BASIC IN THE MEDIA, 2000

BASIC By-Lines | BASIC Quotes | BASIC Interviews

BASIC BY LINES

DECEMBER 2000

OCTOBER 2000

SEPTEMBER 2000

AUGUST 2000

JULY 2000

JUNE 2000

MAY 2000

APRIL 2000

MARCH 2000

FEBRUARY 2000

JANUARY 2000

BASIC QUOTES

DECEMBER 2000

• “Protection Racket”, by Nick Cohen, The Observer, 11 December.  Tom McDonald and Mark Bromley quoted in this article, pointing out the difficulty of supporting arms control arrangements and remaining a loyal US ally when it comes to NMD.

NOVEMBER 2000

• "A new era of crisis intervention well outside Europe's borders", by Stephen Castle, The Independent, 21 November.  Dan Plesch quoted in this article on the European Rapid Reaction Force, saying there is a real need to strengthen the police and monitoring capacity because "there is nothing between diplomacy and military force." 

SEPTEMBER 2000

• "U.S. Would Keep Tight Rein on Missile Sold to Bahrain", by Gopal Ratnam and Amy Svitak, Defense News, 11 September 2000.  This article discusses the proposals offered by the U.S. government to ease congressional concerns about the potential for proliferation of ballistic and cruise missiles resulting from the sale.  Theresa Hitchens, referring to the proposed security controls is quoted saying, “That sort of security is uncommon in most missile transfers.  But, I would like to see more creative measures of this nature used for missile exports in the future.”
  
  

• “NATO Hails ‘Prudent’ Course, and Putin Sees Added Stability”, by Barry James, International Herald Tribune, 2 September 2000.  In this article, Tom McDonald discusses the British government’s reaction to President Clinton’s decision to defer a decision on NMD deployment.  According to Tom McDonald, “Most people in Whitehall are going to be pretty happy.”  He goes on to explain that while the Labour government is pledged to disarmament, it did not want to take a public decision that would offend its closest ally, the US.  “Now it can safely line up with its European partners without having to adopt an embarrassing public position opposing Washington,” he said.

AUGUST 2000

• “Clinton to make a decision on NMD soon”, by Shogo Kawakita, Kyodo News, 31 August 2000.  Tom McDonald is quoted as saying that any approval of NMD would be a “limited green light” for the system.
  
  

• “America’s safety may cost us our lives”, by John Lloyd, The New Statesman, 28 August 2000.  This article asks what will happen to Britain if the U.S. has its way and the U.K. becomes home to its missile shield.  If the U.S. moves ahead with deployment of NMD, the early warning system at Flyingdales in Yorkshire will have to be upgraded, says Lloyd.  Dan Plesch is quoted as saying, “Without Flyingdales the system could not work.  It is absolutely essential for early warning.”
  
  

• “U.S. risks rift in NATO over nuclear policy, experts say”, by James Barter, The Ottawa Citizen, 25 August 2000.  This article underscores the decline in the likelihood of “nuclear Armageddon”, thereby making an NMD system unnecessary and dangerous.  Dan Plesch is quoted as saying that a U.S. missile defense program “is little more than election politics and a push to revitalize the old military industrial complex.”  He goes on to say that the sinking of the Russian nuclear submarine, the Kursk, “should remind us of the grave dangers posed by nuclear weapons and should concentrate our minds on future decisions that we make with our allies.”
  
  

• "Motivated to believe the worst”, by Jonathan Steele, The Guardian, 18 August 2000. This article illustrates the desire of the international community to believe the worst about the situation on the ground in Kosovo during the peak of conflict.  Jack Seymour is quoted as saying, “It was hard to know what was going on.  But, we were motivated to believe the worst.”

JULY 2000

• "EU urged to establish conflict taskforce”, by Richard Norton-Taylor, The Guardian, 15 July 2000. COPS paper is extensively quoted throughout article. One quote reads: "The end of the US-Soviet confrontation has altered the basic purposes of Nato, ended superpower competition in conflicts around the world and changed the strategic dynamic for states along the old east-west fault line in Europe," the British American Security Information Council (Basic) says today."
  
  

• "Congress Tweaks Export Reforms”, by Robert Wall, Aviation Week & Space Technology, 10 July 2000. Theresa Hitchens quoted on ongoing revisions being made in Congress for easing of arms export controls to American allies. Quote reads: "The last minute changes "don't do major harm" to the amendment's goal, said Theresa Hitchens of the British American Security Information Council. While the original DTSI wording expressed the government's intent to seek bilateral agreements, "this legislation will require them to do certain things," she added."
  
  

• "Export Reform Advocates Feel Stymied by U.S. Congress”, by Colin Clark, Defense News, 10 July 2000. Theresa Hitchens quoted in article on proposed arms export reforms between the U.S. and its allies. Theresa comments on recent concerns by the U.S. Congress about whether or not the current administration proposal to relax export controls is enforceable: "When you do not have a national law that applies to a company, it is very difficult to prosecute someone. Without legally binding agreements, we think someone accused of violating an agreement would have to be extradited."
  

• “Hit or miss trial for son of Star Wars”, by Julian Borger and Richard Norton-Taylor, The Guardian, 7 July 2000. Dan Plesch quoted on impact of NMD on arms control: “NMD reflects an erosion of the belief in deterrence,” Dan Plesch, director of the British American Security Information Council, said yesterday. “The choice is between a new arms race or disarmament.””
  
  

• “U.S. Plans Telltale Test of Missile Defense System Tonight”, Bloomsburg News, 7 July 2000. Also appeared in Deseret News on July 7. Article titled, describes background for third NMD interceptor test. Theresa Hitchens was quoted on a possible delay in Clinton’s deployment decision: “I think he will try to split hairs, move some earth and hope the Russians don’t withdraw from the treaty--which they probably won’t,” said Theresa Hitchens, research director for the British American Security Information Council, an arms control group that opposes the missile defense decision.”
  
  

• “Defense missile countdown starts”, Deseret News, 7 July 2000. Based on combined AP and Reuters Reports. Smaller AP story content with same media hit ran in Cincinnati Post and Patriot Ledger Quincy on 7 July 2000. Article titled, takes an excerpt from BASIC press release titled, “NMD Deployment: Creating Global Instability, Missile defense umbrella useless against international fallout.” Quote reads: ““Recent statements by Defense Secretary William Cohen indicate that the Clinton administration is on a path toward approval regardless of allied skepticism,” the British American Security Information Council said Thursday.”

JUNE 2000

• "US missile shield unnecessary”, by Richard Norton-Taylor, The Guardian, 28 June 2000. In this article, a BASIC report is cited as “echoing” the criticisms of Joseph Cirincione of Carnegie: “The US has spent $122 bn (£81.5 bn) on missile defence and it will take tens of billions more to deploy and maintain the proposed system, which has not yet been shown to be effective, says Basic.” The citation goes on that “deeper cuts in Russian and US nuclear arsenals would be severely jeopardized, as would opportunities to bring China, India and Pakistan into the arms control process, it says. It adds: “North Korea, if it decides it needs to attack the US, could put weapons on a plane, boat, or truck, rather than a missile.’”

MAY 2000

• "Smaller European countries lead criticism of NMD plan”, Aerospace Daily, 30 May 2000. Dan Plesch quoted in short article on European allies’ reaction to NMD plan and discussions at NATO ministerial in Florence noting that U.S. Secretary of State Albright said that there was “some understanding” about U.S. missile defense plans. In rebuttal, Plesch says Albright had faced a “wall of concern and criticism” and didn’t change any opinions. Not one U.S. ally in Europe supports NMD. Smaller countries like Belgium were leading the criticism, fighting the battle for the big boys who are too much in the political spotlight to make waves before a deployment decision is made…If [President Clinton] is listening carefully to what U.S. allies want…he will not deploy the system.
  
  

• "USA: Washington divided on how to defend America”, by David Storey, Reuters, 28 May 2000. Appeared in Deseret News on 29 May 2000. Dan Plesch quoted in article on American debate on National Missile Defense: "Even if it were free and it [NMD] worked, it would be a recipe for an arms race."
  
  

• "US expects hostility from NATO allies over missile shield”, by Christophe de Roquefeuil, AFP, 23 May 2000. Jack Seymour cited from press briefing remarks to effect that the missile shield is another irritant in a list of differences on defense issues that are troubling the relationship…which is in a “period of heavy weather.”
  
  

• “The Nuclear Powers Want to Disarm”, Tagezeitung, 22 May 2000. Article (in German) from New York and based on ap, rtr, and afp, quotes from BASIC press release that the “statement [of the nuclear powers] contains many ‘shoulds’, ‘calls emphatically on,’ and ‘musts.’ Yet, one can be glad about even Baby-Steps toward a safer planet.’”
  
  

• Britain joins deal to abolish nuclear weapons”, by Time Shipman, Daily Mail, 22 May 2000. Tom McDonald cited in article headlined “: …”the agreement ‘broke new ground in working towards nuclear arsenal reductions and elimination.’”
  
  

• “An end to nuclear weapons”, by Tim Shipman, Daily Express, 22 May 2000. Tom McDonald quoted at end of article heralding "an end th nuclear weapons" based on the NPT review conference pledge by the five major nuclear powers: “Nuclear war is actually more thinkable today than in the past decade, following nuclear testing and build-ups by India and Pakistan. The final document could be seen as a retreat from strong measures proposed earlier. The five nuclear nations would not pledge to never use nuclear weapons first in a battle.”
  
  

• "Nuclear pledge ‘only first step'”, BBC News, 21 May 2000. Tom McDonald quoted in a piece featuring comments by Defence Secretary Hoon to BBC1’s “Breakfast with Frost” program: “Tom McDonald, of the disarmament pressure group Basic, said the agreement ‘broke new ground in working toward nuclear arsenal reductions and elimination.’ He said although the final wording was weaker than they would have liked many had widely discounted any agreement at this conference.”
  
  

• “More than just Star Wars II-The US says its new and expensive missile defence system won’t reignite the arms race. Others disagree”, by Kathleen Kenna, Torronto Star, 21 May 2000. Theresa Hitchens gets last word in a long article about implications American NMD plans hold for Canada. The closer: “Even if it works, even if it’s free, it’s stupid,” defence expert Theresa Hitches says at the British American Security Information Council in Washington. “It’s going to start a new arms race.”
  
  

• “Nuclear states pledge total elimination of nuclear weapons-eventually”, CNN.com, 20 May 2000. Article draws on BASIC statement to underscore the “mixed reaction to the pledge among disarmament activists”: ”the paper is full of ‘shoulds, ‘urges’ and ‘oughts.’ Still, even baby-steps towards a more secure planet are something to be smiled at.”
  
  

• “NATO Leaders to Air Concerns with US NMD at Meeting Next Week”, by Kerry Gildea, Defense Daily, 19 May 2000. Draws extensively from BASIC press briefing May 17. Hitchens: “The Florence meeting…is expected to result in a ‘big fight’ about NMD with no consensus or formal position announcement expected….The Europeans ‘widely feel they have been left out of the process’ and have received no real consultations from the administration on NMD.” Seymour: “Europeans may be prepared to acknowledge there is a threat, but in no way give an endorsement of this…in a period of very heavy weather, this calls into questions (sic) the cohesion of the alliance.” Article also cites several examples of European leaders’ “opposition to NMD” from BASIC policy paper NMD: Allied Fears in Focus. Article closes with two more citations from Hitchens stressing Allied hopes for delay in US decision and Canada’s desire, to that end, to wrap the decision into the NATO review of the future of arms control, along with a reinforcing comment from VADM Browne, deputy chief of US Space Command.
  
  

• “Transatlantic Tension Brewing over US Missile Defense System”, by Laura Burns, Aerospace Daily, 19 May 2000. Based on BASIC’s press briefing May 17: “Members of the British American Security Information Council, including …[Plesch, Hitchens, Seymour, and Stephen Young] met reporters in Washington yesterday to discuss the European perspective on NMD-and the problems looming….” Seymour: “We’ve always had ups and downs in relations with Europe, but I think we’re in a period of very heavy weather-which calls into question the actual cohesion of the alliance.” Paper by Hitchens and Stuart Samuels is cited as saying that NMD could unglue the NATO Alliance.  Hitchens: “There are fears in both London and Bonn that NMD will make Europe less safe, while-if it works at all-it makes the US feel more safe, leading to a disconnect in perceptions about future collective security…Beyond the prohibitive cost of an NMD system and Europeans’ displeasure at being left out of the loop…lies an issue that goes to the heart of NATO cohesion-Europe and the US appear to have diametrically opposed strategic visions…Now there is an ‘action-reaction cycle”…Unilateralism should be replaced with multilateral, multipolar solutions. Plesch: “One cannot find a single supporter in any country for US plans on NMD….The US is perceived as pursuing a Cold War policy, and the Europeans find themselves being treated in the same way as during the confrontation with the Soviet Union….” “Plesch seemed to sum up the European point of view by noting that even if the system was free and it worked, it would still be a bad idea.”
  
  

• “Allies Leave US in Iran Deal”, by Barry Schweid, Associated Press, 19 May 2000. Dan Plesch quoted from BASIC’s May 17 press briefing:  “Plesch said Thursday the Europeans view the [NMD] proposal as a Cold War strategy. ‘We cannot find a single supporter, any country’ in favor of a missile defense…there is concern that the threat is grossly exaggerated.’”
  
  

• “Administration says it would go ahead with defense without Russian approval”, by Barry Schweid, Associated Press, 18 May 2000. BASIC-US staff quoted-freely--from its press breakfast May 17.  Jack Seymour: “The US had always ‘had its way’ with the European allies, but they do not agree that there is a new missile threat that requires new defenses.” Theresa Hitchens: “’The allies have felt they have been left out of the process’ and …a US decision to deploy a defense system has been made.’” Dan Plesch: “The United States is seen as pursuing a Cold War policy…’one cannot find a single supporter, any country’ in favor of a new missile defense…’There is concern that the threat is grossly exaggerated.’”
  
  

• “Government buys British with defence contracts worth 5bn pounds”, by Kim Sengupta and Mike Harrison, The Independent, 17 May 2000. Tom McDonald quoted at conclusion of article titled : “This appears to be a definite move towards a pan-European defence strategy.”
  
  

• “Group claims India, Pakistan develop nuclear weapons”, Deutsche Presse-Agentur, 15 May 2000. Dan Plesch cited twice in article from New York. It notes that satellite photos obtained by BASIC show India and Pakistan are committed to development of nuclear weapons. Plesch is quoted: “There is unlikely to be any global plan to control and eliminate the nuclear threat for at least the next five years as the NPT conference in New York drifts toward failure.” The article continues, ”Plesch called on the NPT conference to invite India, Pakistan and Israel to discuss the elimination of nuclear weapons.”
  
  

• “U.S. Reiterates Arms Control Stance with Russian Officials”, by John Diamond, Chicago Tribune, 12 May 2000. Dan Plesch quoted indirectly in an article, titled : “Dan Plesch of the British American Security Information Council, an arms control advocacy group, said reductions below 2,000 would probably require a change in a classified presidential decision directive, ‘PD-60,’ that lays out in detail the requirements to carry out a major nuclear attack.”
  
  

• "American devises $100bn anti-missile system...but there's one small flaw”, by Ian Bruce, The Herald, 11 May 2000. BASIC mentioned indirectly: “...The United States is about to spend up to Pounds 100bn on an anti-missile system which could be defeated by terrorists driving a bomb on a truck into the heart of Washington, a report published yesterday claims. It also says that moves to site early warning radar installations vital to the system in Britain and South Korea would put both countries at risk of attack without necessarily offering them protection. The study, by the International Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers, an independent body which includes the influential British American Security Information Council, claims the drive to deploy a nuclear umbrella could fuel a new strategic arms' race and undermine efforts towards world disarmament.”
  
  

• “Many Fear Missile Defense May Backfire-Experts Say National Missile System Could Leave US More Vulnerable”, by Tyler Marshall, Detroit News, 9 May 2000. Also appeared in Los Angeles Times. Dan Plesch quoted at end of discussion about how Russia, China or others could develop countermeasures they could then sell to countries like Iraq or North Korea that US is worried about: “’It’s a great threat-creation project,” said Daniel Plesch, director of the British American Security Information Council.’”
  
  

• "Reassurances on disarmament by nuclear-weapons states backfire”, by Robert Holloway, AFP, 3 May 2000. BASIC indirectly mentioned in article: “Ministers reaffirmed the central role of nuclear weapons to NATO's defense when they met in December, he said, and agreed to carry out a "thorough strategic review" within 12 months. Peden said that if the plans described by Salis were confirmed, they could "derail" the NPT review. Another non-governmental organization, the British American Security Information Council (BASIC), published Salis's remarks on Tuesday under the headline "NATO bombshell threatens NPT."”
  
  

• "Scorn greets pledge on nuclear disarmament”, by Richard Norton-Taylor, The Guardian, 3 May 2000. Dan Plesch quoted indirectly in article as saying that the statement [nuclear five] contradicted leaked Washington proposals.
  
  

• “Five powers pledge to eliminate nuclear weapons”, by Evelyn Leopold, Reuters, 2 May 2000. Leopold concludes article by saying that “Dan Plesch, director of the British-American (sic) Security Information Council, said the [five-power] statement contradicted the leaked U.S. proposals on an ABM treaty …At a press conference, he ripped in two a copy of the statement saying it was ‘not worth the paper it was printed on.’”
  
  

• “Europe Going Ballistic - American plans to build a defense against nuclear missiles have Russia fuming and Europeans rethinking their own safety: is this the start of a new arms race?” by Romesh Ratnesar, Time Europe, 1 May 2000. Tom McDonald quoted in a multi-page article, multi-staffed article titled  “Europe is much more aware than the U.S. of Chinese opposition to missile defense, “ says Tom McDonald, an analyst with the British American Security Information Council, a London think tanks: “NMD would emasculate the Chinese arsenal. So the impetus on the Chinese will be to build more nukes and if they do, India will say they have to as well-and pretty soon all efforts to strengthen nonproliferation will be shattered.”

APRIL 2000

• "USA: Russia's Ivanov concludes U.S. arms control talks”, by Elaine Monaghan, Reuters, 27 April 2000. BASIC mentioned in article: “The plan has proceeded amid noisy criticism, with critics like the British - American Security Information Council saying it replaces "mutually assured destruction" with "You're destroyed and we're not."
  
  

• "Mideast states demand Israel open up nuclear facilities to scrutiny”, by Nicole Winfield, Associated Press, 26 April 2000. Dan Plesch quoted on U.S. actions at NPT Review conference: “....The United States generally backs Israel, which is isolated and often criticized at the United Nations. It has tried to steer criticism from Israel's suspected nuclear arsenal while it works on peacemaking in the Middle East. But the United States has agreed for the first time to allow the conference to create a subsidiary committee to deal with regional nuclear issues, including the Middle East, said Daniel Plesch, director of the British American Security Information Council, which is monitoring progress of the conference. "The U.S. found it indefensible to not discuss Israel when it has India and Pakistan to talk about," said Plesch, referring to the nuclear weapons tests the two countries conducted in 1998.”
  
  

• "Albright, at the U.N., Defends U.S. on Arms Plan”, New York Times, 25 April 2000. Dan Plesch is quoted in syndicated article by AP writer Barbara Crosette that also appears in London Free Press: “...''The Clinton administration's legacy is the re-legitimating of nuclear weapons after the end of the cold war,'' said Daniel Plesch , director of the British American Security Information Council, an independent research group in Washington and London.”
  
  

• “UN: Nuclear Powers Face Challenge At Review Conference”, by Robert McMahon, Radio Free Europe, 25 April 2000. Dan Plesch quoted extensively from his briefing for the press in New York. McMahon wrote that Plesch said Washington and Moscow “had failed to take the lead on nuclear non-proliferation,” noted that “’an enormous opportunity…had been squandered by [Presidents] Yeltsin and Clinton”, and that the “two nuclear superpowers were still moving too slowly on arms reduction.” McMahon wrote that “Plesch…is critical of the United States for initiating plans for a missile defense system. He says the United States has exaggerated the threat of nuclear attack from rogue states and is needlessly fueling nuclear tensions in both Russia and China….Plesch said ‘If we do not see sense in this area and we press ahead with this missile defense, anti-missile missile program, then we can easily see a new arms race in East Asia because the Chinese regard this as a direct threat to their security.’”
  
  

• "UN Chief Criticizes U.S. Missile", by Barry Schweid, Associated Press, 24 April 2000. Also appeared in Winnepeg Free Press, Star Tribune, Dayton Daily News, and Portland Oregonian on 25 April 2000. Dan Plesch quoted on American lack of interest in NPT Review Conference: “...The British-American Security Information Council, a private group that advocates arms control, criticized Clinton and Vice President Al Gore for coming to New York to help raise funds for the Democratic Party but not attending the U.N. conference only a few blocks away.”
  
  

• “Bleak prospects for nuclear talks”, by Richard-Norton Taylor and Ewen MacAskill, The Guardian, 24 April 2000. BASIC is cited but not quoted in article, as arguing that NATO’s existing “nuclear-sharing” arrangements clearly breach the NPT.
  
  

• "Through the Grapevine”, Inter Press Service Daily Journal, 24 April 2000. Dan Plesch is quoted in issue’s “Through the Grapevine” column “complaining” that neither President Clinton nor Vice President Gore would attend the NPT Review Conference: “’The absence of the president and the vice president is significant,’ says BASIC Director Dan Plesch, ‘It shows the Clinton Administration has given up on controlling proliferation and is instead staking US security on National Missile Defense.’ But, he warns that US consideration of building anti-missile missiles in the [NMD] is expected to be widely condemned at the NPT Review as starting a new arms race.”
  
  

• "US faces tough questions as UN begins nuclear policy review", by Joe Lauria, Boston Globe, 24 April 2000. Dan Plesch quoted on NPT Review Conference: “...Russia's ratification of the test ban treaty stands in stark contrast to the Clinton administration's failure last year to get the Senate to pass it. "These were clearly calculated diplomatic moves by Russia to put the US in the dock," said Daniel Plesch, director of the British American Security Information Council , an antinuclear pressure group. "It's a real shot in the arm to the disarmament process."”
  
  

• "Russia test ban vote puts U.S. on defensive Moscow's actions on arms control appear intended to shame Washington into backing away from the proposed national missile defense system", by John Diamond, Chicago Tribune, 22 April 2000. Dan Plesch quoted on criticism of Clinton in article : “...Arms-control advocates say Russia has done more to control nuclear weapons in the last week than Clinton has done in four years. “Clinton’s policies in this area are straight out of the 1950s,” said Dan Plesch, an arms-control advocate with the British American Security Information Council. Plesch even gives Ronald Reagan, the proudly anti-Soviet cold warrior, better marks on arms control than Clinton. “Reagan got two arms reduction treaties that destroyed nuclear missiles to Clinton’s zero.”
  
  

• "Governments meet to review nuclear non-proliferation", by J.T. Nguyen. Deutsche Presse-Agentur, 21 April 2000. Article quotes BASIC’s stance on Clinton and American disarmament: “...The London-based think tank, British American Security Information Council , said the Clinton administration has shown little interest in arms control with Russia. The United States' rejection of the anti-personnel landmines convention, which entered into force last March, and the International Criminal Court, which is being formed, is the result of the growing trend in the country against arms control. The think tank pointed out that Washington has refused to reduce its long-range warheads, in SALT negotiations, below a floor of 2,000-2,500 while Russia is willing to reduce to a lower level.”
  
  

• "'Gloom' Over Nuclear Disarmament Conference", by John Wurst, Inter Press Service, 21 April 2000. Dan Plesch quoted on Russian disarmament in article : “...Dhanapala said the Russian action "helps to relieve some of the gloom that surrounds this conference and will help to answer some of the criticism with regard to nuclear disarmament." However, Daniel Plesch, the Director of the British American Security Information Council, takes a dimmer view. "They need to move the decimal point from the thousands to hundreds," he said. In an interview, Plesch argued that "the Russians are conducting a public relations offensive aimed at the U.S. Senate, obscuring the way this Russian government has turned its back on Gorbachev's objective of ridding the world of nuclear weapons."”
  
  

• “Despite criticism, NATO still believes in the role of its nuclear forces", AFP, 20 April 2000. BASIC’s Research Report (2000.1) on NATO, Nuclear Sharing and the NPT quoted in an article in French from Brussels. The article noted that “NATO ‘violates the spirit, if not the letter’ of the NPT, especially Articles I and II which prohibit transfer of nuclear arms to non-nuclear-weapon states, according to a pressure group, BASIC [spelled out], in a recently published report.”
  
  

• “Britain Opens Way to Star Wars Base”, by Michael Prescott, Sunday Times, 2 April 2000. Dan Plesch quoted in article saying that introduction of an anti-missile system may cause Russia and China to develop systems to get around that defense and “destroying a major arms control treaty will give the green light to proliferators throughout the Third World and…is not the recipe for a stable planet.”

MARCH 2000

• The Independent, 22 March 2000. Extensive articles about Michael Douglas visit supplied by BASIC. Dan Plesch quoted in article on NMD and conflict between Foreign Office and Defense Ministry.
  
  

• “US to expand missile defence plans”, by Defence Editor Michael Evans, The Times, 21 March 2000. Article credits BASIC with obtaining an internal U.S. document with detailed discussion of missile defence plans and quotes Dan Plesch.
  
  

• PA Wire Copy, 20 March 2000. Article credits Dan Plesch and BASIC with organizing Michael Douglas visit and quotes Dan Plesch saying that plans were well advanced for the U.S. to use British bases for its NMD.
  
  

• “NATO Accused of Widening Nuclear Role”, by Diplomatic Editor Paul Taylor, Reuters, 14 March 2000. Quotes Dan Plesch extensively, and also “BASIC analyst Ottfried Nassauer.” Opening citation from Dan says that NATO is close to choosing a policy which for the first time would allow nuclear weapons to counter all weapons of mass destruction, a change which would breach the NPT, under which it is “illegal for nuclear weapons states or their allies to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states. The most dangerous thing for the alliance is that it is also totally unrealistic.”

FEBRUARY 2000

• “The End of Genscherism”, by Sonja Buenin, Tagesspiegel, 29 February 2000. Article cites Julie Smith extensively from her report to the American Academy on “Red-Green” foreign policy.The article emphasizes a new German self-confidence and highlights Julie’s report of differences in priority and perspective asserted by Joschka Fischer which conflict with U.S. views: Fischer’s “quiet diplomacy” of conflict prevention, integration, and democratization runs up against the “big stick” tactics of the U.S.
  
  

• “Arms Trade Faces Curbs”, by Ewen MacAskill, The Guardian, 28 February 2000. Article reporting UK proposals to control arms brokers quotes extensively from a paper done by BASIC last year with Amnesty International and others that “urged action to control arms brokers” and noted that UK-based arms brokers can “by-pass domestic export controls by organizing shipments from third countries.”
  
  

• “Missile Shield To Cost $2bn”, by Richard Norton-Taylor, The Guardian, 8 February 2000. Cites Dan Plesch, director of BASIC, saying “The Pentagon’s unilateral preparations are needlessly dividing NATO.”

BASIC INTERVIEWS

DECEMBER 2000

NOVEMBER 2000

• BBC Radio World Service, 20 November, Kathleen Miller interviewed from London concerning the US perspective on a European Rapid Reaction Force.

OCTOBER 2000

• Pacifica Radio, Washington, 25 October, Kathleen Miller interviewed regarding George W. Bush’s proposal to pull U.S. troops out of the Balkans.
  
  

• BBC TV, London, 18 October, Michael Crowley comments on the need to control electroshock weaponry and describes the impact of such weaponry.

AUGUST 2000

• Voice of America, Washington, 4 August. Jack Seymour interview broadcast to Serbia and in the world news commenting on upcoming Serbian elections, the opposition, and the question of Montenegro.

JULY 2000

• BBC Radio Five, 9 July. Dan Plesch giving commentary on US NMD test.
  
  

• BBC Radio Five, 8 July. Dan Plesch giving commentary on US NMD test.
  
  

• BBC Radio Five & World Service, 6 July. Dan Plesch interviewed on NMD.

JUNE 2000

• Reuters TV, Washington, 1 June. Theresa Hitchens interviewed regarding the Putin Summit.

MAY 2000

• CBC Radio, London, 30 May. Tom McDonald interviewed for broadcast to Canada about US’s planned missile defense system and its effects on global arms control.
  
  

• Voice of America, Washington, DC, 25 May. Jack Seymour interviewed by Serbian Service radio news about prospects for solution in Kosovo and outlook for Montenegro.
  
  

• NPR, Los Angeles, 23 May. Tom McDonald interviewed on “Marketplace” about UK’s recent defense procurement decision and future of the European defense industry and common foreign and security policy.
  
  

• CBC Radio, New York, 11 May. Christine Kucia interviewed by Michael Enright (15 minutes, 40 seconds) for “This Morning” program about NPT review conference and goals for the next five years.
  
  

• Voice of America, Washington, DC, 4 May. Jack Seymour interviewed (5 minutes-taped) by Branko Mikasinovich about impact of Milosevic and future of Serbia by Serbian Service television evening news; program broadcast 9 May.
  
  

• BBC World Service, 1 May. Tom McDonald interviewed from New York on P-5 statement and NPT.

APRIL 2000

• CNN, Diplomatic License, 29 April. Dan Plesch debates John Holum Senior State Department Official for Nuclear Disarmament and Arms Control.
  
  

• Radio FM4, Austrian Broadcasting Corporation, 29 April. Tom McDonald interviewed on the NPT Review Conference.
  
  

• Radio Free Asia, 26 April. Tom McDonald interviewed from New York on NPT review conference.
  
  

• CNN World News, 24 April. Dan Plesch shown in short video clip on NPT review conference.
  
  

• BBC World Service, and Public Radio International, 24 April. Interview with Dan Plesch on NPT meetings.
  
  

• ARD TV, Germany, 20 April. Tom McDonald interviewed on UK role in National Missile Defence for “Europe Magazine” program.
  
  

• Radio FM4, Australian Broadcasing Company, 20 April. Tom McDonald was interviewed on the NPT Review Conference.

MARCH 2000

• BBC, London, 20 March. Dan Plesch interviewed on BBC Newsnight about NMD, NPT.
  
  

• Channel 4 News, London, 20 March. Dan Plesch interviewed about NMD Fylingdales.
  
  

• Radio 4, London, 20 March. Dan Plesch interviewed on “The World at One” about NMD Fylindales.
  
  

• Pacifica Radio, Washington, DC, 15 March, 2000. Jack Seymour interviewed for broadcast on Kosovo.

FEBRUARY 2000

• Voice of America, Washington, 28 February 2000. Jack Seymour interviewed about Kosovo.
  
  

• KPFA, Los Angeles, 22 February 2000. Jack Seymour interviewed about Kosovo.
  
  

• VPRO Broadcasting, the Netherlands, Press Release, February 21, 2000. cites Karel Koster’s cooperation with BASIC UK and US in report on SAS Mission at Pristina Airport last June.

Back to BASIC Home Page