reading's intelligent building.

Which brings us to the question: Why?

Warwick has spent more than 20 years researching and developing intelligent buildings. "In our building in the Cybernetics department, we've got quite a number of doorways rigged up so that they pass a radio signal between the door frame," he says. "When I go through the doorways, the radio signal energizes the coil. It produces an electric current, which the chips use to send out an identifying signal, which the computer recognizes as being me."

And so, for a little better than a week, doors that normally require smart cards swung open for the professor. A system of electronic nodes tracked his movements throughout the building. Lights blinked on when he entered a room.

"Hello, Professor Warwick," his PC announced when Warwick crossed the threshold of his office, before casually mentioning how many E-mail messages he had received. It also was reported that Warwick used the device to run a bath and chill his wine.

Warwick

How did he like it? "In my building I feel much more powerful, in a mental way," Warwick says. "Not at one with the computer, but much, much closer. We're not separate. It's not as though we're good friends or anything. But certainly when I'm out of the building, I feel as though part of me is missing."

Asked if he named his chip, Warwick laughs. "I don't see it as a separate thing," he says. "It's like an arm or a leg."

Warwick's family was a little slower than his body to accept the chip. "My wife finds it really strange," he says. "She didn't want to go near my arm for a couple of days. It was as though I had some funny disease." His 16-year-old daughter reportedly called him "crazy."

And the day after the operation, Warwick played a game of squash with his son, but not before issuing a stern warning: "Whatever you do, don't hit my arm. The implant could just shatter, and you'll have ruined your father's arm for life."

Real-world applications

Though the experiment sounds like an episode of Dr. Who, its real-world implications are "right around the corner," says Warwick, who foresees enormous medical applications. Through a system of embedded chips interfacing with an artificial motor system, Warwick imagines paraplegics walking. And that's just for starters.

"Simply take measurements off muscles and tendons and feed them into the transponder," Warwick says. "That means, ultimately, that you wouldn't need a computer mouse anymore. You wouldn't need a keyboard."

Charles Ostman, a senior fellow at the Institute for Global Futures and science editor at Mondo 2000, agrees. "Neuroprosthetics are . . . inevitable," he says. "Biochip implants may become part of a rote medical procedure. After that, interface with outside systems is a logical next step."

Warwick's eagerness is palpable, engaging, contagious. "This is where you can speculate," he says. "This is where we take a technical thing and say, 'Right-o, got the signal, got the implant; all I've got to do is run a wire from the implant to my nervous system.' . . . I'm so excited about it, I want to get on with the next step straight away. Let's see if we can control computers directly from our nervous system."

Witt is a freelance writer in San Francisco. Top photo by Mark Harrison. Bottom two photos provided by INS Newsgroup.

Missler: Numerous ancient sources have clearly identified the classic "Magog" as referring to the Scythians, which were the ancestors of the true Russians. Among the allies, the lead ally is listed as "Persia" (Iran). Yeltsin has signed a treaty with Iran to back them in their military intrigues.

NewsMax.com

December 14, 1999

Still furious over United States criticism of Russia's war in Chechnya, President Boris Yeltsin has placed his most deadly intercontinental nuclear missiles on "combat alert."

The Moscow bureau of the London Express is reporting that, on his orders, 10 of Russia's newest, most sophisticated weapons - capable of striking the U.S. - have been deployed in full readiness.

This unprecedented dramatic warning has Western observers nervous about the possibility of an inadvertent launch at a time when it is known that Russia's missiles are not fully reprogrammed to avert all millennium-year computer failures.

Russia just recently sent computer and missile experts to Washington to work with American specialists in averting Y2K glitches.

Yelstin's hawkish missile deployment is just the latest move of a laundry list of recent military developments in Russia.

In October, Yeltsin's Prime Minister announced Russian government plans for a massive military build-up, with plans to raise the military budget by 50 percent.

Last month, the Russian Navy fired two intercontinental ballistic missiles from a submarine. They struck a target range more than 3,000 miles away on Russia's Kamchatka peninsula. Since the Kosovo war, Russian military and civilian leaders have made clear that their war game exercises are preparation for a conflict with the U.S.

Toronto's Globe and Mail reported the most recent missile test firing was the first time Russia has launched an ICBM from a nuclear submarine in four years and the third time in a month it had fired off missiles.

The paper called it "an intimidating wave of test launches."

At the same time, Russia has been deploying subs and planes on cat-and-mouse surveillance with U.S. ships and jets, which the Toronto paper said is "the first time in years that the Russians have played such Cold War games."

TOPOL-M DEPLOYMENT

Yeltsin's deployment for combat of the missiles - the Topol-Ms - is the most serious military development yet. With a striking range of 6,200 miles, the Topol-Ms are based in the Saratov region, 400 miles southeast of Moscow.

According to the Express:

Although the West was advised in advance, as required by nuclear treaty commitments, the rarity of this move can be regarded only as a deliberate and serious show of force to underscore Yeltsin's outrage.

It coincided with his return to Russia after a trip to China, where he warned Clinton and other Western leaders to stay out of Russia's business in Chechnya.

Yeltsin brandished Russia's still great missile threat by thundering, "Russia is a great power that possesses a full nuclear arsenal. It is we who will dictate."

Recently, Gen. Vladimir Yakovlev, the Russian missiles-forces commander, also bragged, "Of the five nuclear powers, none of the others will match these weapons in the next few years.

"Topol-M is able to breach any anti-missile system that exists in the world and any which will be built in the near future."

Also troubled by the missile alert are Russian politicians and analysts who regard Yeltsin as too ill to have his finger on the trigger of the world's second largest nuclear power.

Britain's leading independent nuclear expert, John Large, said, "There was an unwritten agreement for both Russia and the U.S. not to deploy nuclear weapons before the Y2K period.

"Even if the weapons themselves are OK - which I very much doubt, since their testing system has been effectively down and out for three years - they would have to work within the strategic defense system there, which is full of Y2K glitches.

"There is no real need for it - it is a risk they don't need to take.

"I am not suggesting that these nuclear bombs will go off on their own, but we do expect to see the defense systems playing up a bit."

NewsMax.com

December 15, 1999

In a calculated warning for the United States to butt out of its internal affairs, Russia launched with fanfare its newest strategic nuclear weapon Tuesday.

It soared eastward across 3,400 miles and seven time zones, landing as programmed in a target range on Russia's Kamchatka Peninsula just short of Alaska.

But its true impact was directed westward toward the American heartland, now shown to be within easy range of the versatile Topol-M intercontinental ballistic missile.

This awesome display of force came only four days after President Boris Yeltsin — outraged at President Clinton's criticism of his war to suppress the breakaway Caucasian republic of Chechnya — placed Russia's nuclear missiles on full war footing.

In a move intended to signal that Russia means business, Prime Minister Valdimir Putin, who is strongly prosecuting the Chechen war, made a display of being on hand to witness the Topol-M blast off.

He issued a blast of his own when he said Russia "will use all diplomatic and military-political levers in its disposal" to resist the American president's "interfering" in Chechnya.

"The diplomatic levers are clear," Putin said, "and as for the military ones, Tuesday's successful launch of the Topol-M intercontinental ballistic missile is one of them.

"No one can accuse the government of inappropriate use of anti-terrorist measures in Chechnya, call Russia an aggressor or an occupier.

"Some nations and blocs under cover of international organizations are interfering into affairs of independent states, and trying to speak to them in the language of force.

"We are not used to such language, since Russia has a nuclear shield."

This was an abrupt reversal of Putin's conciliatory language only a few days earlier, when he tried to modify an angry statement by Yeltsin reminding Clinton that "Russia is a great power that possesses a nuclear arsenal."

Putin also took the occasion at the Topol-M launch pad to warn Clinton one more time that Russia will not tolerate his efforts to modify or scrap the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in order to build an American anti-missile defense system.

The Clinton administration says such a shield is needed to protect its territory against a limited missile attack by a "rogue nation," not a nuclear onslaught such as Russia can inflict.

But Russia, for decades fearful of becoming vulnerable to a U.S. first strike, has regarded the ABM Treaty as its only effective nuclear shield.

If the U.S. goes that route, Russia says, its response will be to fit its Topol-M missiles with multiple nuclear warheads capable of penetrating any defensive screen.

With its earlier long-range missiles obsolete, Russia is betting the farm on its vaunted new Topol-M.

Unlike previous Russian ICBMs, with their massive payloads and launch power, Topol-Ms are relatively small, highly mobile on trucks and very difficult to detect and track before they could deliver a crippling blow.

The launch of the Topol-M, with its reputed ultimate range of more than 6,000 miles, is the latest in a series of recent alarming military moves in Russia.

In October, Yeltsin revealed plans for a massive military build-up, escalating the military budget by half.

In November, the Russian navy fired two ICBMs from a submarine some 3,000 miles onto the Kamchatka range.

In response to U.S. and NATO military intervention in Kosovo, both military and civilian leaders have made clear their war games are preparation for a conflict with the U.S.

Russia has been deploying subs and planes on cat-and-mouse surveillance with U.S. ships and jets.

The Toronto Globe and Mail said this was "the first time in years that the Russians have played such Cold War games."

Yeltsin was in Beijing last week, strengthening Russia's military, economic and diplomatic ties with Communist China as the foundation of an obvious growing alliance against the U.S.

.c The Associated Press

AMMAN, Jordan (AP) - Russia wants to play an ``active role'' in the resumed Syrian-Israeli peace negotiations, a Russian envoy said today.

The envoy, Vasily Sredin, arrived here Monday from Syria, where he met with President Hafez Assad and Foreign Minister Farouk Sharaa.

``We are optimistic and we believe that the Syrians and the Israelis want to swiftly settle'' their conflict, Sredin said through an Arabic-language interpreter. ``We want to carry out an active role on this track.''

He said Russia wants to be in the center of Arab-Israeli peace negotiations in its capacity as a ``sponsor and an active partner in the peace process.''

Sredin's remarks followed an hour-long meeting with Jordanian Foreign Minister Abdul-Illah Khatib on progress in Mideast peacemaking. Sredin was also scheduled to meet with King Abdullah II before he leaves Jordan for the West Bank on Wednesday.

The Syrian-Israeli peace talks are scheduled to resume in Washington on Wednesday.

Egypt, Jordan and Cyprus have offered to host the negotiations if they shift to the Middle East. But Sharaa, the Syrian foreign minister, said he expects the talks to continue in the United States.

AP-NY-12-14-99 1027EST

Yahoo! Asia - News World

Friday, December 31 6:28 PM SGT

MOSCOW, Dec 31 (AFP) -

Vladimir Putin, the poker-faced ex-KGB spy, once tried to westernize a crumbling Soviet Union but has since galvanized a new Russia and is vowing to annihilate the rebels of Chechnya.

"We'll get them anywhere -- if we find terrorists sitting in the outhouse, then we will piss on them there. That's it. The matter is settled," barked Putin shortly after Russia launched its Chechen war in September.

Such talk could have cost his predecessors their job. But it boosted Putin's career.

He became acting president Friday when Boris Yeltsin suddenly announced he was stepping down, and is likely to retain the Kremlin hot seat for years to come.

Yeltsin, ailing and being edged out of power by his closest advisers, named the then virtually unknown security chief as prime minister last August.

He had been running the secretive but omnipotent Security Council.

He has since turned into one of the most admired figures Russia has seen this decade, even his opponents singing his praises.

"Putin has enchanted Russia," wrote Vyacheslav Kostikov, a former Kremlin spokesman and current board member of a Media-MOST empire that has campaigned heavily against the government.

"I honestly believe that Putin is capable of heroic deeds in the name of our humiliated Russia," Kostikov said.

Yet the 47-year-old prime minister and acting president remains a political enigma.

He helped found a new party, Unity, which rode into the State Duma (the lower house of parliament) on the back of his popularity in December 19 elections.

The party is described as "centrist." But the respected Moscow Times said in an editorial: "There is no particular reason to believe that Unity is 'centrist,' unless 'centrist' is another word for 'unknown.'"

The English-language newspaper added: "But what seems clear is that the Kremlin has been dealt a winning hand -- or the Kremlin has dealt itself a winning hand, depending on one's point of view."

What can be gleamed from Putin's bare biography suggests that he is intelligent and cunning, trusted enough by peers to be handed some of the most sensitive assignments.

Putin "was shaped by the single greatest mission in the history of the KGB," wrote the US-based private global intelligence firm Stratfor.

That mission was the "systematic restructuring of the Soviet economy, Soviet society and Soviet relations with the West in the hope of preserving the state and the regime."

Putin spent the 1980s in Berlin, where intelligence observers believe he slipped into West Germany to learn trade secrets of such companies as US computer giant IBM.

Observers believe KGB officers knew the Soviet Union was in ruins and could be preserved only by revolutionising its lagging technology and attracting investors from the West.

It remains unclear how successful Putin was. But he became the chief liaison for foreign investors after joining the pro-reform team of Saint Petersburg Mayor Anatoly Sabchak in 1994.

Local journalists report that it was impossible to make foreign investments in Russia's second city without first contacting Putin.

He then also became a trusted ally of economics chief Anatoly Chubais, who brought Putin to Moscow in 1996 and made him responsible for monitoring regional leaders who were seeking greater independence from Moscow.

One political analyst reported that Putin was told to collect so-called "compromising material" on governors which could then be used as an "incentive" for them to toe the Kremlin line.

Analysts suggest the Kremlin is now repaying Putin by making him the star of a well orchestrated media public relations campaign, one which has put his presidential rating at an unheralded 46 percent.

The latest Public Opinion Foundation poll said Russians were three times as likely to vote for Putin in presidential election due in June than his nearest rival, Communist Party boss Gennady Zyuganov.

"Russia was and will remain a great country," Putin wrote in a 14-page essay entitled "Russia on the Threshold of a New Millenium" published this week on the government's Internet web site.

The message, at once an outline of policy objectives and a philosophical expose, was striking both in its relaxed tone and a novel content that mixed Western democratic and market ideals with traditional Russian mores.

"Russia is never going to be another USA or England, where liberal values have deep historic roots," Putin asserted.

"It is a fact that in Russia the attraction to a collective way of life has always been stronger than the desire for individualism."

At the same time, though, the country and its people understand better than many the dangers that a government -- particularly an executive branch -- endowed with excessive power can pose to people's freedom, he said.

"The global experience prompts the conclusion that the main threat to human rights and freedoms, to democracy as such, emanates from the executive authority," Putin wrote.

"The state must be where and as needed; freedom must be where and as required."

London Telegraph, ISSUE 1681 Saturday 1 January 2000

Former KGB man takes over as Yeltsin quits

RUSSIA'S acting president, Vladimir Putin, was his usual undemonstrative self yesterday when he was shown into his new office in the Kremlin by its previous occupant, Boris Yeltsin, writes Marcus Warren.

Vladimir Putin: 'Nothing must change in our activity except that we should now work even harder'

"Don't relax," the outgoing leader told him. Typically, Mr Putin said not a word in reply. Mr Yeltsin need not worry; there is little danger of Russia's new leader relaxing. At a cabinet meeting Mr Putin later displayed more of the austere resolve that has made him the voters' favourite and the man most likely to be elected president in the spring. He told ministers: "Nothing must change in our activity except that we should now work even harder."

Since he was made prime minister in August, Mr Putin, 47, has made a virtue of all the qualities that would seem to deprive him of any hope of being elected to anything, let alone becoming the next president.

In the 1996 presidential election Mr Yeltsin delighted the crowds by doing the twist at a campaign rally. Mr Putin is unlikely to follow his example in the months ahead. Humourless determination, lack of charisma, even shyness have turned into electoral assets that none of the former KGB spy's rivals can match, just as no politician can compete with his huge approval ratings in the opinion polls.

For Mr Putin, being the Kremlin's favourite has, surprisingly, never been a handicap, although Mr Yeltsin and his entourage have never been more unpopular than in the last few months of the Yeltsin presidency.

The success of the war in Chechnya, widely seen as Mr Putin's doing, and his background in intelligence, have also heightened his appeal in a country weary of years of rhetoric about reform but little action.

A judo black belt, Mr Putin is not only an unconventional politician but also a man of mystery whose views on the economy and foreign policy have yet to be tested. His KGB career remains cloaked in secrecy but he is known to have had a pivotal role in the Soviet intelligence services operating in East Germany during its dying days.

His fans claim that he is dedicated to democratic, liberal values and partnership with the West but some of his statements have implied support for a strong and assertive Russian state too.

His first address to the nation in his new capacity of acting president combined a pledge to defend "freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom of mass media and property right" with a threat that attempts to undermine the constitution would be "crushed". Despite his softly spoken demeanour, he achieved notoriety by once lapsing into prison slang and promising to "do in" Chechen terrorists "in the bog if necessary".

December 22, 1999

Web posted at: 6:37 p.m. EST (2337 GMT)

CNN

RAMALLAH, West Bank (AP) -- Disputes over an Israeli troop pullback and the release of Palestinian prisoners are expected to be resolved in the next few days as a result of a secret meeting between the Israeli and Palestinian leaders, who plan to hold frequent one-on-one talks, a senior Palestinian official said Wednesday.

With a deadline for a peace treaty framework only 53 days away, Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak decided during a meeting late Tuesday in the West Bank town of Ramallah to become more closely involved in the negotiations.

Arafat adviser Nabil Abourdeneh said he expected disagreements over an Israeli troop withdrawal from 5 percent of the West Bank and the release of Palestinian security prisoners to be resolved in the coming days.

Israel was set to carry out the withdrawal by a November 15 deadline, but the Palestinians objected, saying the areas Israel offered to hand over were too thinly populated and not close enough to those already under Palestinian control.

Israeli and Palestinian negotiators met again Wednesday to try to finalize a deal but Palestinian officials said Israel rejected an offer to accept the original withdrawal in exchange for a say in future redeployments. And no numbers or criteria were offered by Israel for a next prisoner release

"We were hoping to come here today to see the reflection of this positive atmosphere, but we couldn't reach agreement on the issues," Saeb Erekat told reporters.

Barak aide Gadi Baltiansky said Israel would submit the list when it was ready, noting that the latest peace accord did not set a precise date for the prisoner release. He said Israel had the sole right to determine the location of the current and future redeployments.

More importantly, Israel and the Palestinians need to agree on the broad outlines of a full peace treaty by February 13. Issues on the table include the final borders of the Palestinian entity, the status of Jerusalem, the fate of Palestinian refugees and the future of Jewish settlements.

Abourdeneh said that the two leaders will hold frequent meetings after Arafat completes a trip to Washington around January 10.

The two chief negotiators, Palestinian Information Minister Yasser Abed-Rabbo and Israeli diplomat Oded Eran, have made little progress in their sessions. They did not attend Tuesday's summit meeting, according to a Palestinian official.

Abourdeneh said Barak also briefed Arafat on Israel's negotiations with Syria. The Palestinians were caught by surprise by last week's renewal of the Israel-Syria track, frozen almost four years. Israel appears much closer to Syrian territorial demands than to those of the Palestinians. Closing a deal with Syria -- and with Lebanon, where Syria calls the shots -- would leave Arafat much weaker.

Barak has tried to assure the Palestinians that he is determined to stick to the ambitious timetable on the Palestinian track -- a framework agreement by February 13 and a final accord by September 13.

The Palestinians also received encouraging promises from Barak on settlement activities in the West Bank, Palestinian officials said,

Palestinian officials have repeatedly said that settlement expansion in the West Bank is destructive to the peace process, and lately suspended negotiating final status issues until settlement building is frozen.

Meanwhile Wednesday, a Palestinian teen-ager was wounded when an Israeli soldier fired rubber-coated steel pellets at Palestinian stone-throwers north of the West Bank town of Hebron. The teen was riding in a bus that got caught in the line of fire.

The Israeli army said in a statement that the soldier violated army rules by failing to check if firing would endanger the lives of passers-by and would be disciplined.

By Tom Raum

Associated Press Writer

Wednesday, Dec. 29, 1999; 3:35 p.m. EST

WASHINGTON –– The century is coming to a close with a third of the world's 193 nations embroiled in conflict, nearly twice the Cold War level, a group that keeps track of battle zones reported Wednesday.

In its annual report, the National Defense Council Foundation blamed rising military coups and a backlash against democracy, a trend it suggested could continue for several years.

The foundation listed 65 conflicts in 1999, up from 60 the year before. It nominated Afghanistan as the world's most unstable state for 2000 – followed closely by Somalia, Iraq, Angola and the breakaway Chechnya region of Russia.

"It's going to be a very tough next 20 years," retired Army Maj. Andy Messing Jr., executive director of the Alexandria, Va.-based foundation, said in an interview. He said the growing proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and an increasing world population add to the danger.

Seventeen countries were added to the list this year, and 12 were removed – including two with authoritarian governments, Cuba and Libya. They were removed in light of reduced terrorist violence against President Fidel Castro's Cuban government and Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's "strong control over the country," the report said.

Although the number of wars and regional conflicts was up from a year ago, it was below the record 71 the organization counted in 1995. By contrast, the average in the late 1980s, near the end of the Cold War, was about 35.

"The bipolar 'Cold War' system has disintegrated into a system of 'Warm Wars,' with randomized conflicts popping up in all corners of an interdependent world," the report said.

It cited a recent erosion of democratic advances, including military coups in Guinea-Bissau, Pakistan, Niger and Comoros and a slide back toward authoritarianism in Venezuela, Russia and Haiti.

"This 'reverse wave' could continue for several years and lead to a long-term rise in conflict," the report said.

The list included cross-border wars, such as between Ethiopia and Eritrea; and civil wars such as those in Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo. It also included major insurgencies.

Russia made the list because of separatist wars in Chechnya and its neighbor to the east, Dagestan, terrorism and organized crime activity. China was included based on "political turmoil," the Beijing government's crackdown on religious dissidents and tensions over Taiwan and the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea.

Kosovo and East Timor, where international military intervention was used to end internal violence and human-rights violations, were among places added to the list.

The foundation, aligned with political conservatives who advocate increased spending on defense, lists countries where turmoil has disrupted economies, politics or security.

Its count differs from a more modest one maintained by the Central Intelligence Agency.

CIA spokesman Mark Mansfield said the CIA list, which is classified, currently counts 31 conflicts.

Still, "there continues to be significant conflicts all over the world, pointing to the need for a robust intelligence-gathering capability," Mansfield said.

The CIA figure has remained relatively stable over several years, Mansfield said. The last time the CIA gave a number was in 1996, when it listed 28 conflicts.

Mansfield said the CIA counts only conflicts with "high levels of organized violence between states or between contending groups within a state or with high levels of political or societal tension likely to erupt into violence."

The Washington-based Center for Defense Information, a liberal-oriented research group that has issued reports skeptical of increased military spending, counts 37 active wars or combat zones where at least 1,000 casualties have occurred. That's up from 27 a few years back.

"There are more active conflicts today than at the end of the Cold War," said retired Army Col. Daniel Smith, the center's chief of research. "The superpowers tended to move carefully and prevent client states from getting too far out of hand."

Messing defended his foundation's more extensive listing of conflicts. "Our report doesn't use an arbitrary threshold," he said. "We try to portray an accurate reading of the number of conflicts."

© Copyright 1999 The Associated Press