Think Tanks Wrap-up

WASHINGTON, May 22 (UPI) -- The UPI think tank wrap-up is a daily digest covering brief opinion pieces, reactions to recent news events and position statements released by various think tanks. This is the second of two wrap-ups for May 22.

Institute for Public Accuracy

(The IPA is a nationwide consortium of policy researchers that seeks to broaden public discourse by gaining media access for experts whose perspectives are often overshadowed by major think tanks and other influential institutions.)

WASHINGTON -- Liquidating the Legacy of the Cold War?

-- Zia Mian, co-editor of the book "Out of the Nuclear Shadow" and a researcher on South Asian security issues with the Program on Science and Global Security at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.

"I'm very disturbed by the Indian prime minister's speech and his talk of a 'decisive fight.'.... There is no end in sight to the nuclear danger in South Asia, especially since the U.S. and Russia have shown with their new nuclear treaty that they have no intention of putting their nuclear weapons behind them, even though their Cold War ended a decade ago."

-- Jacqueline Cabasso, executive director of the Western States Legal Foundation, which recently released the report "The Shape of Things to Come: The Nuclear Posture Review, missile Defense, and the Dangers of a New Arms Race."

"The Bush-Putin nuclear arms reduction treaty is a sham. Far from 'liquidating the legacy of the Cold War,' as Bush claims, the administration's real nuclear weapons agenda can be characterized as fewer, but newer. As recently confirmed in the Nuclear Posture Review, 'more useable' precision, low-yield nuclear weapons will be developed to complement first-strike strategic nuclear weapons, in combination with a suite of missile defenses and space-based weapons. Together these components constitute one integrated, offensive global war fighting system."

-- William Hartung, the President's Fellow at the World Policy Institute at the New

School for Social Research, and author of "About Face," a new study on the role of the arms lobby in shaping the Bush nuclear doctrine, as well as the report "The

Costs of NATO Expansion Revisited."

"The Bush-Putin accord gives nuclear weapons a new lease on life.... In the next five years alone, the Bush administration plans to spend an additional $33 billion on its new strategic 'triad' of long-range strike systems, missile defenses, and a revitalized nuclear weapons production complex. The Bush nuclear policy draws heavily on the work of corporate-backed conservative think tanks like Frank Gaffney's Center for Security Policy and Keith Payne's National Institute for Public Policy, both of which have close ties with major nuclear arms manufacturers like Lockheed Martin."

-- Boris Kagarlitsky, author of "Russia Under Yeltsin and Putin."

"Russians expect Bush to bring them some reward for the concessions made in the last months as a contribution to 'the war against terror.' So far, however, it remains unclear not only what Bush can offer but even what exactly our leadership wants to get. The real interest of Putin is that the U.S. administration turns a blind eye to human rights violations in Russia and Chechnya (knowing well that there will be much more of them in the near future). This is not hard to get but it is not something that can be presented to your own people as a great diplomatic achievement."

The National Center for Public Policy Research

(NCPPR is a communications and research foundation dedicated to providing free market solutions to today's public policy problems, based on the principles of a free market, individual liberty and personal responsibility. NCPPR was founded to provide the conservative movement with a versatile and energetic organization capable of responding quickly and decisively to late-breaking issues, based on thorough research.)

CHICAGO -- Tom Daschle and Senate Democrats attack Bush Administration for reassessing the secretly developed Clinton rule to halt forest road building

By Tom Randall

-- Background: Half of all Senate Democrats recently signed a letter to President Bush accusing him of failing to uphold the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. They claimed in their letter that this so-called "Roadless Plan" was the product of years of deliberation and input from 1.6 million people. In fact, however, the Roadless Plan was developed in less than a year, almost entirely in secret, by a coalition of environmental groups, financed by the Pew Foundation via the Audubon Society, known as the Heritage Forests Campaign.

Partially as a result of this, Idaho U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge issued a temporary restraining order on May 10, 2001 prohibiting the Forest Service from implementing the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. In doing so, he said, "the court conclusively finds that the comment period was grossly inadequate and thus deprived the public of any meaningful dialogue or input in to the process."

-- Ten Second Response: President Bush did not fail to uphold the Roadless Rule. It was the illegal way the Clinton Administration developed it that caused the judge to put it on hold.

-- Thirty Second Response: In reality, the Roadless Rule was initiated and developed in less than a year by the Heritage Forests Campaign. An investigation by the U.S. House Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health showed that during that time the Forest Service and Clinton White House met secretly with the members of the Campaign to develop a Roadless Rule that was to the Campaign's liking. The judge was not only right to issue the injunction against it, he did so for all the right reasons.

-- Discussion: From January 1999, right up to the time of President Clinton's 2000 State of the Union Address, the Heritage Forest Campaign worked with then Forest Service Chief Mike Dombeck and Chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality George Frampton, as well as others in the Clinton Administration to circumvent the normal rulemaking process. This meant there was less than a year left for public comment before the end of Clinton's term. Therefore, the judge had no choice to set the rule aside and the Bush Administration had no choice but to begin the process of developing alternative forest management plans.

(Tom Randall is the director of the John P. McGovern, M.D. Center for Environmental and Regulatory Affairs at The National Center for Public Policy Research.)