Q4. [217019] Mr. Adrian Flook (Taunton) (Con): What is it in the Prime Minister's principles that now makes it right and acceptable, against the recommendations of four Select Committees, to sell arms to China?

The Prime Minister: The reason why we have supported a change in European policy in respect of China is that we think that the reasons originally given for that ban no longer apply in the same way. What is more, we are not simply removing the existing restrictions, we are replacing them with a whole series of obligations, not just for ourselves but for all European countries, which will mean that only in very specific circumstances would those arms be sold. I think that that position is sensible because it meets both the concerns about China and its legitimate interest to be treated in the same way as other parts of the international community.

Q6. [217021] Sir Teddy Taylor (Rochford and Southend, East) (Con): When the Prime Minister met President Bush this week, did he remind him that the US supplied massive quantities of weapons of mass destruction to Saddam Hussein when that repulsive dictator was invading Iran? Did he further ask why US troops today are protecting Camp Ashraf, although there are more than 1,000 trainee terrorists there belonging to the Mujaheddin-e-Khalq organisation? In the light of all that, will he try to persuade President Bush to resolve his problems with Iran penitently and peacefully, rather than in any other way?

23 Feb 2005 : Column 307

The Prime Minister: We obviously want to ensure that we get a diplomatic resolution to the situation regarding Iran, as President Bush made clear over the past few days. There are genuine concerns, which I am sure that the hon. Gentleman shares, about Iran in relation to the development of its nuclear capability, its sponsorship of terrorism and human rights issues. All that is right, but it is possible, through the engagement by Britain, France and Germany that is happening, and is backed by the United States, to get a diplomatic solution, so that is what we are working for. On Iraq, I would simply point out that the appalling dictator Saddam Hussein has, of course, been removed from Iraq only as a result of the action of coalition forces, including British and American forces.

The admirable Kim du Toit has been assembling some care packages for a couple of Marines in Iraq - amongst the many and weird items he is sending Tampax - to quote:

Tampax are literally lifesavers when it comes to treating bullet wounds. The little buggers are sterile, expand to plug the hole (as every woman knows), and cause the blood to coagulate inside the wound.

I read a letter from Marine Mom, wherein her son says that every Marine in his platoon now carries four Tampax tampons in their battlepack med kit.

Sanitary pads are also good for covering large-area wounds and staunching blood flow, so I included a box of Kotex as well.

U.S. perplexed by Canada's willingness to cede sovereignty on missile defence

46 minutes ago

COLIN PERKEL AND BETH GORHAM

(CP) - Canada's apparent decision to stay out of a North American missile-defence system has dumbfounded Americans as an unnecessary giveaway of sovereignty, Washington's envoy to Ottawa said Wednesday.


"We don't get it," Paul Cellucci said in Toronto. "If there's a missile incoming, and it's heading toward Canada, you are going to leave it up to the United States to determine what to do about that missile. We don't think that is in Canada's sovereign interest."


Despite strong pressure from the U.S. to sign on, Prime Minister Paul Martin was expected to pull the plug on Canada's participation in the missile program on Thursday.


However, reaction from American officials suggested the decision had already been made.


Regardless, said Cellucci, Washington would press ahead with its plans.


"We will deploy. We will protect North America," he said.


"We think Canada would want to be in the room deciding what to do about an incoming missile that might be heading toward Canada."


In Washington, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Canada had yet to inform the U.S. of its decision.


He refused to speculate on the effect a negative decision would have on relations between the two neighbours or whether it would cause a rift.


"We have a very solid basis of co-operation in many areas and we'll see how that sees us through," said Boucher.


A senior Canadian official who requested anonymity said Wednesday that Canada's decision was relayed at this week's NATO (news - web sites) summit in Brussels attended by Martin and President George W. Bush (news - web sites).


But Canada's interest in Norad, the joint Canada-U.S. air defence command, remains paramount, said the official.


"The key for Canada is preserving the Norad relationship. It's such an important command that losing it would not be in Canada's best interests."


Boucher noted Canada and the U.S. amended an agreement last August to allow Norad to track any incoming rogue missiles.

Washington had hoped Canada would would go further and participate in building the continental defence shield, an elaborate system that some worry could lead to weapons in space and an international arms race.

Cellucci compared the situation to one that occurred during the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the U.S. He noted that it was a Canadian general at Norad who scrambled military jets under orders from Bush to shoot down a hijacked commercial aircraft headed for Washington.

Had that plane been flying over Canada, it would have fallen to the prime minister to make the decision to shoot it down, Cellucci said.

That's why Americans were "perplexed" as to why Canadians would want to leave it up to the Americans to decide what action to take in the event a missile was aimed at Canada.

David Biette, director of the Canada Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars in Washington, agreed with Cellucci's assessment that Canada is giving up sovereignty.

"I fear that it risks marginalizing Canada and Canada is ceding sovereignty by not being there when the decisions are being made," said Biette.

"It's making people unhappy in this administration that Canada is happy to take a free ride."

However, like Cellucci, Biette said he didn't think the issue would ultimately hurt Canada-U.S. relations.

Unpopular with most Canadians, the multibillion-dollar program to shoot down incoming missiles has been a political nightmare for Martin's minority government.

There's been intense pressure from Bush, who unexpectedly raised the issue during his visit to Canada last December and reportedly was blunt with Martin in a private meeting.

Some U.S. analysts were shaking their heads at the intrigue and confusion stirred this week by Frank McKenna, who takes over as ambassador to the United States next week.

McKenna told a Commons committee Tuesday that Canada is effectively already part of the missile-defence program, given Norad's increased responsibility.

"We're part of it now and the question is what more do we need?" he asked. "What does 'sign on' mean?"

Behind closed doors Wednesday, Martin indicated Canada hadn't joined the missile program and suggested McKenna erred by saying otherwise.

"Did Frank express himself badly? Perhaps," is the way one Liberal described the prime minister's message at Wednesday's caucus meeting. Another Liberal confirmed the account.

Liberal MPs have also been sent speaking notes from party brass, urging them to get out and toe the government line on missile defence.

"Canada is obviously not participating in BMD," said a copy of Tuesday's Liberal Research Bureau message obtained by The Canadian Press.

"The government has not taken that decision yet and the ambassador never intended to leave the opposite impression."

U.S. defence analyst Dwight Mason said Canada's refusal to get more involved would be "unfortunate in a symbolic sense."

"It's the first time since 1938 that Canada would have refused to participate in continental defence. It's a turning point. But the impact would be much greater if Canada pulled back from where it is now."

Bush sparred with Canadians on missile defence in tense meeting, says report
at 17:15 on January 23, 2005, EST.

WASHINGTON (CP) - President George W. Bush tried to bully Canadian officials on missile defence during his visit last month by linking Canada's participation to future protection from the U.S., the Washington Post reported Sunday.

The newspaper quoted an unidentified Canadian official who was in the room as saying Bush waved off their attempts to explain how contentious the issue is for Prime Minister Paul Martin's minority government.

"(Bush) leaned across the table and said: 'I'm not taking this position, but some future president is going to say, Why are we paying to defend Canada?' " the official was quoted as saying.

"Most of our side was trying to explain the politics, how it was difficult to do," he said.

But Bush "waved his hands and remarked: 'I don't understand this. Are you saying that if you got up and said this is necessary for the defence of Canada, it wouldn't be accepted?' "

The White House refused comment on the surprisingly pointed remarks.

"I'm not going to comment on an unnamed source in a newspaper," spokesman Ken Lisaius said Sunday. "The president has been quite clear about the strong relationship with Canada."

Martin has told reporters that Bush's position at the meeting was one of incredulity that anyone would oppose the system, aimed at knocking out supersonic missiles launched by terrorists or rogue states.

But the Post report suggests the meeting was far more tense than that.

U.S. diplomats had assured their Canadian counterparts that the prickly issue wouldn't be raised during Bush's visit.

But it came up at the private meeting with Martin and the president unexpectedly raised it during a major foreign policy speech in Halifax the next day.

Paul Cellucci, America's ambassador to Canada, said earlier this month that the U.S. is optimistic Canada will sign on to the missile defence plan before the end of March.

The system will rely on interceptors based in underground silos at Fort Greely, Alaska, and Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.

Pentagon officials blamed an unsuccessful test launch last month on a "minor glitch" in computer software. They say they may never publicly declare when the shield is fully ready.

Defence minister says Canada not feeling pressure on missile defence
at 16:50 on January 25, 2005, EST.

FREDERICTON (CP) - Defence Minister Bill Graham says Canada is not feeling pressure to join the U.S. government's missile defence program, despite suggestions of arm-twisting by the Americans.

Graham said Tuesday while he was touring CFB Gagetown near Fredericton, there is no question U.S. officials want Canada on side in the contentious plan to develop missile interceptors to protect against nuclear attack by terrorists or rogue states.

But he said U.S. lobbying will not derail the Canadian government's plan to debate the issue in the House of Commons.

"We don't feel any pressure from anyone to make up our minds," Graham said.

"We're going to do it in the light of our own democratic process and we'll make the right decision in the fullness of time."

Paul Cellucci, the U.S. ambassador to Canada, has said the United States is optimistic Canada will sign on to the defence plan before the end of March.

A report earlier in the week in The Washington Post said U.S. President George Bush tried to bully Canadian officials on missile defence during his visit to Canada last month.

The newspaper quoted an unidentified Canadian official who was in the room as saying Bush waved off attempts to explain how contentious the issue is for Canada's minority Liberal government.

"(Bush) leaned across the table and said: 'I'm not taking this position, but some future president is going to say: Why are we paying to defend Canada,' " the official was quoted as saying.

White House sources have since denied that Bush used that kind of language, saying his message was more conciliatory.

Graham repeated his contention that the missile defence program would be good for Canada, but he said others disagree.

"I have explained why, in my view, it would be advantageous for Canada for defending our sovereignty and working with the Americans in the defence of North America," said Graham, standing by a display of some of Canada's latest weaponry.

"There are others who have a different view. The prime minister has assured everyone there will be an open debate in the House of Commons and a full consideration of this issue before the government of Canada makes up its mind."

Federal NDP Leader Jack Layton said he believes Prime Minister Paul Martin wasn't being honest with Canadians when he said the subject of missile defence was raised only in passing during the president's visit.

"Mr. Martin should have expressed to President Bush Canadians real concern about this weaponization of space and military buildup, and said, 'No, Canadians want to see more foreign aid and assistance to those in need. That's the best way to protect human security.' He obviously didn't do that," Layton said.

The missile program will rely on interceptors based in underground silos in Alaska and California in the event of an attack.

Graham is in Fredericton this week to take part in the federal Liberals' annual winter caucus meeting. He took advantage of the caucus gathering to visit Gagetown, a sprawling military training base that occupies much of southern New Brunswick.

Sub's ordeal nears an end

ILL-FATED CHICOUTIMI BEING TOWED BY FASTER U.S. TUG

By CP


A MORE powerful American navy tug took over the towing of a disabled Canadian submarine yesterday, moving up its expected arrival in Scotland to late today. The tug Carolyn Chouest tied its tow lines to HMCS Chicoutimi yesterday, replacing the smaller British tug, the Anglian Prince, that made slow progress around the stormy northern tip of Ireland on Friday.

MANY veterans would not approve of Australian soldiers being sent to protect Japanese engineers in Iraq, the RSL has warned.

National president Bill Crews said while he welcomed the "spirit of co-operation" between Australia and Japan, not all RSL members were willing to forget.

"There are some who would be violently opposed to that idea based on personal experience during the Second World War," Mr Crews said yesterday.

"That has always been the case and will be for a long time to come. There are some of our members who would have objections to working with the Japanese in any form."

Mr Crews, who served in Vietnam, said many veterans remembered their treatment at the hands of the Japanese like it was yesterday, but the joint effort in Iraq signalled the two countries were coming closer together.

Greens, Dems slam Iraq troop plan [. . .]

PRIME Minister John Howard misled voters at the last election by letting them believe Australia's involvement in Iraq would be scaled down, Greens Senator Bob Brown said today.

Trade Minister Mark Vaile says Australia and Japan have opened discussions on a feasibility study into a free trade agreement.

Delegates from both countries are meeting at the third Australia-Japan Conference in Melbourne.

Mr Vaile says while there is no timetable yet for an agreement, both countries should consider moving their economic ties to a higher level.

"Both Australia and Japan are enhancing relationships with some of our other major trading partners," he said.

"We should encourage each other to work on continuing to strengthen and enhance our relationship between Australia and Japan."

Steel sails to Australia, Japan

Joydeep Ray / Ahmedabad February 09, 2005

With Australian steel major BlueScope Steel still struggling to recover from industrial disputes, steel consuming giant Australia has emerged as an important importer from Indian mills.

Tata Steel recently shipped a small consignment to Australia to test the market. Essar Steel officials said there was a huge export opportunity there and demand has soared of late.

Uttam Galva Steels, one of the largest producers of galvanised steel in India, expects to double exports to Australia in next financial.

Japan, known as a major steel exporter and manufacturer, may also start buying value-added steel from India.

Corporate sources here said steel samples were being sent to Japan for quality checks to open up the new market for Indian steel.

“Tata Steel has recently sent a small quantity of steel to Australia and with acquisition of Singapore-based Nat Steel Asia Pte Ltd, the company is looking at extending its presence. Australia and that region holds immense potential. Tata Steel also will explore the opportunities in Japan as the market is opening up there too,” a Tata Steel spokesperson told Business Standard from Jamshedpur.

Insofar as the "brutal Afghan winter" has any objective reality at all, all it means is that the key highway to Pakistan runs through some pretty high elevations, and has a tendency to get snowbound and impassable. Whether it needs to get quite so impassable is another matter. I like the Afghans, God bless 'em, but honestly it doesn't speak well for a culture to have lived in the same place for thousands of years and never got around to inventing the snowplow.

During the Afghan campaign, an Internet wag, Glenn Crawford, deftly summed up the different cultural approaches to unpromising climate--in this instance between the bleak Afghan plain and Nevada. Third World solution: eke a living out of the desert. American solution: "Viva Las Vegas!" One wouldn't commend a den of gambling and fornication to every spot on earth, but, driving through the Sunni Triangle, I couldn't help feeling the history of the Middle East would have been a little different if smack in the middle of the Arabian desert you could have seen Wayne Newton with full supporting orchestra. It would be to Afghanistan's benefit if someone opened a ski resort, and made the brutal Afghan winter pay its way.

Sir George Young: Can we move on to post-conflict reconstruction.

Q22 Tony Baldry: Prime Minister, if one looks post-conflict reconstruction anywhere else in the world, such as Afghanistan, one sees the United Nations in the lead, UN agencies, like UNDP, working hard and bringing together international donors, NGOs, et cetera. In Iraq that is not happening because the US see the UN as being unhelpful and not being as partners. How are we going to patch up relations between the US and the UN?

Mr Blair: I think those relations are getting patched up. Over the elections, there was a very strong statement in support of them by Kofi Annan, a strong statement before, a strong statement afterwards. My assessment actually is that relations are improving and also, let me say, I would pay real tribute, as I am sure the US Administration would, to the work that the UN staff did in Iraq for these elections. I actually do not think the problem, Tony, on the reconstruction side is relations between the UN and the US. The problem is the simple problem that we have got which is security - simple to describe, complicated to tackle.

Q23 Tony Baldry: Prime Minister, the problem is this, is it not: that most of the money for reconstruction is coming from the US who are largely concerned with large-scale projects and not with employment-creating, quick-impact projects? They are not doing any classic development and reconstruction, as DFID or any other donor agencies will, because they are primarily concerned with the interests of American big business.

Mr Blair: I think that is an extraordinary thing to say. I honestly do not think that is true at all.

Q24 Tony Baldry: Well, Prime Minister, if you look at the money which the US are spending in Iraq, most of it is going on large-scale projects. Practically none of it is going on impact projects creating employment and enabling Iraqis to see a daily improvement in their lives.

Mr Blair: Well, they are doing that too. If you take an area like Najaf, for example, where we have been able to get the security situation under control, Najaf is a real success story. After all, we were told that that was a city that welcomed these militants into it and there was a safe haven for them. Once they were cleaned out, and actually cleaned out with the consent of the local people, they actually are rebuilding and reconstructing there and the American money is working well there too. I really do not think that is the issue. We have precisely this same problem down south and the problem is that you need two sets of reconstruction ----

Q25 Tony Baldry: And down south DFID, since about December, have started doing work on quick-impact projects, and let's all be clear, that DFID is probably one of the best development agencies in the world, but in the rest of Iraq we are not seeing proper development being done; we are just seeing ad hoc initiatives by the US where they feel it is in the interests of their big industry. That is what is actually happening and if DFID were allowed to share some of their knowledge with other parts of Iraq, I think we would all be in a much better position.

Mr Blair: I do think that is extremely unfair to those that are working very hard in Iraq in the difficult parts where the security is a real problem. It is true, incidentally, that there are long-term, big reconstruction projects the US are committing money to, although even that money it is difficult to disperse at the moment, but those long-term projects to do with power and water and so on are absolutely necessary. The short-term projects, the job-creation projects we are doing in the south, it is easier to do because of the security situation, but even there, frankly, we have had problems. However, having said all that, I mentioned earlier that we were reviewing what we needed to do in a military sense, but we are also reviewing what we need to do in a development sense as well with the Americans and I am sure that they are keen to learn the lessons of that too. Believe me, the central problem on reconstruction and development is not really to do with American big business interests; it is to do with getting the security situation under control. Where you can get it under control, then you can employ people and you can do the reconstruction projects relatively easily, but if what happens is that someone gets a reconstruction project underway and then the three people organising it are assassinated, the next day you do not find many people turning up on it, and that is what has been happening. It is a tough situation, but I think these differences either between the UN and the US or between the US and ourselves on development are hugely exaggerated. If we got the security situation under control, I think you would find Iraq develop remarkably quickly.

Sir George Young: We move on now to security being under control.

Q156 Mr Key: Okay, let's move on. Do you believe the rapid growth in cheap international air travel with tax-free aviation fuel, the impact at home of needing new runways and all of that, the impact the other end of environmentally-damaging tourist resorts and the damage to the atmosphere in between caused by high level emissions of carbon, is really sustainable? Do you think it is really acceptable?

Mr Blair: I think it is a very good reason why the science and technology needs to be explored; aviation fuel in particular. I also think, and it is something I said in Davos and I repeat and I know people think it is not the right thing to say but I believe it is true, hands up around this table how many politicians facing, let us say or not say, a potential election at some point in time in the not too distant future, would vote to end cheap air travel? Right. None. Oh, Richard!

Mr Hinchliffe: He is not standing!

Q157 Mr Key: It is really not a question of ending it, is it?

Mr Blair: It is not, but that is why I say this is what is important, if we are realistic about this, then the only way through is to take a hard-headed look at what the science and technology offer us. For example, the new Airbus we went down to Toulouse to celebrate is actually on fuel efficiency far more fuel efficient than the current airliners, and that is the sort of thing you need to be looking at and I think that is the only way through it. I do not think you are going to have any political consensus for saying, "We are going to slap some huge tax on cheap air travel", unless you think differently.

Q158 Mr Key: But that is a bit defeatist. We cannot just say, "Okay, it is terrible but we will do nothing."

Mr Blair: I am not saying do nothing, but the way through it is to focus on, for example, on aviation fuel how we would improve the environmental sustainability of that, and that is what is happening with the whole hydrogen fuel cell debate in relation to cars in America. Incidentally, America is putting probably the largest sum of money into science and technology in these things of any country around the world.

Q162 Tony Baldry: Prime Minister, your other priority for the G8 is Africa, and I think on that you will probably have broad support right across both Houses and we all look forward to seeing what proposals the Commission comes forward with in March. The Chancellor has been working extremely hard on the International Finance Facility on volumes of aid and he managed to get some 34 countries supporting him, including support in principle from France and Germany, but last weekend at the G7 Finance Ministers the US Treasury Under-Secretary, John Taylor, was barely off the aeroplane before he was bludgeoning the IFF and saying it was not appropriate for the United States and not needed. My Select Committee last week were in Darfur, and I have to say there were some pretty grim scenes of camps as large as any one of our constituencies, and Hilary Benn made it clear at the weekend he thought those responsible for those war crimes and crimes against humanity should be brought before the International Criminal Court. Saddam today is before the Security Council, where I am sure there will be a recommendation for a reference to the International Criminal Court which I suspect the United States will block. Going back to what Michael Jack said about Kyoto, is not the simple truth this: we are always the first to be amongst the coalition of the willing supporting the United States, but whether it be on the International Finance Facility, Kyoto, climate change, the International Criminal Court, we have to make it clear to the United States we expect them to be amongst the coalition of the concerned and support us as much as we support them.

Mr Blair: I do not agree that there is a sort of quid pro quo here. I happen to be part of the coalition with America in respect of Afghanistan and Iraq because I believe in it on its own terms, but I also think it is important of course that we engage in dialogue with America. I think on Africa you will find America willing to come along with the international community. Indeed there is an American on the Africa Commission. I think Kyoto and climate change is a different issue; there has been a real disagreement. My own view is that the Africa Commission and what it comes out with should not just be about the amount of money or debt relief, it should also be about conflict resolution and governance. The Sudan is a classic example where, if you had what I would like to see in terms of the capability of Africa in conflict resolution and peace-keeping, you would not have these camps in Sudan at the moment. The reason you have them is you had no outside intervention capable of keeping the peace.

Q163 Tony Baldry: Prime Minister, you and I both know one of the key issues for development is volumes of development aid. The Chancellor has been working his butt off actually on this one, a Marshall Plan for Development as he calls it, going up and down the country making speeches, working very hard with other Finance Ministers, and that whole bit of work on Africa has been completely blown out of the water by the United States. Taylor did not even have the courtesy to turn up to the G7 meeting. Even before he got there ---

Mr Blair: Tony, the American position on the IFF has been well established. No one was expecting the Americans to change their position and sign up to IFF, and it is not necessary for the Americans to do so to take the IFF forward. There are different ways of ---

Q164 Tony Baldry: You would at least expect courtesy and for them to be willing to be part of the international community in considering it. I am sorry.

Mr Blair: The issue which will arise from the Africa Commission is increasing aid. How they do that, for example whether the Americans decide to do it through their own Millennium Challenge Account, whether you do it through some of the ideas President Chirac has put forward, whether you do that through the IFF, is an open question. Countries may find different ways of getting to this. We do not really have time to get into this discussion now about America but I do sometimes think it is almost as if the American alliance was a sort of impediment to us which we put up with. I happen to think the American alliance serves this country well, and I think occasionally we should come out and actually support and strongly defend it. There are disagreements, but I think we have seen with the developments in the Middle East peace process today why it is quite important we have it.

And taking that string of massacres, run it all the way back to when a group of people now known as the Wapingers [sp?] who supposedly sold Manhattan Island to the Dutch for a handful of glass beads and trinkets objected to the idea that they'd sold their land because what they understood they did was accept rental payment for use of a particular portion of Manhattan Island as a trading center in which they could do business with the Dutch, and the Dutch, who knew fully well that this had not been a sale but rather a rental, resolved the issue by sending a military expedition up the island to dispense with the Wapingers, doing so so rapidly that they felt that no one would believe how successful they'd been when they went back, so they took the heads of the fighting-age males and the leadership and carried them back in woven baskets to display, make proof the fact that they had butchered the lot. And the citizenry was so happy they gathered round to watch a jolly sporting contest, kickball, in which the heads of the slain owners of the land were used as balls, roughly on the place where the foundation of the World Trade Center was situated. That's the history of the place which sits approximately at the end of Wall Street. We know about Wall Street in terms of its economic importance, its influence, its symbolic value. What most of us don't know is it takes its name from the wall of the slave enclosure which formed the economy of the city which is now considered the economic hub of empire.

At this point, Humphrys did not point out the key Israeli contention that more and more weapons are being smuggled through Rafah. Instead he said: what is the effect on the Arab street of the pictures of US soldiers abusing Iraqis?

He made no mention of the fact that Palestinians had played football with the heads of Israeli soldiers they had blown up, or had placed one such head on the table in front of a Palestinian speaker on a video for consumption by the Arab street. Instead, he invited Barghouti to abuse the US. And of course Barghouti obliged with a prize piece of malice, saying yes, of course the scandal would add to the US problems, with Bush siding with Sharon and creating apartheid. [. . .]

There is no doubt in my mind that a major reason why otherwise sane and sensible Britons have totally lost touch with reality, believe the US and Israel are the source of all evil while people who play football with the heads of Jews are the victims of injustice, and are on the way to pressurising the British government to pull out of Iraq, denounce America and thus hand victory to religious fascism, is because of the influence of the BBC, our secular church.

CLINTON, N.Y. — The head of a gender studies program at Hamilton College (search) has resigned after igniting a furor by inviting to the campus a professor who likened the Sept. 11 victims to Nazis.

Nancy Rabinowitz said she was stepping down "under duress" as director of the Kirkland Project for the Study of Gender, Society and Culture (search). She will continue to teach comparative literature.

Rabinowitz resigned in a telephone call Thursday to the college's president.

On Feb. 3, she extended a speaking invitation to University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill (search), who in an essay written shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks compared the World Trade Center (search) victims to "little Eichmanns," a reference to the Nazi bureaucrat Adolf Eichmann.

His appearance was ultimately canceled by the school because of death threats against college officials and Churchill.

Rabinowitz also drew fire in November when the program she headed offered a temporary teaching position to 1960s radical Susan Rosenberg. Rosenberg was indicted but never tried in a 1981 armored car robbery that left a guard and two police officers dead. She was sentenced for 58 years in prison for weapons possession, but President Clinton granted her clemency in 2001 after she served 16 years.

Rabinowitz has been the project's only director since its founding in 1996.

"What the project needs now is someone more adept at the kind of political and media fight that the current climate requires. Therefore, it is in the interests of the mission of the project itself and for no other reason that I am yielding to requests that I resign," she said.

Hamilton is a liberal arts school with 1,750 students. It is about 40 miles east of Syracuse.