Japan’s Prime Minister Defends Handling of Crisis

In one of his most damaging charges, the adviser, Toshiso Kosako, drew attention to a recent government decision to allow children living near the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant to receive doses of radiation equal to the international standard for nuclear power plant workers. That level is far higher than international standards set for the public. “I cannot allow this as a scholar,” said Mr. Kosako, an expert on radiation safety at the University of Tokyo.

He also blasted the government for what he said was a lack of transparency in releasing radiation levels around the Fukushima Daiichi plant, and for setting an overly high limit on radiation exposure for workers who have spent weeks struggling to keep the plant under control.

Government advisory positions are considered prestigious, and it is highly unusual for an academic to quit one in protest. The prime minister brought Mr. Kosako on as an adviser after the powerful March 11 earthquake and tsunami damaged the plant, causing the world’s biggest nuclear disaster since the Chernobyl accident in 1986.

His abrupt resignation fed growing criticism of the handling of the crisis by Mr. Kan’s government, which many Japanese suspect of understating the continuing dangers the plant might pose and the amount of radioactive material released so far.

Mr. Kan’s remarks before Parliament on Saturday were an indication of how much pressure the government is under as it tries to dispute those criticisms and to determine what to do not only about the most contaminated land around the plant, but also about towns outside the evacuation zone that are reporting relatively high levels of radiation.

Any decision about the levels of permissible exposure could force expensive soil cleanups — inflating the already staggering estimates of how much money it will take to rebuild from the natural disasters, a figure already set at $300 billion. But it could also help determine how much land in this densely populated country is ruled uninhabitable.

The calculus is complicated by the fears of farmers and fishermen in the region, who worry that continued talk of high radiation will destroy consumers’ faith in their goods, and their livelihoods.

In rejecting Mr. Kosako’s criticism, Mr. Kan said Saturday that the adviser had resigned as a result of “a difference of opinion among specialists.”

So far, the government has evacuated an area 12 miles around the plant and has suggested, or in limited cases ordered, that people living 12 to 19 miles away leave their homes temporarily. Some towns farther away are also set to be evacuated because particularly high levels of radioactive materials were found there.

The Education and Science Ministry made its announcement about permissible exposure on April 19, when it said that schools in Fukushima Prefecture, where the plant is located, could be used if radiation levels were below 3.8 microsieverts per hour. That exposure level is too low to cause immediate health effects, but may raise the probability of developing cancer.

Environmental groups and local parents have called for lowering the limit, pointing out that children are more vulnerable to radiation than most adults. They have not addressed a perhaps more worrisome problem: if the schools have high levels of contamination, the rest of the towns and cities they are in are likely to also show high readings.

On Saturday, the chief government spokesman, Yukio Edano, defended the limit, saying that it did not mean that the government would accept such levels indefinitely and that it would do everything in its power to bring levels down to normal rates.

But at least one city in Fukushima, which is 35 miles from the Fukushima Daiichi plant, is not waiting for the government to take action. The city of Koriyama said last week that it would remove topsoil at 15 elementary schools where radiation levels had been detected in excess of 3.8 microsieverts per hour, according to local newspaper reports.

Matthew L. Wald contributed reporting from Washington.

 

Japan’s Prime Minister Defends Handling of Crisis

In one of his most damaging charges, the adviser, Toshiso Kosako, drew attention to a recent government decision to allow children living near the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant to receive doses of radiation equal to the international standard for nuclear power plant workers. That level is far higher than international standards set for the public. “I cannot allow this as a scholar,” said Mr. Kosako, an expert on radiation safety at the University of Tokyo.

He also blasted the government for what he said was a lack of transparency in releasing radiation levels around the Fukushima Daiichi plant, and for setting an overly high limit on radiation exposure for workers who have spent weeks struggling to keep the plant under control.

Government advisory positions are considered prestigious, and it is highly unusual for an academic to quit one in protest. The prime minister brought Mr. Kosako on as an adviser after the powerful March 11 earthquake and tsunami damaged the plant, causing the world’s biggest nuclear disaster since the Chernobyl accident in 1986.

His abrupt resignation fed growing criticism of the handling of the crisis by Mr. Kan’s government, which many Japanese suspect of understating the continuing dangers the plant might pose and the amount of radioactive material released so far.

Mr. Kan’s remarks before Parliament on Saturday were an indication of how much pressure the government is under as it tries to dispute those criticisms and to determine what to do not only about the most contaminated land around the plant, but also about towns outside the evacuation zone that are reporting relatively high levels of radiation.

Any decision about the levels of permissible exposure could force expensive soil cleanups — inflating the already staggering estimates of how much money it will take to rebuild from the natural disasters, a figure already set at $300 billion. But it could also help determine how much land in this densely populated country is ruled uninhabitable.

The calculus is complicated by the fears of farmers and fishermen in the region, who worry that continued talk of high radiation will destroy consumers’ faith in their goods, and their livelihoods.

In rejecting Mr. Kosako’s criticism, Mr. Kan said Saturday that the adviser had resigned as a result of “a difference of opinion among specialists.”

So far, the government has evacuated an area 12 miles around the plant and has suggested, or in limited cases ordered, that people living 12 to 19 miles away leave their homes temporarily. Some towns farther away are also set to be evacuated because particularly high levels of radioactive materials were found there.

The Education and Science Ministry made its announcement about permissible exposure on April 19, when it said that schools in Fukushima Prefecture, where the plant is located, could be used if radiation levels were below 3.8 microsieverts per hour. That exposure level is too low to cause immediate health effects, but may raise the probability of developing cancer.

Environmental groups and local parents have called for lowering the limit, pointing out that children are more vulnerable to radiation than most adults. They have not addressed a perhaps more worrisome problem: if the schools have high levels of contamination, the rest of the towns and cities they are in are likely to also show high readings.

On Saturday, the chief government spokesman, Yukio Edano, defended the limit, saying that it did not mean that the government would accept such levels indefinitely and that it would do everything in its power to bring levels down to normal rates.

But at least one city in Fukushima, which is 35 miles from the Fukushima Daiichi plant, is not waiting for the government to take action. The city of Koriyama said last week that it would remove topsoil at 15 elementary schools where radiation levels had been detected in excess of 3.8 microsieverts per hour, according to local newspaper reports.

 

Yemen Police and Protesters Clash as Deal Is Sought to End Political Crisis

The violence came as the Gulf Cooperation Council, a six-nation regional group, sought to broker an end to the political crisis. Yemen’s Saba news agency said government officials were meeting with the council in Abu Dhabi after similar meetings with opposition representatives on Sunday.

Gunfire erupted in the capital on Tuesday as government supporters threw rocks and beat protesters with sticks while security forces used tear gas and a water cannon to push back a march in the center of the city. “First they used the water cannon on us, then tear gas, then as we were running away they shot at us,” said Talal al-Azany, a protester who works with a local human rights organization.

One protester died of a gunshot wound to the head, and doctors said 10 others were wounded; it was unclear whether security forces or plainclothesmen had opened fire. A witness said a protester threw a gasoline bomb at the water cannon.

At a mosque turned medical clinic inside the demonstration area in Sana, about 100 men lay on the floor, some wounded, some beaten, some suffering from tear gas. “You see how our government works,” said Dahan Ali, an older protester using crutches after being shot in the leg during a clash on Sunday

Canisters of the tear gas used against protesters in Yemen show expiration dates as many as 10 years past. Many protesters have severe reactions to the gas, including seizures and foaming at the mouth. Yemeni doctors believe that these reactions prove that the gas has some sort of nerve agent in it, though the leftover canisters bear labels saying CN gas and CS gas, used for crowd control.

On Sunday night, one man had to be held down to the floor by four others as his body spasmed. “The victims convulse in ways that is not normal for tear gas,” said a doctor at the makeshift clinic, Tarek Noman. He said he treated exposure with Pralidoxime, a medicine used to counter nerve gas and phosphorus pesticides.

In Taiz, the violence broke out as demonstrators tried to march along a central street and were confronted by security forces, who began shooting after protesters began to burn barricades in the street, Reuters reported. Taiz is home to the country’s longest sit-in, with protesters claiming a central area since mid-February and demanding the departure of President Ali Abdullah Saleh.

A video posted online Tuesday showed a member of the security forces firing from a moving car in Taiz, though it was unclear when the video was taken. Protesters there have said that both security forces and plainclothes government supporters have repeatedly shot at them over the last two weeks.

According to a plan backed by Western nations, Mr. Saleh would hand over presidential powers to his vice president and then leave office a month later under a guarantee of immunity from prosecution for himself and his family. Presidential elections would be held after 60 days, in accordance with the country’s Constitution. The plan is seen as a compromise between what the ruling party and the opposition have been seeking.

Yemen’s opposition coalition, known as the Joint Meetings Parties, has indicated its support for the plan; Mr. Saleh has yet to respond.

A high-ranking Yemeni official, who spoke anonymously because he was not authorized to speak to the news media, said Mr. Saleh was seeking a guarantee that leading figures from the opposition, notably Maj. Gen. Ali Mohsin al-Ahmar, would leave Yemen for a set period of time if Mr. Saleh agreed to step down. The official described such an arrangement as a tribal method of settling scores and meant to ensure that the president saved face.

Youth protesters are planning marches for Wednesday in cities throughout the country in memory of the first protester killed in this uprising, Mohammed al-Alwani, who died Feb. 16 in the southern port city Aden.

The United Nations Security Council was scheduled to meet on Tuesday over the worsening political situation in Yemen, a country riven by tribal conflict in the north and a separatist movement in the south that has become a haven for Al Qaeda. Counterterrorism officials say the unrest has allowed the terrorist group to operate more freely and plot attacks against Western targets.

Laura Kasinof reported from Sana, and J. David Goodman from New York.

 

Letter from Europe: Libya Crisis Reveals Splits on E.U. Goals

 

BERLIN — The Libyan war is not good news for NATO. In spite of the upbeat speeches by NATO foreign ministers last week in Berlin, only 14 of the 28 member countries militarily support the no-flight zone and actions to protect Libyan civilians from attack by Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s forces. Only six of them are carrying out airstrikes.

With support from Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan, the NATO mission in Libya is now a coalition of the willing, which analysts say undermines the cohesion of the alliance. But compared with other missions undertaken by NATO, the alliance this time moved with unprecedented speed in beginning the operation.

The Libya crisis is even worse news for Europe and its military ambitions. It shows more clearly than ever how most E.U. countries are unwilling to match their defense ambitions with any broad strategic goals.

“The decision by many European countries not to contribute to the NATO mission bodes ill for Europe’s foreign and security policy,” said Jan Techau, director of Carnegie Europe, the European center of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Particularly damaging for Europe was Germany’s decision to abstain in the U.N. vote that authorized the no-flight zone over Libya. That was a huge disappointment to the United States and particularly to Britain and France. “Germany positioned itself outside the Western consensus,” Mr. Techau added. In doing so, he said, Berlin was undermining attempts by Europe to become a convincing defense player.

Britain and France had lobbied the U.N. Security Council to authorize the no-flight zone. Once authorized, with the United States, Canada and Denmark, they began the airstrikes.

Then came the crunch. The Obama administration did not want to continue leading the mission. It has enough on its plate with Afghanistan. Besides, Libya is considered Europe’s backyard. So for the first time ever, the United States asked NATO’s European allies to take over the command and control of the mission.

At first, the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, balked at giving NATO that role, hoping that France could take the lead. But eventually he had to realize that Europe was not going to become a defense player in its own right with France at the helm.

“Libya confirmed France’s worst beliefs,” said Clara Marina O’Donnell, a defense expert at the Center for European Reform, a research organization in London. “It could not rely on its E.U. partners.”

It was a blow to France’s ambitions. “France’s goal of leading Europe in defense matters is receding,” said Bastien Irondelle, security expert at Sciences Po, the Center for International Studies and Research in Paris. “For his military aims, Sarkozy will now have to go outside the E.U. That means coalitions of the willing.”

It is not for want of trying by France, and Britain, to shift Europe from its preference for being a “soft power” — providing humanitarian aid and building civilian structures — to becoming a “hard power” with military force as an option.

They knew as much during the 1990s when the European Union, with its diplomacy ridiculed, had no idea about how to stop the war in the former Yugoslavia. It had to rely on the United States and NATO to end the fighting. Europe’s paralysis prompted Britain and France in 1998 to launch the Union’s European Security and Defense Policy.

Britain, then under Prime Minister Tony Blair, believed a stronger Europe was vital for the trans-Atlantic relationship, because most E.U. missions would depend on NATO’s military assets. The Union, therefore, would not become a competitor to or grow independent of NATO.

France, then led by President Jacques Chirac, thought differently. “It always wanted Europe to become a strong defense player, a European power,” said Mr. Irondelle.

Despite the ideological differences, London and Paris worked together. In 1999, they pushed the Union to agree that by 2003, the bloc should have the ability to deploy a force of 60,000 troops within 60 days and sustain it for a year. It never happened.

London and Paris in 2003 then came up with the idea of E.U. battle groups, or expeditionary forces. These units would consist of 1,500 soldiers each and be deployed within five to 10 days. These units have still to be tested.

With prodding from London and Paris, the Union managed in 2003 to agree on a European security strategy designed to foster a global strategic culture among European countries. The reactions by the Union to the changes sweeping across the Middle East showed how the Union was out of its depth.

The Union’s shortfalls in defense, including expenditure and military capabilities, persuaded Britain and France to forge last year a far-reaching agreement in defense cooperation. It included sharing aircraft carriers and collaborative research for both countries’ nuclear deterrent systems.

“The Anglo-French accord confirmed the frustration in London and Paris over E.U. defense efforts,” Ms. O’Donnell said. She added that European defense could become even weaker as long as these two countries continue to cooperate so closely.

Yet opinion polls across Europe show that citizens want the Union to have a stronger defense and security policy to underpin the bloc’s support for human rights. But paradoxically, polls also show that the public is unwilling to support military action or fund any increase in defense spending to defend the bloc’s values.

The main reason for this discrepancy is that Europe, as a bloc, does not have a strategic culture. “Only Britain and France have a strategic culture and natural outward approach,” said Mr. Techau, from Carnegie Europe.

That could change — if Germany changed.

“Germany could lead others if it adopted a more open approach to foreign policy. But Germany has neither the muscle nor the strategic scope to think in global terms, unlike Britain and France,” Mr. Techau said.

Indeed, Chancellor Angela Merkel shows no inclination to take any lead in shaping Europe’s defense, or, for that matter, foreign policy. Therefore, say analysts, the United States, Britain and France will continue as they did during the Libya crisis, forging coalitions of the willing that will leave Europe and NATO weaker.

 

Weathering a Midlife Crisis In the Haunts of Table Tennis

I played intermittently for the next four years until I was 12. Then life intervened, and I took a 36-year hiatus from the table. During my absence, the game emerged from the basement and became a celebrity pastime.

But as part of a midlife crisis last April, I embarked on a tour of New York City’s table tennis haunts, seeking to build street cred and finally master the game. Little did I know that I would come to be coached by George Braithwaite, known as the Chief, who was a member of the American “Ping-Pong diplomacy” delegation 40 years ago.

My first stop was the North Brooklyn Table Tennis Alliance. The alliance is two men who need each other: one has a backyard and the other owns a table, the latter being Alex Hansen, an Englishman who gave me my first formal lesson. Together, they conduct a grass-roots table tennis training camp and are determined to be part of the sport’s reawakening. No pretension, no cliques, just spreading the good word.

Despite delays caused by stray shots that landed in heaps of backyard clutter, Hansen taught me the basics of an undercut serve. Instead of stepping in, I moved side to side to hit shots. The lesson was officially over when Philip Eichhorn entered his backyard and accidentally stepped on the only ball. But for a $15 lesson, I developed a serve and met two people to play, assuming one of us brings another ball.

Last July, I began lessons with Paul David, a top-flight player from Guyana, at Spin New York, the Las Vegas of table tennis with waitresses in miniskirts and blaring music. I seemed to be the only person in the place who was not hip. Or texting. While playing. Still cheaper than a buying a Vespa scooter or having an affair, my midlife crisis was becoming surprisingly expensive. One hour with David cost $50, and $20 for the table rental.

I learned how to spend a fortune on equipment like paddle parts: blade (straight or flared grip) and rubber, the cement to bind them and special cleaners. It seems the more expensive the paddle, the more work it requires.

At PaddlePalace.com, I bought a preassembled model on sale. No gluing or cutting the rubber. I tested it in my friend Ken Greenfield’s dining room. Neither of us had room for any sort of backswing, but my $60 paddle was worth every penny as the ball stuck on the rubber for a split second, giving me a huge advantage in control and spin.

It was time to test my new paddle at the New York Table Tennis Federation, a no-nonsense downtown club near Canal Street off Broadway where I played a Frenchman, Jean-Philippe Kadzinski. I didn’t win any points but at least I lost to a top local player.

Everyone I met preached this sport’s benefits, citing studies that it promoted physical and mental health. My boss, Bob Mankoff, the cartoon editor of The New Yorker, said it improved concentration and hand-eye coordination.

“And it keeps you active, even if it’s just to pick up the balls,” he said.

Mankoff is serious about table tennis, dispensing advice: “A good player, like in chess, plans a couple of shots in advance.” That made no sense at first. Why plan so far ahead when I cannot return his serve?

Last October, I played my first tournament, on a concrete table at Gulick Park on the Lower East Side. I lost in the semifinals and out of the money by 2 points, which I still replay in my head.

A month later, I ventured into the Polish and Slavic Center in Greenpoint, Brooklyn, a hangout for exceptional players. I was thrown out before I hit one ball. Things went better next door in the Polish and Slavic Center Cafeteria, where I polished off a dozen cheese pierogi.

Following a tip from a friend of a friend, I then showed up at a secret club in Chinatown where, I had been told, the world’s best test each other’s mettle and gamble. I found the tucked-away entrance to this G-rated fight club graced with a doormat that said, “Leave.” I was unable to decipher the club’s secret knock.

Throughout my travels, I kept hearing about a Hall of Famer called the Chief, who now runs the program at Sportspark on Roosevelt Island. In November, unaware of his place in history, I asked him to coach me. As the 40th anniversary of the China trip approached, the Chief finally told me the story.

I’m still losing, but am occasionally enjoying some Forrest Gump-esque rapid-fire exchanges. Last month, I returned to competition, a round-robin tournament at Spin. After losing seven matches in a row, I refused to play a guy wearing a uniform with bogus sponsors and the flag of his Eastern bloc country. I announced to the group, many of whom did not speak English, that this was the last they would see of me. I announced to my wife that she had married a quitter.

But I recently returned to lessons with the Chief. I am confident he will bring me to the promised land, wherever that is.

Bob Eckstein is a cartoonist for The New Yorker and the author of “The History of the Snowman.”

 

Watch: Playing With Fire: Japan's Nuclear Crisis

在 ServiceModel 客户端配置部分中，找不到引用协定“TranslatorService.LanguageService”的默认终结点元素。这可能是因为未找到应用程序的配置文件，或者是因为客户端元素中找不到与此协定匹配的终结点元素。
在 ServiceModel 客户端配置部分中，找不到引用协定“TranslatorService.LanguageService”的默认终结点元素。这可能是因为未找到应用程序的配置文件，或者是因为客户端元素中找不到与此协定匹配的终结点元素。

Chris Christie Battles Teachers' Union on Tenure

The New Jersey governor has controversial plans to transform public schools.

View the original article here