SOMALI LEADER GETS 99.9%

Somalia's official radio announced today that President Mohamed Siad Barre had won a new seven-year term with more than 99.9 percent of the vote in an uncontested election. The Somali radio, in a broadcast monitored in Nairobi, said 4,887,592 people voted for General Siad Barre and 1,486 against him in the election on Tuesday.

The President was seriously injured in an automobile accident in May, and there have been conflicting reports as to the extent of his recovery. But he was nominated for another term last month by the Somali Revolutionary Socialist Party, the country's only legal political party. Virtually the only overt opposition in Somalia is a sporadic insurgency by two guerrilla groups.

General Siad Barre has governed his East African nation since 1969, when he took power in a military coup. He has presided over a radical shift in his country's foreign policies. His army invaded a disputed area of southeastern Ethiopia called the Ogaden in 1977 when Somalia was allied with the Soviet Union and adhered to Marxist policies. At about the same time, Ethiopia split with the United States and became more closely aligned with the Soviet Union. With the help of Cuban troops and billions of dollars' worth of Soviet weapons, the Ethiopians turned back the Somalis.

General Siad Barre subsequently denounced the Russians and Marxism, and the United States has emerged as Somalia's chief ally. The Government continues to exercise extensive control over the economy, but the private sector has expanded sharply in the last two years. Secretary of State George P. Shultz is tentatively scheduled to visit Somalia next month.

Source: New York Times

MOZAMBICAN PRESIDENT DIES IN AIR CRASH IN SOUTH AFRICA

President Samora M. Machel, leader of Mozambique since it won independence from Portugal in 1975, was killed Sunday night in a plane crash in South Africa, the Pretoria Government announced today. The cause of the crash, on a flight from Lusaka, Zambia, to Maputo, Mozambique, was not known. The Mozambican authorities, who withheld a formal announcement while they debated the succession and other issues, confirmed Mr. Machel's death about 24 hours after the crash.

The 53-year-old President was an important figure among African leaders opposed to apartheid. His death coincided with increasing strains in Mozambique's relationship with South Africa after the virtual collapse of a 1984 nonaggression pact. Mr. Machel led a Marxist Government but was far from being an ideologue who followed a strict Marxist-Leninist line, and in recent years he seemed above all a pragmatic nationalist. The South African authorities said at least 26 people, including President Machel, had been killed in the crash. Ten people survived, one of them thought to be a Soviet pilot.

South Africa, which is backing Mozambican rebels seeking President Machel's overthrow, made no mention of possible sabotage or attack when it announced the Mozambican leader's death in a brief statement from the office of President P. W. Botha. But the South African Government, eager to avoid accusations that it played a role in the crash, said foreign aviation experts would be welcome to assist in any investigations. Foreign Minister Roelof F. Botha invited Mozambican representatives to inspect the crash site.

President Machel was returning from northern Zambia, where he had met the Presidents of Zambia, Angola and Zaire. Both the African National Congress, the most prominent of the organizations seeking the overthrow of apartheid, and the official Zambian press agency sought to implicate South Africa and the Mozambican rebels in Mr. Machel's death. Alfred Nzo, general secretary of the congress, said in Copenhagen that the crash was a ''deliberately committed crime'' by South Africa or its Mozambican allies.

The Mozambican leader's Soviet-made TU-134 twin-engine jet crashed in a hilly, remote area of Transvaal Province, near South Africa's borders with Swaziland and Mozambique. The crash site was a few miles from Komatipoort, the border town in which Mr. Machel signed the nonaggression accord with P. W. Botha, then Prime Minister, in 1984. South African newspapers asserted that the plane had strayed over South African territory in bad weather. Foreign Minister Botha said the aircraft crashed a few hundred yards inside South African territory after apparently running into difficulties in Mozambican airspace. The South African Bureau for Information said those killed included two leading Mozambican officials, Transport Minister Luis Maria Alcantara Santos and Deputy Foreign Minister Jose Carlos Lopo.

Mozambican rebels based in Lisbon said Defense Minister Alberto Joaquim Chipande had been killed in the crash, but there was no independent confirmation of the report. A Zairean diplomat was also reported killed. The first word of the crash came from Foreign Minister Botha, who announced on the South African state radio that an unidentified aircraft flying from Lusaka to Maputo had crashed in the border area. Shortly afterward, the state-run Mozambican radio broke into its programs to announce that Mr. Machel had not returned on schedule from Zambia and that an air crash in South Africa was under investigation. The radio began to play solemn music.

Marcelino dos Santos, a Politburo member and the Secretary of Parliament, urged Mozambicans to remain calm and ''keep vigilant in order to neutralize any enemy action to provoke instability and any criminal behavior.'' The appeal seemed to reflect official fears that the Mozambique National Resistance, a South African-backed rebel group that has claimed major successes in recent weeks, might try to press a perceived advantage. Foreign Minister Botha, touring the crash site, told reporters, ''Without Machel, one is concerned that conflict will escalate.''

President Machel's powerful personality made him the unchallenged leader of the Mozambique Liberation Front, or Frelimo, a Marxist group that is the country's only legal political movement. Mr. dos Santos, along with Foreign Minister Joaquim Alberto Chissano and Prime Minister Mario Machungo, are said by analysts in Maputo to be likely contenders for Mozambique's presidency. Mr. Machel signed a nonaggression pact with South Africa on March 16, 1984, in the hope that his withdrawal of support for the African National Congress would, under the terms of the treaty, end Pretoria's support for the Mozambique National Resistance. From the outset, the security accord has encountered problems. Mozambique has accused South Africa of continuing to support the rebels, while Pretoria has accused Mozambique of renewing its backing for guerrillas of the African National Congress.

Source: New York Times

LIBERIAN OPPOSITION POLITICIAN FLEES TO NEW YORK

Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, an opposition politician in Liberia who was cleared of charges of complicity in a coup attempt last year, said she fled to the United States this month after the chairman of the ruling party threatened her life.

In her first public statement since she arrived in New York on Sept. 1, Mrs. Johnson-Sirleaf said last week that she decided to leave the West African country after being denied an exit visa and after her home was ransacked. She said the chairman of the ruling National Democratic Party of Liberia, Keikura B. Kpoto, who is also a senator in the national legislature, told her on Aug. 16 that "something might happen to you, and no one would be responsible." She said he also warned her not to take part in protests against the Government's arrest of three other opposition leaders.

Two days later, she said, her home was broken into by people in civilian clothes who wrecked it while she hid nearby. The men told neighbors they were looking for her, Mrs. Johnson-Sirleaf said. "I took the threat seriously," she said of Mr. Kpoto's warning. "I think I could be more effective there, but because I wanted to be alive, I had to leave."

Mr. Kpoto, reached by telephone in Monrovia, the Liberian capital, denied that he had threatened Mrs. Johnson-Sirleaf and said she had used "cheap politics" to advance her political standing. Mr. Kpoto said he had asked her "as a neighbor" to call off a demonstration that the Government had prohibited. "I told her that if you put people in the streets, you never know what might happen, and you cannot hold anyone responsible," he said. "If I wanted to threaten her why would I have done it in front of witnesses?"

Mr. Kpoto said Mrs. Johnson-Sirleaf's home was ransacked by disgruntled demonstrators who were angered when she failed to attend a rally. J. Emmanuel Bowier, a spokesman for the Liberian Embassy in Washington, said his Government did not know Mrs. Johnson-Sirleaf had left the country. He said 12 men had been arrested in the attack on her house.

Mrs. Johnson-Sirleaf said she would continue to speak out from the United States against the Government of Gen. Samuel K. Doe and would work with a coalition of opposition political parties to get new presidential elections. She said she would like to "take her chances" as a candidate for President.

General Doe won an election last October in which it was reported he received 50.1 percent of the vote. Opposition leaders say the count was rigged.

Mrs. Johnson-Sirleaf, a Liberian who became a vice president of Citibank while working for the bank in Kenya, has been an outspoken critic of General Doe and his aides despite a military decree making it a crime to spread "lies, rumors or disinformation." She was jailed in 1985 for calling Government officials "idiots." Mrs. Johnson-Sirleaf was again jailed, for seven months, after the coup attempt last November. The Government failed to present evidence of her involvement, and she was released from prison on June 6. On June 8, she said, she applied for a travel visa but was refused. She said she was told her possible connection to the coup attempt was still being investigated.

Mrs. Johnson-Sirleaf refused to disclose how she was able to leave Liberia, but denied breaking any laws. "I was not charged with anything," she said. "I was just exercising a right of travel that should not have been denied."

In July, a Monrovia newspaper erroneously reported that Mrs. Johnson-Sirleaf fled arrest after staging an illegal rally in Buchanan, a coastal town. It was later learned that there was no rally but that she had been surrounded by well-wishers. She said she returned to Monrovia oblivious of an attempt by a local senator to have her arrested.

Mrs. Johnson-Sirleaf said national reconciliation, which General Doe has advocated since Government troops thwarted the overthrow attempt, was now just a "fleeting possibility."

Source: New York Times

An Opposition Leader Flees Arrest in Liberia

A Liberian opposition politician, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, fled arrest after staging an illegal weekend rally, the Star newspaper said today. The paper said that the woman, a former Citibank vice president whose case has drawn attention in the United States, held the rally in Buchanan, about 70 miles from Monrovia, without a permit.

Her arrest was ordered by the local Senator, Charles Williams, who was quoted as having said that he would have personally jailed her if she had been caught by the police. She was one of more than 20 political prisoners released from jail by President Samuel Doe last month after being held in connection with an attempted coup in November 1985. The prisoners were told to stay in Liberia.

Source: New York Times

WORLD COURT SUPPORTS NICARAGUA AFTER U.S. REJECTED JUDGES' ROLE

The International Court of Justice ruled today that the Reagan Administration had broken international law and violated Nicaraguan sovereignty by aiding the anti-Government rebels.

The Court, the judicial arm of the United Nations, ordered Washington to halt the ''arming and training'' of the insurgents and to pay Nicaragua for damages caused by military attacks, some of which it said had been carried out by the United States itself.

The judgment, which was widely expected, came after 26 months of litigation on Nicaragua's complaint. U.S. Rejects the Verdict

In Washington, a State Department spokesman said the United States rejected the Court's verdict, and said the body was ''not equipped'' to judge complex international military issues. The American spokesman added that ''we consider our policy in Central America to be entirely consistent with international law.'' [ Page 4. ] In January 1985 the Administration said it would defy the Court and ignore further proceedings in the case because of its view that the World Court, as it is commonly called, has no jurisdiction to decide cases involving ongoing armed conflicts. The Court rejected this position last November.

Throughout the case, the argument that the United States was giving military aid to the contras was never in serious dispute. However, before Washington formally withdrew from the case, it argued that United States actions against Nicaragua were ''collective self-defense'' against Nicaraguan support of leftist guerrillas in El Salvador and elsewhere.

The Court's findings were announced two days after the House of Representatives endorsed President Reagan's plan to provide $100 million in new aid to the rebels, with $70 million earmarked for military assistance. Three Dissenters

The World Court consists of 15 judges: one, the chief judge, from India; two from France, and one each from Poland, Argentina, Nigeria, Italy, Brazil, Senegal, Algeria, China, Norway, Japan, the United States and Britain. The American, British and Japanese judges dissented on the most important issues in the case.

The Court deferred a ruling on Nicaragua's petition for $370 million in damages from the United States, saying it wished to give the two countries a chance to negotiate a settlement themselves. However, the Court said it would step in if no accord materialized.

Abram Chayes, a counsel for the Managua Government, said in Washington today that as a result of the ruling, Nicaragua intends to sue the United States for more than $1 billion in damages in United States courts. In New York, Nora Astorga, Nicaragua's chief envoy to the United Nations, said her Government had asked for a Security Council meeting to discuss how to make the United States comply with the ruling.

The Court has no enforcement powers. It depends on voluntary compliance with its rulings by nations coming before it. #15 Counts Against U.S.

The Court ruled against the United States on 15 counts.

The Court found the United States violated customary international law and Nicaragua's sovereignty by ''training, arming, equipping, financing and supplying the contra forces.'' It also found the United States guilty of direct attacks on Nicaraguan oil installations, ports and shipping in 1983 and 1984.

It held that the United States broke international law by authorizing overflights of Nicaraguan territory and by mining Nicaraguan ports and harbors in 1984. The Court also ruled that the United States trade embargo against Nicaragua, decreed in May 1985, violates a 1956 treaty of friendship between the two countries.

The Court also condemned the United States for allowing distribution of a Central Intelligence Agency manual on guerrilla warfare techniques to the contras, saying it encourages ''acts contrary to the general principles of humanitarian law.''

A majority of judges rejected the American claim that it was acting in the ''collective self-defense'' of El Salvador, Costa Rica and Honduras because Nicaragua was supporting rebel movements in these countries.

The Court said Nicaraguan aid to rebels in El Salvador was mainly in 1980 and 1981, before the United States stepped up its assistance to the contras, and did not constitute an ''armed attack'' on these countries under international law. As a result, the United States' response was judged disproportionate and unnecessary.

The Court said the United States was responsible in a general way for damage caused by the contras but not for specific acts by the rebels since it does not control them.

It also said the United States has no right to seek the overthrow of the Nicaraguan Government because of its political ideology. But to the surprise of some lawyers, it then added that this doctrine does not apply to ''the process of decolonization,'' suggesting that wars of national liberation may be justified in international law. Nicaraguan Leader Comments

The Nicaraguan Foreign Minister, the Rev. Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann, said he hoped the United States Congress would now agree to stop new aid going to the contras. ''We want the U.S. to comply with the ruling so that there will be no more killing of our people,'' he told a news conference here.

If the United States fails to respect the judgment, Father D'Escoto said, its ''reputation as a member of the international community will be tarnished, perhaps irreparably.''

The Foreign Minister said he would discuss the verdict with the United Nations Secretary General, Javier Perez de Cuellar, in New York next week before returning to Nicaragua for talks with the other leaders of the Government on their next move in the dispute.

Although the World Court lacks the means to enforce its judgments, diplomats here say Nicaragua can still use today's ruling to cause the United States some diplomatic embarrassment. This could first occur in a demand that the Security Council authorize sanctions against the United States if it fails to comply. The United States would then be forced to exercise its Security Council veto to block the Nicaraguan resolution. Charges of Bias in Court

The United States walked out of the Court proceedings last year, saying they were biased in favor of Nicaragua.

In announcing that it did not recognize the Court's jurisdiction in January 1985, the Reagan Administration noted that the Soviet Union and most other nations had never assented to the World Court's jurisdiction, as the United States did in 1946.

But the World Court proceeded with the Nicaragua case, in accordance with its rules, as it did when Iran refused to recognize its jurisdiction in the United States' suit over the seizure in 1979 of American diplomats in Teheran as hostages. The Court ruled for the United States in that case.

The Nicaraguan case is widely seen by legal scholars as the most politically sensitive the World Court has ever adjudicated as well as representing its first involvement in an international conflict that is still under way.

The Court's verdict on most key issues was challenged by Judge Stephen M. Schwebel of the United States, Sir Robert Jennings, the British judge, and Judge Shigeru Oda of Japan. A Jurisdictional Challenge

The dissenting judges first challenged the Court's competence to hear the case. The issue was whether the Court could hear the case since the United States specifically refused it authority in 1946 over cases brought under international treaties. Nicaragua claims the United States violated its international obligations under the United Nations and Organization of American States charters.

A majority of judges said this restriction applies but argued that the principles of noninterference in other countries' affairs and respect for national sovereignty, which are enshrined in the United Nations charter, have now become part of the wider body of customary international law.

The Court, the majority ruled, is therefore competent to judge.

Judge Oda argued that the dispute was not ''legal'' but ''political'' and is ''more suitable for resolution by other organs and procedures.'' Lawyers said this suggested that Judge Oda believed the dispute should be judged by the Security Council.

Judge Schwebel's dissent emphasized that the Court had underestimated the gravity of the Nicaraguan Government's involvement in El Salvador.

''Nicaragua has not come to court with clean hands,'' Judge Schwebel said. ''On the contrary, as an aggressor, indirectly responsible - but ultimately responsible - for large numbers of deaths and widespread destruction in El Salvador, apparently much exceeding that which Nicaragua has sustained, Nicaragua's hands are odiously unclean. Nicaragua has compounded its sins by misrepresenting them in court.''

Source: New York Times

US dismisses World Court ruling on contras

The International Court of Justice yesterday ruled that US support to the contras in Nicaragua is illegal, and demanded that the US pay reparations to the Sandinistas.

Nicaragua intends to sue the US for more than dollars 1 billion in damages in US domestic courts as a result of yesterday's World Court ruling, a legal counsel for the Managua Government said yesterday in Washington.

In a 16-point ruling on a complaint lodged by Nicaragua , the judges rejected American claims of collective self-defence and found the US guilty of breaches of international law and the 1956 treaty of friendship between the two countries.

Three judges submitted dissenting opinions: Judge Oda (Japan), Judge Schwebel (US) and Sir Robert Jennings (Britain).
The US rejected the judgment, claiming that the Managua regime is a Soviet puppet.

A Soviet judge did not take part in the case. One judge was withdrawn last August and was only replaced in December - too late to join his 14 colleagues, plus the ad hoc judge added to the court to represent Nicaragua .

The Sandinistas had appealed to the World Court in April, 1984, to condemn American intervention, but the US has always maintained that the court's jurisdiction did not extend to ruling on this issue. The US does recognise the jurisdiction of the court in many other cases, such as the 1984 ruling on the Bay of Maine dispute with Canada.
In its verdict, the court stated that US acts and actions in training and financing the contras, the attack on Puerto Sandino and interference with maritime commerce constituted breaches of international law and the obligation not to violate national sovereignty.

The court argued that the two parties should negotiate on the level and type of reparations, but that if agreement could not be reached, the court would determine compensation at a later date.
The US benches were empty when the court announced its decision. Among the Nicaraguan delegates was the Foreign Minister, Father Miguel d'Escoto, who said he hoped that the verdict would help the Americans to re-evaluate their position and stop defying the law and the court.
Dutch legal experts argue that the decision is legally binding on the US, despite the American refusal to recognise the court's jurisdiction. One said: 'The USA has always recognised the ICJ. It should have changed its position earlier if it wanted to duck the court in this case. 'It is a well-known principle of international law that, if a country submits to the jurisdiction of a court, it cannot sidestep the court after the judges have started their work,' a professor of international law at Amsterdam University said.

WASHINGTON - In an initial reaction - the 400 pages of the ruling have yet to be digested - the State Department spokesman, Mr Charles Redman, said that the court's decision demonstrated that it was not equipped to deal with a case of such a complex nature.

Mr Redman said that the US and Nicaragua agreed that international law was not the issue but the facts of-the case, whether one accepted the US or Nicaraguan version of events. Both the Administration and Congress - on the basis of intelligence information not made available to the court - concluded that Nicaragua had launched unprovoked and unlawful attacks on its neighbours, he said.

At the same time, the US said that the latest crackdown in Nicaragua against the opposition was not unexpected and condemned the measures announced by President Daniel Ortega. 'We are deeply concerned at the welfare of the civilian opposition,' Mr Redman said.

Congressional sources opposed to Mr Reagan's policy said the Nicaraguan crackdown demonstrated that the Administration policy of trying to open up the political system had failed.

Source: The Guardian

US guilty of backing Contras

The United States has been found guilty of violating international law by supporting armed Contra rebels in Nicaragua. The International Court of Justice ruled that the US should compensate the country, although it has not yet fixed an amount.

But the Reagan administration has boycotted the case and says it will ignore the verdict of the United Nations court. In the US there have been demonstrations against a vote by Congress in favour of aid to the Contras. About 40 people were arrested during a protest in Minneapolis, and in Cleveland a group of demonstrators lay on the pavement to block the entrance to the federal building.

The UN court found the US guilty of contravening law by training, arming and financing paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua. These activities included the laying of mines in Nicaraguan waters in early 1984, as well as attacking a naval base and patrol boats.

The court held, by 12 votes to three, that the US was "in breach of its obligations under customary international law not to use force against another State, not to intervene in its affairs, not to violate its sovereignty and not to interrupt peaceful maritime commerce". It ruled the US was under an obligation "to make reparation to the Republic of Nicaragua for all injury caused" by the breaches.

Source BBC

Magoo’s Bar Bombed

The gruesome scene outside Magoo's Bar in Durban after the bomb went off killing three women pedestrians and wounding many bar patrons.

Source: IoL

Liberian Leader Pardons 34 Accused in Plot

Liberia's President, Gen. Samuel K. Doe, announced today that he had pardoned 34 people accused of conspiring to overthrow the Government. The Liberian Information Ministry said General Doe granted "a complete and unconditional pardon to all persons implicated and detained after the failed coup of Nov. 12, 1985."

Among those pardoned was Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, a prominent opposition politician and former Citibank vice president whose case drew substantial attention in the United States. In a broadcast, General Doe said the pardon was an "act of mercy" to show "that we harbor no evil intention against any of our citizens, including those who may wish us ill."

Source: New York Times

SOVIET ANNOUNCES NUCLEAR ACCIDENT AT ELECTRIC PLANT

The Soviet Union announced today that there had been an accident at a nuclear power plant in the Ukraine and that ''aid is being given to those affected.'' The severity of the accident, which spread discernable radioactive material over Scandinavia, was not immediately clear. But the terse statement, distributed by the Tass press agency and read on the evening television news, suggested a major accident.

The phrasing also suggested that the problem had not been brought under full control at the nuclear plant, which the Soviet announcement identified as the Chernobyl station. It is situated at the new town of Pripyat, near Chernobyl and 60 miles north of Kiev. The announcement, the first official disclosure of a nuclear accident ever by the Soviet Union, came hours after Sweden, Finland and Denmark reported abnormally high radioactivity levels in their skies. The readings initially led those countries to think radioactive material had been leaking from one of their own reactors.

The Soviet announcement, made on behalf of the Council of Ministers, after Sweden had demanded information, said in its entirety: ''An accident has occurred at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant as one of the reactors was damaged. Measures are being taken to eliminate the consequences of the accident. Aid is being given to those affected. A Government commission has been set up.'' The mention of a commission of inquiry reinforced indications that the accident was a serious one. United States experts said the accident probably posed no danger outside the Soviet Union. But in the absence of detailed information, they said it would be difficult to determine the gravity, and they said environmental damage might conceivably be disastrous. The Chernobyl plant, with four 1,000-megawatt reactors in operation, is one of the largest and oldest of the 15 or so Soviet civilian nuclear stations. Nuclear power has been a matter of high priority in the Soviet Union, and capacity has been going into service as fast as reactors can be built. Pripyat, where the Chernobyl plant is situated, is a settlement of 25,000 to 30,000 people that was built in the 1970's along with the station. It is home to construction workers, service personnel and their families. A British reporter returning from Kiev reported seeing no activity in the Ukrainian capital that would suggest any alarm. No other information was immediately available from the area. But reports from across Scandinavia, areas more than 800 miles to the north, spoke of increases in radioactivity over the last 24 hours.

Scandinavian authorities said the radioactivity levels did not pose any danger, and it appeared that only tiny amounts of radioactive material had drifted over Scandinavia. All of it was believed to be in the form of two relatively innocuous gases, xenon and krypton. Scandinavian officials said the evidence pointed to an accident in the Ukraine. In Sweden, an official at the Institute for Protection Against Radiation said gamma radiation levels were 30 to 40 percent higher than normal. He said that the levels had been abnormally high for 24 hours and that the release seemed to be continuing. In Finland, officials were reported to have said readings in the central and northern areas showed levels six times higher than normal. The Norwegian radio quoted pollution control officials as having said that radioactivity in the Oslo area was 50 percent higher. Since morning, Swedish officials had focused on the Soviet Union as the probable source of the radioactive material, but Swedish Embassy officials here said the Soviet authorities had denied knowledge of any problem until the Government announcement was read on television at 9 P.M.

The first alarm was raised in Sweden when workers arriving at the Forsmark nuclear power station, 60 miles north of Stockholm, set off warnings during a routine radioactivity check. The plant was evacuated, Swedish officials said. When other nuclear power plants reported similar happenings, the authorities turned their attention to the Soviet Union, from which the winds were coming. A Swedish diplomat here said he had telephoned three Soviet Government agencies - the State Committee for Utilization of Atomic Energy, the Ministry of Electric Power and the three-year-old State Committee for Safety in the Atomic Power Industry -asking them to explain the high readings over Scandinavia. All said they had no explanation, the diplomat said. Before the Soviet acknowledgment, the Swedish Minister of Energy, Birgitta Dahl, said that whoever was responsible for the spread of radioactive material was not observing international agreements requiring warnings and exchanges of information about accidents.

Tass, the Soviet Government press agency, said the Chernobyl accident was the first ever in a Soviet nuclear power plant. It was the first ever acknowledged by the Russians, but Western experts have reported at least two previous mishaps. In 1957, a nuclear waste dump believed related to weapons production was reported to have resulted in a chemical reaction in the Kasli areas of the Urals, causing damage to the environment and possibly fatalities. In 1974, a steam line exploded in the Shevchenko nuclear breeder plant in Kazakhstan, but no radioactive material is believed to have been released in that accident. Soviet authorities, in giving the development of nuclear electricity generation a high priority, have said that nuclear power is safe. In the absence of citizens' opposition to nuclear power, there has been virtually no questioning of the program. The terse Soviet announcement of the Chernobyl accident was followed by a Tass dispatch noting that there had been many mishaps in the United States, ranging from Three Mile Island outside Harrisburg, Pa., to the Ginna plant near Rochester. Tass said an American antinuclear group registered 2,300 accidents, breakdowns and other faults in 1979. The practice of focusing on disasters elsewhere when one occurs in the Soviet Union is so common that after watching a report on Soviet television about a catastrophe abroad, Russians often call Western friends to find out whether something has happened in the Soviet Union.

Construction of the Chernobyl plant began in the early 1970's and the first reactor was commissioned in 1977. Work has been lagging behind plans. In April 1983, the Ukrainian Central Committee chastised the Chernobyl plant, along with the Rovno nuclear power station at Kuznetsovsk, for ''inferior quality of construction and installation work and low operating levels.'' Donald T. Regan, the White House chief of staff, said today that the United States was willing to provide medical and scientific assistance to the Soviet Union in connection with the nuclear accident but so far there had been no such request.

Source: New York Times

LIBERIA GOVERNMENT FOE IS INDICTED FOR TREASON

A grand jury indicted Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, a leading opposition figure, on treason charges today for her reported involvement in an attempt to overthrow the President, Gen. Samuel K. Doe, last year.

The indictment was made public after a 42-day session. It means that Mrs. Johnson-Sirleaf - Finance Minister in the former William Tolbert Government as well as a Harvard-educated economist and former Citibank representative in Nairobi, Kenya - will be tried by a criminal court.

She could receive the death penalty if found guilty. No date has been set yet for the trial.

Source: New York Times

YOWERI MUSEVENI SWORN IN AS UGANDA PRESIDENT

Yoweri Museveni, whose National Resistance Army descended on this battered capital city last week and overthrew the military Government of Gen. Tito Okello, was sworn in today as the new President of Uganda. The ceremony, witnessed by thousands of jubilant Ugandans, was held on the steps of the Parliament building, where some of the fiercest fighting erupted in the battle for Kampala.

The installation of Mr. Museveni, who arrived in a gleaming black Mercedes-Benz and wore jungle-green military fatigues and polished combat boots, came five years after he took his followers into the bush in his quest to overthrow the Government of President Milton Obote. ''Nobody is to think that what is happening today, what has been happening in the last few days is a mere change of guards,'' said Mr. Museveni, 40 years old, who is the ninth head of state since this East African nation gained independence from Britain in 1962. ''This is not a mere change of guards. I think this is a fundamental change in the politics of our government. Any individual, any group or person who threatens the security of our people must be smashed without mercy,'' Mr. Museveni said. ''The people of Uganda should only die from natural causes which are not under our control,'' he said, ''but not from fellow human beings.''

Source: New York Times