2004 Irish presidential election
The 2004 Irish presidential election was scheduled for 22 October 2004. However, nominations closed at noon on 1 October and the incumbent president, Mary McAleese, who had nominated herself in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, was the only candidate nominated. Accordingly, she was re-elected for a second seven-year term of office without the need to hold an election. This was the third time a president was returned unopposed, following Seán T. O'Kelly in 1952, and Patrick Hillery in 1983. McAleese was inaugurated for her second term on 11 November 2004.


2004 Irish presidential election, Nomination procedure
Under Article 12 of the Constitution of Ireland, a candidate for president could be nominated by:


2004 Irish presidential election, Nomination procedure
The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government made the order opening nominations on 13 September, with noon on 1 October as the deadline for nominations, and 22 October set as the date for a contest, if any.


2004 Irish presidential election, Nomination by Mary McAleese
Mary McAleese nominated herself as a candidate on 24 September.


2004 Irish presidential election, Nomination by Mary McAleese
McAleese had the support of the government parties Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats, who had nominated her in the 1997 election. She also had the support of opposition parties Fine Gael and Sinn Féin, while the Labour Party and the Green Party had considered contesting the election, but ultimately voted against doing so (see below).


2004 Irish presidential election, Other potential candidates, Dana Rosemary Scallon
Dana Rosemary Scallon had contested the 1997 presidential election and had served as an MEP from 1999 until her defeat in 2004. Dana sought a nomination from local authorities, as she had done in 1997, but received only the nomination of Galway City Council. After failing to secure a nomination from local authorities, she wrote to every member of the Oireachtas seeking a nomination. She had the support for a time of Independent TD Jerry Cowley, but he later withdrew his support. Dana made an appeal to the President of the High Court on the day of the close of nominations, but was unsuccessful. A challenge by a lay litigant to extend the time for nomination to allow for Dana to be nominated failed in the High Court.


2004 Irish presidential election, Other potential candidates, Labour Party
In early 2003, the Labour Party stated that it would run a candidate, irrespective of the attitudes of other parties, and even in the event of the president seeking a second term. But party leader Pat Rabbitte appeared less committed during a television interview in November 2003, pointing out that all the party's attentions were focused on the two Irish elections already set for 2004, the European Parliament election and the local elections to be held on 11 June 2004. However, former Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht Michael D. Higgins expressed in interest in contesting the election for the Labour Party.


2004 Irish presidential election, Other potential candidates, Labour Party
On 15 September 2004, the party's parliamentary party recommended not running a candidate. The final decision was taken by the party's executive body, the National Executive, on 17 September 2004, which decided by 13 votes to 12 against running a candidate.


2004 Irish presidential election, Other potential candidates, Green Party
Green Party TD Eamon Ryan let it be known that he was interested in seeking a nomination to run. However, practical difficulties included a lack of support from non-Green Party parliamentarians (fourteen of whom would be needed to nominate, as well as the six Green Party TDs), Mary McAleese's personal popularity, and funding issues. Having been endorsed by the party leadership, Ryan subsequently withdrew his name before a meeting of the Green Party National Council and the Green Party ultimately did not run a candidate.


2004 Irish presidential election, Result
The only candidate nominated was Mary McAleese and she was declared elected at the close of nominations on 1 October.


2004 Isle of Anglesey County Council election
The 2004 Isle of Anglesey County Council election took place on Thursday 10 June 2004 to elect members of the Isle of Anglesey County Council in Wales. This was the same day as other United Kingdom local elections. The next full council election was on 1 May 2008.


2004 Isle of Anglesey County Council election, Election result
Forty county councillors were elected from forty electoral wards. Fourteen seats had no election because there were no opposing candidates .


2004 Isle of Anglesey County Council election, Election result
Prior to the election the county council had been governed for 15 months by a coalition led by Plaid Cymru's Bob Parry. After the 2004 election Plaid Cymru became the official opposition with 8 councillors. There were 28 councillors not affiliated to any political party, comprising ten declared Independents and eighteen who gave no description.


2004 Isle of Anglesey County Council election, Events prior to 2008 election
The Plaid Cymru councillor for the Llanfihangel Ysgeifiog ward, Hughie Noel Thomas, resigned from the party group in October 2006. He was jailed for nine months on 6 November 2006 (and disqualified from being a county councillor) for falsifying Post Office records. He had been sub-postmaster in the village of Gaerwen. Independent councillor Eric Jones was elected at a by-election in 2007.


2004 Israeli operation in Rafah
In 2004 the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) launched Operation Rainbow (Hebrew: Mivtza Keshet Be-Anan, מבצע קשת בענן) in the southern Gaza Strip from 12–24 May 2004, involving an invasion and siege of Rafah. The operation was started after the deaths of eleven Israeli soldiers in two Palestinian attacks, in which M113 armored vehicles were attacked.


2004 Israeli operation in Rafah
Human Rights Watch reported 59 Palestinians killed from 12–24 May, including 11 under age eighteen and 18 armed men. The IDF razed some 300 homes to expand the buffer zone along the Egypt–Gaza border, expanding it far inside the Gaza Strip. Also a zoo and at least 700 dunams (70 ha) of agricultural land were destroyed.


2004 Israeli operation in Rafah
Israel's declared aims of Operation Rainbow were finding and destroying smuggling tunnels, targeting terrorists, and securing the Philadelphi Route by expanding the buffer zone.


2004 Israeli operation in Rafah, Background
In response to a repeated shelling of Israeli communities with Qassam rockets and mortar shells from Gaza, the IDF operated mainly in Rafah – to search and destroy smuggling tunnels used by militants to obtain weapons, ammunition, fugitives, cigarettes, car parts, electrical goods, foreign currency, gold, drugs, and cloth from  Egypt. The IDF launched a series of armored raids on the Gaza Strip (mainly Rafah and refugee camps around Gaza). On 22 March 2004, an Israeli helicopter gunship killed Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin and on 17 April, Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi was killed by IDF helicopter gunship strike.


2004 Israeli operation in Rafah, Background, Buffer zone
Since 2001, the IDF has routinely demolished Palestinian houses in Rafah, to create a buffer zone. Persons entering or approaching the buffer zone, including humanitarian workers, foreign dignitaries and UN observers came under fire. Until 2000, the IDF used a 20-40 meter wide buffer zone along the Gaza/Egypt border with a 2.5 to 3 meters high concrete wall topped with barbed wire. In 2002, the IDF destroyed hundreds of houses in Rafah, needed for expansion of the buffer zone and the building of an eight meter high and 1.6 kilometers long metal wall along the border.


2004 Israeli operation in Rafah, Background, Buffer zone
The wall also extends two meters underground. The wall is built some eighty to ninety meters from the border, which doubled the width of the patrol corridor. After the metal wall was completed in early 2003, the demolitions continued and were even increased dramatically. According to Human Rights Watch, the wall was built far inside the demolished area to create a new starting point for justifying further demolitions. Between 1 April 2003 and 30 April 2004,  487 more houses were demolished in Rafah.


2004 Israeli operation in Rafah, Background, Buffer zone
In May 2004, the Israeli government approved a plan to further expand the buffer zone. The Israeli military recommended demolishing all homes within three hundred meters of its positions, or about four hundred meters from the border.


2004 Israeli operation in Rafah, Background, Buffer zone
Human rights group PCHR recorded 290 destroyed houses in Rafah in May 2004. According to UNWRA, the total number of house buildings destroyed by the IDF in May 2004 was some 298. 131 homes were destroyed between 1 and 10 May, already before the Government's decision; some 100 houses between 14 and 16 May (Human Rights Watch mentions several rows of houses on 12 May and quotes 88 to 116 between 14 and 16 May).


2004 Israeli operation in Rafah, Background, Buffer zone
According to HRW, the IDF's justifications for the destruction were doubtful and rather consistent with the goal of having a wide and empty border area to facilitate long-term control over the Gaza Strip.


2004 Israeli operation in Rafah, Aims of the operation
Initially, the operation just started as a response on the death of five soldiers in the Philadelphi corridor on 12 May 2004; on 13 May, the Israeli government reportedly approved a plan to widen the Philadelphi Route by destroying “dozens or perhaps hundreds” of homes.


2004 Israeli operation in Rafah, Aims of the operation
On 17 May, the IDF launched "Operation Rainbow" with the objectives: finding and destroying smuggling tunnels, targeting "terrorists", and securing the Philadelphi Route. On 18 May, rumours were spread about arms shipments in the Sinai from Iran, waiting to be smuggled through the tunnels into Gaza. Israeli media mentioned anti-aircraft missiles and long-range rockets waiting to get in, possibly via tunnels underneath the Suez canal. Justice Minister Yosef Lapid said on 20 May that the Rafah operation was necessary to protect Israeli civilian airliners from anti-aircraft missiles that smugglers were attempting to bring into Rafah. No captures of such weapons are known, and a high-ranking Egyptian official interviewed by Human Rights Watch denied the existence of the shipment.


2004 Israeli operation in Rafah, Aims of the operation
Many saw the assault on Rafah as excessive, and mainly motivated by an IDF desire to appear strong in the event of disengagement.


2004 Israeli operation in Rafah, The operation, Preceding military actions
On May 11 and May 12, two M-113 armoured personnel carriers, one of Givati's Dolev combat engineering company and of the Combat Engineering Corps "Tunnels' Team", were destroyed by Palestinian militants. The two separate attacks, in Gaza City's Zeitoun neighbourhood and the Philadelphi Route near Rafah and the Egyptian border, claimed the lives of 11 IDF soldiers. Soon, Israeli troops entered the buffer zone to recover body parts of the dead soldiers. In the evening, the IDF attacked Rafah with tanks and helicopter gunships, firing shells and missiles as residents fled. Several rows of houses were demolished.


2004 Israeli operation in Rafah, The operation, Preceding military actions
On 14 May, a large IDF force entered the "Brazil block" of Rafah and in a heavy fighting, as reported by UNWRA, 12 Palestinians were killed and 52 injured. Israeli forces began demolishing houses in the Qishta neighborhood. and destroyed scores of houses. Around midnight the same day, the Israeli High Court of Justice issued an interim order temporarily barring the IDF from demolishing homes in the refugee camp, if the action was not part of "a regular military operation". Nevertheless, the IDF continued the destruction of homes until 15 May 5:00 am because of "immediate military necessity, a risk to soldiers, or a hindrance to a military operation", raising the number of destroyed houses to just over 100, according to Mezan, even to circa 120.


2004 Israeli operation in Rafah, The operation, Preceding military actions
On 16 May, the High Court ruled that the IDF may destroy homes according to their needs; the IDF had pledged that it would refrain from unnecessarily demolishing houses. The ruling caused panic among the residents and hundreds of Palestinians fled from their homes. Israeli helicopters fired missiles on the office of the weekly newspaper al-Resala in Gaza City, destroying its offices. The next day, Israel started "Operation Rainbow".


2004 Israeli operation in Rafah, The operation, Operation Rainbow
In the morning of 17 May 2004, the Israel army launched "Operation Rainbow". At 1 pm, the IDF closed the only road between Rafah and Khan Yunis and initiated a total siege. Armoured vehicles, main battle tanks and armoured bulldozers entered Rafah from the east through the Sofa Crossing, effectively cutting off Rafah from the rest of the Gaza Strip.


2004 Israeli operation in Rafah, The operation, Operation Rainbow
The next day before dawn, the army surrounded Tel al-Sultan. Armoured vehicles, tanks and bulldozers supported by helicopter gunships entered the Tel al-Sultan quarter of Rafah simultaneously from several directions; the troops established a cordon around the area and separated the area from the rest of Rafah. A number of armoured vehicles entered through UNRWA schools in the southeastern part, causing extensive damage to the school grounds. Ambulances were prevented from evacuating the casualties out of fear that they would be hijacked by terrorists. Palestinians were prevented from accessing UNRWA's health clinic in the area. An ambulance was fired at.


2004 Israeli operation in Rafah, The operation, Operation Rainbow
When a convoy of four ambulances accompanied by a Reuters vehicle were sent, they were also fired at. When they arrived at the victim, Israeli soldiers continued to fire. Israeli IDF Caterpillar D9 armoured bulldozers erected sand-barriers around Rafah to isolate it. Later, the D9s entered into the Rafah in order to open routes and demolish houses, allegedly used by militants. Extensive damage was caused to roads, water and sewage pipes and agricultural areas with greenhouses.


2004 Israeli operation in Rafah, The operation, Operation Rainbow
Under pressure of sharp international criticism, the Israel government declared on 18 May that the plan to widen a buffer zone along the Egyptian border was cancelled, while the same day, the army massively invaded Rafah and continued its large-scale destruction. The next day, the United Nations Security Council adopted "Resolution 1544", condemning the killing of Palestinian civilians and the demolition of homes.


2004 Israeli operation in Rafah, The operation, Operation Rainbow
On 19 May, the IDF ordered all males in Tel al-Sultan aged 16 years and above to gather at an UNRWA school and carried out house-to-house searches. An IDF tank fired 4 tank shells and a helicopter fired a missile on a group of demonstrating residents in Tel al-Sultan, killing 9 Palestinians and injuring 40–50 others. The IDF asserted there were gunmen in the crowd, although it did not claim to have come under fire. The IDF claimed that the shelling was intended as a warning to deter protesters and was not meant to cause casualties. IDF snipers used abandoned houses as firing positions. Many houses were damaged or destroyed. Israeli snipers shot at suspected militants who claimed they were civilians looking for water. The gunfire claimed the life of a Palestinian teen.


2004 Israeli operation in Rafah, The operation, Operation Rainbow
On 20 May the IDF entered the "Brazil", "As-Salam" and "Junena" areas of eastern Rafah and sealed off the areas. In some cases, water and electricity were cut off during the operation. Tens of homes were demolished in Brazil and As Salam without warning. Some Palestinians claimed that the IDF commenced the demolitions when they were still in their homes.


2004 Israeli operation in Rafah, The operation, Operation Rainbow
A testimony describes attacks on an ambulance: When the ambulance arrived at al-Brazil to pick up a woman and her three wounded children, Israeli tanks fired. With bulldozers and tanks, the ambulance was surrounded. A bulldozer started to place sand barriers in front of the ambulance, while another bulldozer was demolishing houses and putting the ruins behind the ambulance to lock it in. When the medical workers tried to leave the car, Israeli tanks fired. After 3 hours, the army started to remove the barriers and the ambulance returned, without the wounded civilians.


2004 Israeli operation in Rafah, The operation, Operation Rainbow
On 21 May, the Rafah zoo adjacent to the "Brazil" section of the Rafah refugee camp was destroyed during the operation. Some 60 homes were demolished and 35 others partially destroyed. also greenhouses and equipment were destroyed. The IDF withdrew their main forces from the center of Tel al-Sultan and the curfew was lifted.


2004 Israeli operation in Rafah, The operation, Operation Rainbow
On 22 and 23 May, a new incursion into the Brazil district took place. The IDF ordered all males in Abu Halaweh aged 16 years and above to gather and carried out house-to-house searches and demolitions. The IDF deliberately demolished two houses with the family who refused to leave inside. A soldier entered a house with a Palestinian as human shield. In Tel al-Sultan, the IDF destroyed with bulldozers and tanks two large agricultural areas full of greenhouses.


2004 Israeli operation in Rafah, The operation, Operation Rainbow
During the early hours of 24 May, Israeli forces withdrew completely from Tel al-Sultan, but remained present in the Brazil area until the end of the month. About 40 homes were destroyed from early in the morning until 6 pm.


2004 Israeli operation in Rafah, The operation, Operation Rainbow
On 1 June the operation officially ended. Surprisingly, the IDF choose to invade areas where armed resistance was limited, apparently to minimize confrontation with armed groups.


2004 Israeli operation in Rafah, Destruction of the Rafah zoo
On 21 May the Israeli army completely destroyed the Rafah zoo, nearly 800 meters from the border.


2004 Israeli operation in Rafah, Destruction of the Rafah zoo
After bulldozing paths on their way to the zoo, cutting across houses, a factory and fields, the IDF with bulldozers and tanks crushed all cages along with the animals. Many animals were killed, others escaped wounded. The army took more than six hours to thoroughly level the entire zoo and the adjacent decades-old olive grove. After the destruction, soldiers took possession of the house of one of the owners of the zoo, Mohammed Ahmed Juma, in the same compound and held him and his family hostage, while securing the terrain with tanks.


2004 Israeli operation in Rafah, Destruction of the Rafah zoo
The IDF said they had destroyed the zoo while en route to another objective and because an alternate route had been booby-trapped. According to Human Rights Watch, the deliberate and time-consuming nature of the destruction, the seizure of the four-story Juma’ house, and the stationing of several tanks there for over a day means that it was not an action en route, but rather part of enforcing a cordon. The Guardian alleged that the IDF issued multiple discrepant accounts to explain its actions. Mohammed Juma also accused Israeli soldiers of stealing valuable African parrots.


2004 Israeli operation in Rafah, Accusations of human rights violations
Al Mezan reported grave human rights violations. Many Palestinian civilians were killed. Many homes were destroyed or damaged. Medical services were obstructed, ambulances attacked, dead bodies could not be collected. Humanitarian assistance was denied. Large-scale wilful destruction of properties was reported; properties were stolen, soldiers urinated on mattresses and furniture. Civilians were systematically used as human shields. According to Al Mezan, the use as human shield was common use in such Israeli operations.


2004 Israeli operation in Rafah, Results, Casualties
From 12 to 15 May the IDF reportedly killed 9 Palestinian civilians and 6 fighters. Eleven IDF soldiers died on 12–13 May, later during the military operation two Israeli soldiers were killed and two more wounded. Al Mezan reported 15 killed Palestinians, all from missile attacks on 14 and 15 May, and at least 44 Palestinians during Operation Rainbow, making a total of at least 59.


2004 Israeli operation in Rafah, Results, Casualties
The IDF reportedly killed 32 Palestinian civilians, of whom 10 under age eighteen, as well as 12 armed fighters. Based on a variety of reports, accounts and statements, Human Rights Watch reported 59 Palestinians killed from  12–24 May, including 11 under age eighteen and 18 armed men.


2004 Israeli operation in Rafah, Results, Casualties
According to the IDF, 41 militants and 12 civilians were killed during the operation, where some of the civilians were killed by Palestinian fire. During the operation, from 18 May to 25 May, no Israeli soldier was killed.


2004 Israeli operation in Rafah, Results, Damage
Pictures from Rafah showed a devastated city. Due to the use of armored bulldozers and tanks, extensive damage was caused to schools, roads, water and sewage pipes and agricultural areas with greenhouses, resulting in floods and risk of disease. At least 700 dunams (70 ha) of agricultural land were destroyed.


2004 Israeli operation in Rafah, Results, Damage
As of 23 May 2004 one smuggling tunnel had been found, which according to the Israeli army was 25 feet deep and contained explosives.


2004 Israeli operation in Rafah, Results, Damage
According to UN relief agency UNRWA, the IDF destroyed 45 buildings during the operation and 155 buildings in Rafah over the past month. Human rights groups estimated that the army had demolished some 170-180 buildings in Rafah, including some 300 homes. Circa 2,000 people became homeless in Operation Rainbow. According to Human Rights Watch, from 12–24 May, 254 houses were destroyed, leaving nearly 3,800 people homeless, and 44 another houses in the Rafah area during the same month in other operations.


2004 Israeli operation in Rafah, Aftermath
On 29 June 2004, Israel started an invasion of Beit Hanoun. On 29 September, after a Qassam rocket hit the Israeli town of Sderot and killed two Israeli children, the IDF launched an invasion of the north of the Gaza Strip. The operation's stated aim was to remove the threat of Qassam rockets from Sderot. The operation ended on 16 October, leaving widespread destruction and some 130 Palestinians dead.


2004 Israeli operation in the northern Gaza Strip
In 2004 the Israeli Defense Forces launched Operation "Days of Penitence" (Hebrew: מבצע ימי תשובה), otherwise known as Operation "Days of Repentance" in the northern Gaza Strip. The operation lasted between 29 September and 16 October 2004. About 130 Palestinians, and 1 Israeli were killed.


2004 Israeli operation in the northern Gaza Strip
The operation, focused on the town of Beit Hanoun and Beit Lahia and Jabalia refugee camps, which were said to have been used as launching sites of Qassam rockets on the Israeli town of Sderot and Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip, and in particular in response to the death of two children in Sderot. The operation's name corresponds to the Hebrew name for the High Holiday season during which the operation was carried out.


2004 Israeli operation in the northern Gaza Strip, Overview
Following the death of two Israeli children from a Qassam rocket launched by Palestinian militants, Israel launched a major military invasion of the northern Gaza strip, focusing on the towns of Beit Hanoun and Beit Lahia and the Jabaliya refugee camp. The stated goal of the operation, code-named "Days of Penitence" (ימי תשובה) by the Israeli Defence Force, was to prevent Palestinians from launching rockets and mortar shells into Israeli settlements in Gaza and the town of Sderot in Israel.


2004 Israeli operation in the northern Gaza Strip, Overview
During this 17 day attack the Israeli military killed some 130 Palestinians; demolished at least 85 houses and damaged hundreds more; damaged public facilities, including schools, kindergartens and mosques, and destroyed farmland. According to Israeli soldiers, many of the buildings that were demolished were used by Palestinian militants as a cover for launching Qassam rockets and for shooting anti-tank missiles.


2004 Israeli operation in the northern Gaza Strip, Overview
During the UN Security Council deliberations over censuring Israel for this military attack, Israel accused the United Nations Relief and Welfare Agency (UNRWA) of complicity in Palestinian attacks by allowing its vehicles to transport rockets. The Israeli government released a video claiming that it showed rockets being loaded into the UNRWA ambulance. UNRWA denied the accusation and demanded an apology stating that the object was a stretcher, not a rocket (the person in the video was carrying the lightweight object with just one hand). On October 6, Israel retracted the accusation. See further discussion here.


2004 Israeli operation in the northern Gaza Strip, Overview
The attack resulted in a proposed Security Council resolution condemning the Israeli action, calling for Israeli withdrawal and respect for human rights of Palestinians. The resolution was vetoed by the United States on October 5 who criticized it for ignoring terrorism against Israelis.


2004 Israeli operation in the northern Gaza Strip, Overview
Over the weekend of October 17, the Israeli military announced that its troops withdrew from the Jabalia refugee camp and other populated areas and redeployed to positions nearby and proclaimed the attack a success, with a warning that the troops would return if the rocket attacks resume, which analysts from both sides say is likely.


2004 Israeli operation in the northern Gaza Strip, Overview
Capt. Jacob Dallal, an Israeli Defence Forces spokesman, acclaimed the operation's success: "We really impaired the ability to shoot Qassams from Jabalya. We engaged many cells and now there are fewer Hamas members to shoot rockets," he says. "We dealt a hard blow to the whole Hamas infrastructure in Jabalia."


2004 Israeli operation in the northern Gaza Strip, Overview
The  published a statement by Hamas spokesman Ismail Hanneya who asserted that the problem was not in resistance or in Qassam missiles but rather in what Hamas views as the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land: "Hamas achieved a victory over the Zionist enemy ... the blows of the resistance and the steadfastness of the people caused the occupying forces to withdraw without achieving any of their goals."


2004 Israeli operation in the northern Gaza Strip, Allegations of Israeli war crimes
In 2005 and 2006 Adalah requested the Military Advocate General (MAG) to initiate a criminal investigation into events that took place during Operation Rainbow. In 2007 also for Operation Days of Penitence. All requests had been denied. On 15 April 2007, Adalah, PCHR and Al-Haq filed a petition, in which they asked the Israeli High Court of Justice to order a criminal investigation, referring to many local and international organizations who had accused Israel of committing war crimes. Not earlier than two years later, on 6 May 2009, the Court held a hearing. Another 1.5 years later, on 8 December 2011, the Court rejected the petition because, according to the Israeli judges, the request was too late and too unspecific, the aim of the operations was justified, and a criminal investigation was not the most appropriate tool.


2004 Israeli operation in the northern Gaza Strip, Casualties
The casualties from 28 September to 16 October 2004 are as follows:


2004 Israel–New Zealand passport scandal
The 2004 Israel–New Zealand passport scandal was an incident of passport fraud in July 2004 that led New Zealand to take diplomatic sanctions against Israel. High-level contacts between the two countries were suspended after two Israeli citizens suspected of being Mossad agents, Uriel Kelman and Eli Cara, were caught trying to fraudulently acquire a New Zealand passport using the identity of a man with cerebral palsy. Prime Minister Helen Clark declared that New Zealand government viewed the acts carried out by Kelman and Cara as "not only utterly unacceptable but also a breach of New Zealand sovereignty and international law."


2004 Israel–New Zealand passport scandal, History
Howard Way, a Lynfield general practitioner testified that a man asked him to witness his passport application because he was going to Australia to get married. Way said the man was "calm and gave me no reason not to believe him. I filled out the form." A fake post office box and voicemail phone service were set up in the name of a man suffering from cerebral palsy, whose birth certificate was used in the passport application. New Zealand Department of Internal Affairs official Ian Tingey detected the irregularity and called the applicant, who had a Canadian or American accent.


2004 Israel–New Zealand passport scandal, History
"When I quizzed him on his accent his explanation to me was he had not travelled or held a New Zealand passport before but had spent a lot of time in New Zealand with Canadian friends and family." Tingey contacted the father of the disabled man and realised the application was a fraud. The police bugged Kelman's and Cara's phones, set up a sting operation, and caught Kelman and Cara in March 2004.


2004 Israel–New Zealand passport scandal, History
The case was presided over by Judge Chris Field. Cara was represented by Grant Illingworth and Kelman was represented by Nigel Faigan. Illingworth and Faigan unsuccessfully tried to get the case dismissed early by saying that pre-trial publicity was "highly prejudicial."


2004 Israel–New Zealand passport scandal, History
Kelman and Cara denied membership in Mossad but pleaded guilty to trying to enter the country illegally and working with organised criminal gangs. They were sentenced to six months in jail and ordered to pay US$32,500 to a cerebral palsy charity.


2004 Israel–New Zealand passport scandal, History
After serving either two or three months they were deported. Cara, who visited New Zealand 24 times between October 2000 and March 2004, claims he was working as a travel agent.


2004 Israel–New Zealand passport scandal, Repercussions
Prime Minister Clark cancelled a planned visit to New Zealand in August by Israeli President Moshe Katzav, delayed approval for a new Israeli ambassador to New Zealand, and called the case "far more than simple criminal behaviour by two individuals" which "seriously strained our relationship." Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom expressed sorrow, and said that Israel would work to repair the relationship. Dr. Alon Liel, former Director-General of the Israeli Foreign Ministry, said that Israel must protest the diplomatic sanctions, "for if not, it's a silent admission that the two men worked for the Mossad."


2004 Israel–New Zealand passport scandal, Repercussions
The sanctions included suspending official visits to Israel and foreign ministry contacts, requiring visas for Israeli officials to enter New Zealand. Clark said, "The ball is in Israel's court as to where it wants to move from here. Three months ago we asked for an apology and an explanation. That has not been forthcoming."


2004 Israel–New Zealand passport scandal, Repercussions
Clark said that an official inquiry that began after the arrests revealed that an Israeli passport factory had been issuing New Zealand passports. "We turned up a very small number that emanated from what we believe to be Israeli intelligence. Those passports have been cancelled and it would be futile to attempt to use them."


2004 Israel–New Zealand passport scandal, Repercussions
Jewish graves in Wellington were subsequently vandalised with Swastikas and Nazi slogans carved into and around 16 Jewish graves. The head of the New Zealand Jewish community, David Zwartz, said, "there is a direct connection between the very strong expressions against Israel and people here feeling they can take it out on Jews. It seems to me Israel-bashing one day, Jew-bashing the next day."


2004 Israel–New Zealand passport scandal, Reconciliation
On 26 June 2005 Foreign Minister Shalom sent a letter of apology to the New Zealand government saying, "In this context, we wish to express our regret for the activities which resulted in the arrest and conviction of two Israel citizens in New Zealand on criminal charges and apologize for the involvement of Israeli citizens in such activities. Israel commits itself to taking steps to prevent a recurrence of similar incidents in the future."


2004 Israel–New Zealand passport scandal, Reconciliation
Diplomatic relations were fully re-established on 30 August 2005 when Naftali Tamir presented his credentials, which were accepted, to Governor-General Dame Silvia Cartwright before a guard of honour. The Foreign Minister's deputy director for Asia and the Pacific, Amos Nadav, said, "We are happy the crisis is behind us and look ahead to the future."


2004 Israel–New Zealand passport scandal, Reconciliation
When Shalom and Jan Henderson, the New Zealand ambassador to Turkey, met for reconciliation talks on 26 October 2005, an Israeli government statement noted that the meeting was the first between high ranking New Zealand and Israel officials "since the incident with the Mossad". Israel's Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev denied that it was an official admission of Mossad activity in New Zealand and said the "incident with the Mossad" should have been in inverted commas to reflect that the espionage is alleged only by the New Zealand government. "We have never said more than we have said in the case. This issue has been solved in a satisfactory way with the New Zealand government."


2004 Israel–New Zealand passport scandal, Reconciliation
Australian Jewish News credited NZ MP Taito Phillip Field, a Jewish-Samoan political novice, of acting as a bridge between the two governments when he visited Nissan Krupsky, the former Israeli ambassador to New Zealand, in Israel in December. AJN reported that Field met with Israel's Foreign Ministry officials secretly because of the NZ ban on meetings between the government's officials. New Zealand Foreign Minister Phil Goff denied Field played any significant role in overcoming the diplomatic impasse on 1 July. "It wasn't a high-level visit.


2004 Israel–New Zealand passport scandal, Reconciliation
What he was doing was in a private capacity to see people he knew in Israel and I didn't raise any objection to him going." According to AJN, "While Field's visit eventually turned out to have critical diplomatic significance, it was described as private so as not to be seen as violating the sanctions imposed by Clark. Nonetheless, throughout his visit Field served as middleman between the two Governments, maintaining phone contacts with Wellington in order to secure Clark's approval for the start of the Ankara talks." Foreign Minister Goff denied that the talks between Israel's FM official Michael Ronen and Ambassador Henderson were a direct result of Field's visit.


2004 Israel–New Zealand passport scandal, Reconciliation
Nadav said New Zealand once "had excellent warm and friendly relations before and we wish to restore them to that same intensity. Yet we don't want to rush things by inundating New Zealand with ideas and programmes."


2004 Istanbul summit
The 2004 Istanbul summit was held in Istanbul, Turkey from 28 to 29 June 2004. It was the 17th NATO summit in which NATO's Heads of State and Governments met to make formal decisions about security topics. In general, the summit is seen as a continuation of the transformation process that began in the 2002 Prague summit, which hoped to create a shift from a Cold War alliance against Soviet aggression to a 21st-century coalition against new and out-of-area security threats. The summit consisted of four meetings.


2004 Istanbul summit
NATO members welcomed seven new alliance members during the North Atlantic Council meeting, decided to expand the alliance's presence in the War in Afghanistan and to end its presence in Bosnia, agreed to assist Iraq with training, launched a new partnership initiative and adopted measures to improve NATO's operational capabilities.


2004 Istanbul summit
The NATO-Russia Council meeting was mostly noted by the absence of both Russian president Vladimir Putin and of any progress concerning the ratification of the adapted CFE treaty or the withdrawal of Russian troops from Georgia and Moldova. NATO leaders further welcomed progress made by Ukraine towards membership in the NATO-Ukraine Commission meeting and discussed some general and mostly symbolic topics with its non-NATO counterparts during the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council meeting.


2004 Istanbul summit
Due to Turkish government fears of a terrorist attack, security measures during the summit were tight. Demonstrators from around the world gathered to protest against NATO or the American foreign policy under the George W. Bush Administration, while the summit itself was blown off the front pages of the world press by the unexpected transfer of Iraqi sovereignty, coinciding with the first day of the NATO summit on 28 June.


2004 Istanbul summit, Security measures
Unprecedented security measures were made by the Turkish government to safeguard the NATO summit from terrorist attacks. They especially feared a repetition of the Istanbul bombings of 2003 that killed more than 60 people. Their fear was proven by the arrest of 16 people in Bursa in early May on suspicion of planning to bomb the summit. Police seized guns, explosives, bomb-making booklets and 4,000 compact discs with training advice from Osama Bin Laden, and believed that the suspects were members of the radical Islamic group Ansar al-Islam, thought to be linked with al-Qaeda.


2004 Istanbul summit, Security measures
On 24 June two bombs also exploded. One bomb went off in a bus in Istanbul killing 4 people (including the bomber), the other outside a hotel in Ankara where US president George W. Bush would be staying. Additionally, on 25 June, explosives were found in a parked car at Istanbul's main airport.


2004 Istanbul summit, Security measures
Security measures included Turkish war ships and Turkish commandos in rubber boats patrolling the Bosporus, AWACS surveillance planes and F-16 warplanes circling above the city to monitor a no-fly zone over the city, and the assignment of 23,000 to 24,000 police officers, supported by police helicopters and armoured vehicles. The Bosphorus Strait was also closed to oil tankers, the underground rail system was suspended and whole city districts were sealed off. Nevertheless, a small bomb or explosive devise blew up on an empty Turkish Airlines plane on 29 June as workers were cleaning it at the main Istanbul airport. Three of the workers were slightly injured.


2004 Istanbul summit, Security measures
The extent of disruption caused by the security measures was criticized by several Turkish newspapers. The newspaper Cumhuriyet for instance called the situation "a total disgrace" and commented that Istanbul and Ankara looked like "ghost cities for a couple of days, imprisoning the people, emptying the streets and stopping boats from leaving." The newspaper further added that people died because emergency services were unable to reach them.


2004 Istanbul summit, Demonstrations
During June, there was a surge in demonstrations against the upcoming NATO summit, resulting in almost daily protests in Turkey. For instance on 16 June, Turkish riot police detained some 40 people during a demonstration and on 21 June, police used water cannon, tear gas and armoured vehicles to disperse activists who barricaded streets and threw petrol bombs. Throughout June, anti-NATO protestors from around the world gathered at Istanbul to demonstrate.


2004 Istanbul summit, Demonstrations
Protests included opposition to US foreign policy (especially opposition against the US-led Afghanistan War and the Iraq War), opposition to NATO's presence in the Balkans, opposition against NATO itself or against a new role for NATO, opposition against the continuing existence of nuclear weapons, and claims the USA abused NATO to support its policies in Iraq, the wider Middle East, and Afghanistan.


2004 Istanbul summit, Demonstrations
A day before the summit, US president George W. Bush traveled to Ankara, the capital of Turkey for advance meetings with Turkish leaders. Then and during the summit demonstrations became larger and tens of thousands of Turks demonstrated in the streets of Istanbul. On 28 June, demonstrators tried to disrupt the NATO meeting by staging several simultaneous mass demonstrations around the city. Riot police sprayed tear gas at anti-NATO demonstrators as protesters and police clashed in running street battles.


2004 Istanbul summit, Demonstrations
At least 30 people, including five police officers, were injured when anti-NATO protesters throwing stones and petrol bombs clashed with riot police. Some 20 persons were detained in these protests. The police broke up a smaller crowd, detaining at least six persons, in the Mecidiyeköy area when they tried to march towards the summit about 3 km to the south. In a separate protest, Greenpeace activists, dangling from a bridge over the Bosphorus Strait, unfurled a 30-meter banner showing a dove of peace with a nuclear missile in its beak and the phrase "Nukes out of NATO".


2004 Istanbul summit, Summit meetings
June 2004 was arguably one of the most intense months of summitry in the history of transatlantic relations. The NATO summit followed on the D-Day's 60th anniversary celebrations in Normandy (France) on 6 June; on the 30th G8 summit from 8 June until 10 June in Georgia (United States); and on the meetings with EU leaders in Dublin (Ireland) on 24 June.


2004 Istanbul summit, Summit meetings
The 2004 Istanbul summit consisted of four main meetings, all held in the Istanbul Lütfi Kırdar Convention and Exhibition Center: the North Atlantic Council (NATO's highest decision-making body, attended by heads of state and government from each of the 26 Alliance member countries); the NATO-Russia Council (which met only at the level of foreign ministers, since Russian President Vladimir Putin stayed away, reflecting ongoing tension between NATO and Russia over NATO enlargement and the Adapted Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty); the NATO-Ukraine Commission; and the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (46 countries including many former Eastern bloc and former Soviet states).


2004 Istanbul summit, Summit meetings
Besides these meetings, several visits and question sessions were made on 26 and 27 June, and several press conferences by heads of government of state or government were made after or in between the above-mentioned meetings. Once the North Atlantic Council meeting on 28 June was concluded, a statement called the "Istanbul Declaration: Our security in a new era" was issued. In this statement the leaders summarized the main conclusions of the discussions.


2004 Istanbul summit, Summit meetings
Almost forgotten in coverage of the summit was that six new members from the former Warsaw Pact – Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Slovakia, Bulgaria and Romania – plus Slovenia, joined NATO in March 2004 and were formally welcomed into the Alliance.


2004 Istanbul summit, Summit meetings, North Atlantic Council meeting (28 June), Missions
Several days before the summit, NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer described Afghanistan as "priority number one". During the summit, NATO members officially agreed that the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) would take on command of four additional Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) (one in Mazar-e-Sharif, Meymana, Feyzabad and Baghlan), falling short of the initial target of five. Until then ISAF only provided security in around the capital city Kabul and commanded one PRT in Kunduz. The 26 members agreed to contribute between them an additional 600 troops (23.08 per country) and three helicopters to the Afghan mission. The three helicopters came from Turkey, and had gone back within three months. NATO also vowed to beef up its Afghanistan peace force from 6,500 to 10,000 to help make the 2004 Afghan presidential election secure, but no actual agreement for that many additional troops was made.


2004 Istanbul summit, Summit meetings, North Atlantic Council meeting (28 June), Missions
NATO members agreed to end the NATO-led Stabilisation Force (SFOR) in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which began its mission in 1996. NATO stressed that it would maintain a presence in the country to assist in certain areas such as defence reform, or the pursuit of persons indicted for war crimes. Heads of State and Government also welcomed a decision by the European Union to establish a follow-on mission, which would take over the 7,500-member mission and which will be supported by NATO under existing NATO-EU agreements.


2004 Istanbul summit, Summit meetings, North Atlantic Council meeting (28 June), Middle East
The summit marked a shift in Alliance priorities towards greater involvement in the Middle East, a strategically important region, whose security and stability was regarded as closely linked to the Euro-Atlantic security. The existing Mediterranean Dialogue (MD) cooperation was broadened, and two new major engagements were launched: the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative (ICI) and a training mission for Iraqi troops.


2004 Istanbul summit, Summit meetings, North Atlantic Council meeting (28 June), Middle East
The summit was dominated by divisions over the Iraq War as NATO members were only able to agree to limited assistance in the form of training for Iraqi security forces. The NATO support given to Iraq troop training was in response to a request by the Iraqi Interim Government, and in accordance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1546, which requests international and regional organisations to contribute assistance to the multinational force.


2004 Istanbul summit, Summit meetings, North Atlantic Council meeting (28 June), Middle East
Even this limited agreement contained areas of contention, with France insisting that it would only help with training outside Iraq, while the United States favored that the training would take place inside Iraq. As a consequence, the deal was left deliberately vague and differences remained on whether NATO should train Iraqi officers inside Iraq, or limit itself to training outside the country and acting as a clearing house for national efforts. The commitment was also vague as it was not made clear what the size of the training mission would be or exactly when and where it would take place.


2004 Istanbul summit, Summit meetings, North Atlantic Council meeting (28 June), Middle East
German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, known for his earlier opposition to the Iraq War, commented: "The engagement of NATO is reduced to training and only training. We have made clear that we don't want to see German soldiers in Iraq." Despite outwardly optimistic statements by the US concerning NATO's commitment towards Iraqi troop training after the summit, France and Germany had refused to share the burden of responsibility for the situation in Iraq and did not support the US and British demand for sending NATO troops.


2004 Istanbul summit, Summit meetings, North Atlantic Council meeting (28 June), Middle East
Put differently, participation in the multinational forces in Iraq was left to the discretion of the particular alliance members and the USA relunctantly consented to troop training outside Iraq. Consequently, despite an outward show of NATO unity, the split over Iraq still persisted and tensions in interstate relations within the alliance were not resolved.


2004 Istanbul summit, Summit meetings, North Atlantic Council meeting (28 June), Middle East
NATO's leaders invited their Mediterranean Dialogue (MD) partners (Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Mauritania, Morocco and Tunisia) to elevate the MD to a genuine partnership by establishing a more ambitious and expanded framework for cooperation. This cooperation would be guided by the principle of joint ownership and taking into consideration their particular interests and needs.


2004 Istanbul summit, Summit meetings, North Atlantic Council meeting (28 June), Middle East
NATO leaders also decided to launch the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative (ICI) with selected states in the Greater Middle East, thus exceeding a Mediterranean scope. The initiative was an offer to engage in practical security cooperation activities with these states and each interested country would be considered by the North Atlantic Council on a case-by-case basis and on its own merit. The words "country" and "countries" in the ICI document do not exclude participation of the Palestinian Authority, but such partnership would be—like any other partnership—subject to the North Atlantic Council's approval.


2004 Istanbul summit, Summit meetings, North Atlantic Council meeting (28 June), Middle East
This initiative stands alongside NATO's Partnership for Peace Program and the Mediterranean Dialogue. NATO members regard these partnerships as a response to the new challenges of the 21st century and as a complement to the G8 and US-EU decisions to support calls for reform from within the Broader Middle East region.


2004 Istanbul summit, Summit meetings, North Atlantic Council meeting (28 June), Middle East
The ICI offers practical cooperation with interested nations in the Greater Middle East in such areas as: counter-WMD; counterterrorism; training and education; participation in NATO exercises; the promotion of military interoperability; disaster preparedness and civil emergency planning; tailored advice on defense reform and civil-military relations; and cooperation on border security to help prevent illicit trafficking of drugs, weapons, and people.


2004 Istanbul summit, Summit meetings, North Atlantic Council meeting (28 June), Plans
NATO leaders endorsed measures to improve NATO's ability to take on operations when and where necessary, committing themselves to be able at all times to deploy and sustain larger proportions of their forces on operations to ensure that NATO has a permanently available pool of assets and forces that can deployed. They also endorsed changes to NATO's defence planning, hoping that the Alliance's long-term defence planning process would become more flexible, thereby helping member countries generate forces that can reach further, faster and still take on the full range of missions.


2004 Istanbul summit, Summit meetings, North Atlantic Council meeting (28 June), Plans
NATO leaders hoped to boost the Alliance's anti-terrorism efforts with an agreement to improve intelligence sharing and to develop new, high-tech defences against terrorist attacks. NATO members committed themselves to improve intelligence sharing through a Terrorist Threat Intelligence Unit. This Unit, created after the September 11 attacks, became permanent and . Its function is to analyze general terrorist threats, as well as those that are more specifically aimed at NATO. NATO also pledged itself to stand ready to assist any member country in dealing with potential or real terrorist attacks. The Alliance's AWACS early warning radar aircraft and Chemical Biological Radiological and Nuclear Defence Battalion would be made available to any member that requests such assistance. Heads of State and Government also gave direction to develop a package of high-tech capabilities to protect civilians and forces from terrorist attacks.


2004 Istanbul summit, Summit meetings, NATO-Russia Council meeting (28 June), Linkage between the CFE ratification and the OSCE obligations
Discussions with Russia on NATO concessions in return for Russian President Vladimir Putin's attendance had been underway for some months before the summit, and intensified as the summit date drew closer. On 17 May, in the run-up to the NATO summit, NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer indicated in a speech that Putin signalled that he might honor the summit with his presence if "the conditions will be right".


2004 Istanbul summit, Summit meetings, NATO-Russia Council meeting (28 June), Linkage between the CFE ratification and the OSCE obligations
It is unclear what conditions were under discussion, but it is speculated that Putin's conditions included an enhanced Russian role in NATO decision-making through the NATO-Russia Council (NRC), NATO acceptance of Russia's continued military presence in Moldova and Georgia (the withdrawal of these troops was an obligation Russia had assumed at the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe's (OSCE) 1999 Istanbul summit); a move of NATO members to ratify that same treaty and to place the three Baltic states, that joined NATO in March 2004, under military restrictions.


2004 Istanbul summit, Summit meetings, NATO-Russia Council meeting (28 June), Linkage between the CFE ratification and the OSCE obligations
As Putin did not receive satisfaction in discussions ahead of the NATO summit – at least not to the extent that he hoped, he refused to attend the meeting. When NATO officials indicated that Putin would probably not attend the summit, Russia's Foreign Affairs Minister Sergei Lavrov reacted on the same day (2 June) by stressing the importance that Moscow attaches to enhancing its role in NRC and that Russia had not declined the invitation to attend the NRC meeting. Due to the replacement of Putin by Lavrov, the meeting was not held at the level of the Heads of State and Government (as normally would be the case), but at the level of foreign ministers.


2004 Istanbul summit, Summit meetings, NATO-Russia Council meeting (28 June), Linkage between the CFE ratification and the OSCE obligations
On 26 June, two days before the summit, US Under Secretary of State R. Nicholas Burns and US Ambassador to Russia Alexander Vershbow wrote a joint newspaper article in which they commented that the relations between NATO and Russia were good and that NATO and Russia took "a little-noticed but enormous step in our maturing partnership", referring to "Exercise Kaliningrad 2004" which brought together some 1,000 personnel from 22 NATO member and partner countries for a terrorism response exercise. In practice, several rifts between Russia and NATO were visible and became increasingly more so during the summit.


2004 Istanbul summit, Summit meetings, NATO-Russia Council meeting (28 June), Linkage between the CFE ratification and the OSCE obligations
One rift existed about NATO's non-ratification of the adapted CFE treaty and Russia's non-fulfillment of its OSCE obligations (the withdrawal of Russian troops from Moldova and Georgia). Even before the summit commenced, the rift was visible as US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld stopped, en route to Istanbul, in Moldova where he called for the withdrawal of Russian forces from the country. Another reason for tension was the accession of seven Eastern European states to NATO in March 2004 and NATO's increasing cooperation with other Eastern European and Caucasian states. On 27 June, Russia warned NATO to respect its security interests and expressed concern over NATO's stepped up activity in the Caucasus and Central Asia.


2004 Istanbul summit, Summit meetings, NATO-Russia Council meeting (28 June), Linkage between the CFE ratification and the OSCE obligations
During the NRC meeting, NATO leaders and NATO's Secretary General made a clear linkage between their Adapted Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty (adapted CFE treaty) ratification and the withdrawal of Russian troops from Moldova and Georgia, and took no notice of Russia's proposals for the earliest possible entry into force of the treaty and Russia's ratification on the eve of the summit. According to Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov these withdrawal demands were incorrect, because "the political understandings did not set any time limit for physical action".


2004 Istanbul summit, Summit meetings, NATO-Russia Council meeting (28 June), Linkage between the CFE ratification and the OSCE obligations
Put differently, Russia denied that it made clear commitments to withdraw its forces from Georgia and Moldova, a policy to which it adhered since 2002,and reaffirmed its policy of seeking bilateral agreement with Georgia on the status and functioning of Russian military bases in that country. In addition, Russia argued that it faced new threats on its southern borders: the possibility of missile launches from Iran and the expansion of Islamist terrorism, which required – in the perspective of Russia – Russian military presence in Georgia and Armenia.


2004 Istanbul summit, Summit meetings, NATO-Russia Council meeting (28 June), Linkage between the CFE ratification and the OSCE obligations
Colonel Anatoli Tesiganouk, Head of Russia's Military Forecasting Center, argued that NATO took no notice of Russia's position because NATO's leaders still had the same mental stereotypes that took shape during the Cold War; that a large part of the Western elite still regarded Russia as a kind of USSR, ignoring the fact that Russia has not only new borders, but also new aspirations, new international partners, and new threats. These stereotypes could have wittingly or unwittingly affected the relations in the NATO-Russia Council.


2004 Istanbul summit, Summit meetings, NATO-Russia Council meeting (28 June), Russia's Iraq and Afghanistan proposals
On Iraq, Lavrov proposed to hold a general conference with the participation of all Iraqi political forces (including all opposition forces and including the "armed resistance to the occupation") and Iraq's neighboring countries and the international community, including Russia. Regarding Afghanistan, Lavrov expressed the interest of Russia and other members of the Commonwealth of Independent States in suppressing terrorism and called for "establishing ties" and "developing cooperation" between NATO and the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). Both proposals received at most a lukewarm response by NATO leaders.


2004 Istanbul summit, Summit meetings, NATO-Ukraine Commission meeting (29 June)
This meeting was between NATO leaders and president of Ukraine Leonid Kuchma. NATO members expressed appreciation for Ukraine's contributions to NATO-led and other international peace support efforts such as KFOR. Ukraine also offered to support Operation Active Endeavour in the Mediterranean (a naval operation of NATO which is designed to prevent the movement of terrorists or weapons of mass destruction), an offer which NATO would consider. Defence cooperation between NATO and Ukraine was reviewed and the possible launching of a Partnership for Peace Trust Fund to help Ukraine destroy the surplus munitions, small arms and light weapons was discussed.


2004 Istanbul summit, Summit meetings, NATO-Ukraine Commission meeting (29 June)
NATO further welcomed Ukraine's desire to achieve full integration into NATO, but stressed that this would require more than troop contributions and defence reform. This would require showing commitment to the values that underpin the Alliance (democracy, rule of law, freedom of speech and media, and fair elections) as was foreseen in the NATO-Ukraine Action Plan, which was adopted during the 2002 Prague Summit. In particular NATO Secretary General de Hoop Scheffer criticized Kuchma's record on freedom of press and preparations for the Ukrainian presidential election of November 2004.


2004 Istanbul summit, Summit meetings, Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council meeting (29 June)
This meeting was mostly symbolic and did not have any concrete proposals or results. Nevertheless, some policies or earlier decisions were reaffirmed or emphasized. First of all, the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC) Heads of State and Government met with President Hamid Karzai of the Transitional Islamic State of Afghanistan and discussed the progress in that country, and recognized the valuable role played by both Allies and Partners who make up the ISAF, but also emphasized that much remains to be done for Afghanistan to become a peaceful and stable country, fully integrated into the international community.


2004 Istanbul summit, Summit meetings, Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council meeting (29 June)
Secondly, the commitment of the Euro-Atlantic community to peace, security and stability in the Balkans was reaffirmed. Further, the presence of the Heads of State of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia and Montenegro at their meeting as observers was welcomed, and these leaders were urged them to meet the outstanding conditions set for Partnership for Peace membership by Allies. Thirdly, the resolve to fight terrorism was reaffirmed and some initiatives aimed at increasing the EAPC's contribution in this fight were taken, thereby endorsing the further implementation of the Partnership Action Plan against Terrorism.


2004 Istanbul summit, Summit meetings, Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council meeting (29 June)
Fourthly, support for a major report on the future development of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership, which outlines the core objectives of Partnership (political dialogue and practical co-operation, the promotion of democratic values across the Euro-Atlantic area, preparing interested Partners for participation in NATO-led operations and support Partners who wish to join the Alliance). Fifthly, the commitment to building a Partnership which would be tailored to the different needs of individual Partners was reaffirmed.


2004 Istanbul summit, Summit meetings, Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council meeting (29 June)
In this respect, NATO's intention to place a special focus on relations with the states of the Caucasus and Central Asia was welcomed, including the decision by the Alliance to appoint one liaison officer for each region. They also welcomed the launching of the Individual Partnership Action Plan process by several states of these two regions. Sixthly, NATO's Policy on Combating Trafficking in Human Beings, which was developed in consultation with the EAPC partners, was endorsed.


2004 Istanbul summit, Summit meetings, Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council meeting (29 June)
The absence of Armenian president Robert Kocharyan drew some media attention. Kocharyan refused to join the summit to draw the alliance's attention to problems in relations between the Turkey and Armenia, in particular Turkey's refusal to consider the deaths of almost one million Armenians during World War I a genocide.


2004 Istanbul summit, Announcement of the transfer of Iraqi sovereignty
While the transfer of Iraqi sovereignty was not decided during the summit, this transfer had some connections to the summit. First of all, the news of the unexpected transfer was made public during the summit. BBC News reports that Iraq's foreign minister Hoshyar Zebari, speaking after a breakfast meeting with Blair in Istanbul on 28 June, "slipped" prematurely that the handover of sovereignty to his country was being brought forward to coincide with the meeting. Later that day, US National Security advisor Condoleezza Rice gave US president Bush during the summit the following note: "Mr. President, Iraq is sovereign.


2004 Istanbul summit, Announcement of the transfer of Iraqi sovereignty
Letter was passed from [Paul] Bremer at 10:26 am Iraq time – Condi". Bush scribbled in the margin of this note: "Let freedom reign!". Bush then turned to British prime minister Tony Blair, seated next to him, whispered that the handover had happened, and the two men shook hands. Later that day, Bush and Blair held a joint press conference, in which they welcomed the transfer. Secondly, the news of the handover pushed the summit from the front pages.


2004 Istanbul summit, Reviews
The international media reported that expectations for a successful summit were deliberately set low, because NATO leaders wanted to avoid a flare-up over the Iraq War. Therefore, they agreed to meet the modest goals the Alliance had already set for itself in trying to stabilize Afghanistan, and endorsed a tepid version of the Bush administration's initiative to promote modernization and democracy in the Arab world.


2004 Istanbul summit, Reviews
The newspaper further commented that the summit had "a sort of "Waiting for Godot" quality about it – European leaders biding time, neither creating a crisis nor mending fences, in the hope that the American election in November will somehow spare them from the choice between having to deal with Bush and letting Iraq, and NATO, slide into further disarray." Other analysis were even more critical: "There have been NATO summits at which neither a special occasion was acknowledged nor decisions of particular relevance made.


2004 Istanbul summit, Reviews
One example is the NATO summit in Istanbul in 2004, where the concluded measures hardly required a meeting of the heads of state and government, and the media presence was not justified by the agreed-upon resolutions." US and other government officials however emphasized that the summit was significant in terms of the alliance's unprecedented outreach beyond its traditional North Atlantic focus and its aggressive emphasis on force planning to tackle new challenges worldwide.


2004 Istanbul summit, Reviews
Whether or not the summit is considered important for its content, the meeting held some symbolic importance. First of all, it was the first NATO summit between the leaders of the North-American and Western European states, and Eastern European states, states that were finally, after decades of Cold War tensions, together in the same alliance. The media attention that these new members received during the summit, opened public debates about whether there was still a consensus about the purpose, the perceived threats and the future borders of NATO among its 26 members.


2004 Istanbul summit, Reviews
That this was not the case, became clear in the run-up to the 2006 Riga Summit. Secondly, the holding of the summit in Istanbul made it the most eastern summit in NATO's history. It marked the increasingly key role played by Turkey as a major strategic hub due to its location close to the hotbeds of tension and conflict in the South Caucasus and the Middle East. The location of the summit made clear that NATO's security concerns had shifted towards the southeastern part of the European continent. By shifting eastwards, the Alliance's centre of gravity ventured into very different areas from those on which the Cold War military NATO had focused.


2004 Istanbul summit, Reviews
NATO's 2004 Istanbul summit was also remarkably silent on the subject of nuclear weapons policy and non-proliferation, as opposed to pre-summit diplomacy and earlier post-Cold War NATO summits and contrary to the demonstrations going on in Istanbul. In June 2004, shortly before the summit, NATO issued two fact sheets on nuclear policy, portraying the developments within NATO in a favourable light in the run up to the 2005 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference.


2004 Istanbul summit, Reviews
In practice, no real changes since the end of the Cold War were implemented, as since the 1994 US Nuclear posture review the number of US nuclear weapons based in Europe remained unchanged, and as Cold War nuclear sharing arrangements dating back to the 1960s remained in force. Additionally, no changes were made to Alliance nuclear policy since the 1999 Strategic Concept.


2004 Italian Figure Skating Championships
The 2004 Italian Figure Skating Championships (Italian: Campionati Italiani Assoluti 2004 Pattinaggio Di Figura Su Ghiaccio) was held in Milan from January 15 through 17, 2004. Skaters competed in the disciplines of men's singles, ladies' singles, and ice dancing. The results were used to choose the teams to the 2004 World Championships, the 2004 European Championships, and the 2004 World Junior Championships.


2004 Italian Formula Three Championship
The 2004 Italian Formula Three Championship was the 40th Italian Formula Three Championship season. It began on 4 April at Adria and ended on 24 October at Misano after fourteen races.


2004 Italian Formula Three Championship
Matteo Cressoni of Ombra Racing won the opening race at Adria, race at Pergusa and had another six podiums and ultimately clinched the title. Coloni Motorsport's Toni Vilander had six wins and the same number of points as Cressoni, but he was ineligible to contest for the title. Third place went to Lucidi Motors driver Alex Frassineti, who took one victory, and he finished ahead of Imola winner Michele Rugolo, who competed with Team Ghinzani.


2004 Italian Formula Three Championship, Teams and drivers
All teams were Italian-registered and all cars competed on Hankook tyres.


2004 Italian Grand Prix
The 2004 Italian Grand Prix (officially the Formula 1 Gran Premio Vodafone d'Italia 2004) was a Formula One motor race held on 12 September 2004 at the Autodromo Nazionale di Monza. It was Race 15 of 18 in the 2004 FIA Formula One World Championship. Ferrari took a 1–2 in front of the delighted Tifosi, with Rubens Barrichello ahead of teammate Michael Schumacher. Both cars had to make their way through the field from the back, Barrichello having made an early pitstop after choosing the wrong tyres at the start and Schumacher having spun on the first lap. This was the last race for Giorgio Pantano.


2004 Italian Grand Prix
The race was perhaps best known for speed records set during the race. In the first part of qualifying (which did not count towards grid positions), Juan Pablo Montoya lapped Monza in his Williams FW26 at an average speed of 262.242 km/h (162.9 mph), the fastest lap ever, at the time, in the history of Formula One which was subsequently surpassed by Lewis Hamilton, Sebastian Vettel and Kimi Räikkönen at the 2018 edition. The next day in the race, Montoya's teammate Antônio Pizzonia reached a top speed of 369.9 km/h (229.9 mph), the fastest speed ever recorded in Formula One at the time (it was to be exceeded by Montoya in 2005).


2004 Italian Grand Prix
In the Minardi pit garage, the car of Gianmaria Bruni caught fire after fuel escaped from the hose onto the hot bodywork during a routine pit-stop, and it was put out without any serious injury. Bruni inhaled some of the extinguishant and was having trouble breathing and so the team decided to retire the car.


2004 Italian Grand Prix
This race was Scuderia Ferrari's 700th start in a World Championship event as a team.


2004 Italian Grand Prix, Friday drivers
The bottom 6 teams in the 2003 Constructors' Championship were entitled to run a third car in free practice on Friday. These drivers drove on Friday but did not compete in qualifying or the race.


2004 Italian Open (tennis)
The 2004 Italian Open (also as 2004 Rome Masters or sponsored title 2004 Telecom Italia Masters) was a tennis tournament played on outdoor clay courts. It was the 61st edition of the Italian Open and was part of the Masters Series of the 2004 ATP Tour and of Tier I of the 2004 WTA Tour. Both the men's and women's events took place at the Foro Italico in Rome in Italy. The men's tournament was played from May 3 through May 9, 2004 while the women's tournament was played from May 10 through May 16, 2004.


2004 Italian Open (tennis), Finals, Men's Doubles
Mahesh Bhupathi /  Max Mirnyi defeated  Wayne Arthurs /  Paul Hanley 2–6, 6–3, 6–4


2004 Italian Open (tennis), Finals, Women's Doubles
Nadia Petrova /  Meghann Shaughnessy defeated  Virginia Ruano Pascual /  Paola Suárez 2–6, 6–3, 6–3


2004 Italian Open – Men's Doubles
Mahesh Bhupathi and Max Mirnyi defeated defending champions Wayne Arthurs and Paul Hanley 2–6, 6–3, 6–4 in the final. It was the 34th title for Bhupathi and the 20th title for Mirnyi in their respective careers.


2004 Italian Open – Men's Singles
Félix Mantilla was the defending champion but lost in the second round to Mariano Zabaleta.


2004 Italian Open – Men's Singles
Carlos Moyá won in the final 6–3, 6–3, 6–1 against David Nalbandian.


2004 Italian Open – Men's Singles, Seeds
A champion seed is indicated in bold text while text in italics indicates the round in which that seed was eliminated.


2004 Italian Open – Women's Doubles
Svetlana Kuznetsova and Martina Navratilova were the defending champions, but Kuznetsova decided not to compete this year. Navratilova teamed up with Lisa Raymond and lost in second round to Elena Likhovtseva and Anastasia Myskina.


2004 Italian Open – Women's Doubles
Nadia Petrova and Meghann Shaughnessy won the title, defeating Virginia Ruano Pascual and Paola Suárez 2–6, 6–3, 6–3 in the final. It was the 8th title for Petrova and the 8th title for Shaughnessy in their respective careers. It was also the 4th title for the pair during this season.


2004 Italian Open – Women's Doubles, Seeds
The first four seeds received a bye into the second round.


2004 Italian Open – Women's Singles
Kim Clijsters was the defending champion, but did not compete this year due to a wrist injury.


2004 Italian Open – Women's Singles
Amélie Mauresmo, who was the runner-up last year, won the title by defeating Jennifer Capriati 3–6, 6–3, 7–6(8–6) in the final. It was the 2nd title of the year for Mauresmo and the 12th of her career.


2004 Italian Open – Women's Singles, Seeds
The first eight seeds received a bye into the second round.


2004 Italian motorcycle Grand Prix
The 2004 Italian motorcycle Grand Prix was the fourth round of the 2004 MotoGP Championship. It took place on the weekend of 4–6 June 2004 at the Mugello Circuit.


2004 Italian motorcycle Grand Prix, MotoGP classification
The race, scheduled to be run for 23 laps, was stopped after 17 full laps due to rain. It was later restarted for the remaining 6 laps, with the grid determined by the running order before the suspension. The second part of the race determined the final result.


2004 Italian motorcycle Grand Prix, Championship standings after the race (motoGP)
Below are the standings for the top five riders and constructors after round four has concluded.


2004 Italy rugby union tour
The 2004 Italy Rugby Union Tour of Romania and Japan was a series of matches played during 2004 in Romania and Japan by the Italian national rugby union team.


2004 Italy rugby union tour, Results
Romania: 15.Dan Dumbrava, 14.Vasile Ghioc, 13.Cristian Sauan, 12.Romeo Gontineac, 11.Bogdan Voicu, 10.Ionut Tofan, 9.Lucian Sirbu, 8.Alin Petrache(capt. ), 7.Ovidiu Tonita, 6.Costica Mersoiu, 5.Cristian Petre, 4.Cornel Tatu, 3.Marcel Socaciu, 2.Bogdan Zebega Suman, 1.Petru Balan,  – replacements: 16.Paulica Ion, 17.Petrisor Toderasc, 18.Valentin Ursache, 19.Marius Bejan, 20.Iulian Andrei, 21.Stefan Dumitru, 22.Ionut Dimofte Italy: 15.Gonzalo Canale, 14.Nicola Mazzucato, 13.Andrea Masi, 12.Walter Pozzebon, 11.Kaine Robertson, 10.Francesco Mazzariol, 9.Alessandro Troncon (capt), 8.Andrea de Rossi, 7.Aaron Persico, 6.Enrico Pavanello, 5.Carlo Antonio del Fava, 4.Marco Bortolami, 3.Salvatore Costanzo, 2.Fabio Ongaro, 1.Andrea Lo Cicero,  – replacements: 16.Giorgio Intoppa, 17.Mario Savi, 18.Roberto Mandelli, 19.Scott Palmer, 20.Paul Griffen, 21.Danilo Carpente, 22.Matteo Barbini


2004 Italy rugby union tour, Results
Japan: 15.Kosuke Endo, 14.Takafumi Hirao, 13.Daisuke Ohata, 12.Yukio Motoki, 11.Hirotoki Onozawa, 10.Kyohei Morita, 9.Wataru Ikeda, 8.Takeomi Ito, 7.Takuro Miuchi (capt), 6.Feletikiki Mau, 5.Takanori Kumagae, 4.Adam Parker, 3.Ryo Yamamura, 2.Yuji Matsubara, 1.Yuichi Hisadomi,  – replacements: 16.Takashi Yamaoka, 18.Lautangi Vatuvei, 19.Koichi Kubo, 21.Masatoshi Mukoyama, 22.Keiji Takei     –  No entry : 17.Yasumasa Miyamoto, 20.Mamoru ItoItaly: 15.Gonzalo Canale, 14.Kaine Robertson, 13.Andrea Masi, 12.Matteo Barbini, 11.Walter Pozzebon, 10.Rima Wakarua, 9.Paul Griffen, 8.David dal Maso, 7.Mauro Bergamasco, 6.Enrico Pavanello, 5.Marco Bortolami (capt. ), 4.Carlo Antonio del Fava, 3.Martin Castrogiovanni, 2.Fabio Ongaro, 1.Andrea Lo Cicero,  – replacements: 16.Giorgio Intoppa, 17.Mario Savi, 18.Roberto Mandelli, 19.Aaron Persico, 20.Alessandro Troncon, 21.Danilo Carpente, 22.Nicola Mazzucato


2004 Ivy League Baseball Championship Series
The 2004 Ivy League Baseball Championship Series took place at Red Rolfe Field at Biondi Park in Hanover, New Hampshire on May 8, 2004. The series matched the regular season champions of each of the league's two divisions. Princeton, the winner of the series, claimed their second consecutive, and fifth overall, title and the Ivy League's automatic berth in the 2004 NCAA Division I Baseball Tournament. It was Princeton's ninth appearance in the Championship Series, all of which were consecutive.


2004 Ivy League Baseball Championship Series
Dartmouth made their third appearance in the Championship Series, also having lost to Princeton in 2000 and 2001.


2004 J&S Cup
The 2004 J&S Cup was a Tier II tennis event on the 2004 WTA Tour that run from April 26 - May 2, 2004. It was held in Warsaw, Poland, and was the 9th year that the event was staged. The 2003 J&S Cup finalist Venus Williams won her first Warsaw title and second overall of the year.


2004 J&S Cup, Finals, Doubles
Silvia Farina Elia /  Francesca Schiavone defeated  Gisela Dulko /  Patricia Tarabini, 3-6, 6-2, 6-1


2004 J&S Cup – Doubles
Liezel Huber and Magdalena Maleeva were the defending champions, but they both chose not to compete that year.


2004 J&S Cup – Doubles
Silvia Farina Elia and Francesca Schiavone won in the final 3-6, 6-2, 6-1 against Gisela Dulko and Patricia Tarabini.


2004 J&S Cup – Singles
Amélie Mauresmo was the defending champion, but lost in the quarterfinals to Francesca Schiavone


2004 J&S Cup – Singles, Seeds
The top four seeds received a bye into the second round.


2004 J.League Cup
The J. League Cup 2004, officially the Yamasaki Nabisco Cup 2004, was the 2nd edition of Japan soccer league cup tournament and the 12th edition under the current J. League Cup format. The championship started on March 27, and finished on November 3, 2004.


2004 J.League Cup
Teams from the J1 took part in the tournament. The tournament started from the group stage, where they're divided into four groups. The group winners and runners-up of each group qualifies for the quarter-final.


2004 J.League Cup Final
2004 J.League Cup Final was the 12th final of the J.League Cup competition. The final was played at National Stadium in Tokyo on November 3, 2004. FC Tokyo won the championship.


2004 J.League Division 1
The 2004 J.League Division 1 season was the 12th season of the J1 League. The league fixture began on March 13, 2004 and ended on December 11, 2004. The Suntory Championship 2004 took place on December 5 and December 11, 2004. The first ever J.League Promotion / Relegation Series took place on December 4 and December 12, 2004.


2004 J.League Division 1, Clubs
Following sixteen clubs participated in J.League Division 1 during 2004 season. Of these clubs, Albirex Nigata and Sanfrecce Hiroshima were newly promoted from Division 2.


2004 J.League Division 1, Format
In the 2004 season, the league was conducted split-season format, 1st Stage and 2nd Stage. In each stage, sixteen clubs played in a single round-robin format, a total of 15 games per club (per stage). A club received 3 points for a win, 1 point for a tie, and 0 points for a loss. The club were ranked by points, and tie breakers are, in the following order:


2004 J.League Division 1, Format
A draw would be conducted, if necessary. The club that finished at the top of the table is declared stage champion and qualifies for the Suntory Championship. The first stage winner, hosts the first leg in the championship series. If a single club wins both stages, the club is declared the season champions and championship series will not be held. Meanwhile, the last-placed (16th-placed) club must play Pro/Rele Series at the end of the season.


2004 J.League Division 1, Suntory Championship
Yokohama F. Marinos won the first stage and thus hosted the first game. They won the first leg by 1–0 thanks to Ryuji Kawai's goal. In the second leg, Alessandro Santos scored from the free kick in 76th minute to level the aggregate score. The clubs played in sudden death extra time, however neither club could break the scoreline. Yokohama upset the home club in the penalties winning them and series overall.


2004 J.League Division 1, Attendance figures
Updated to games played on November 28, 2004Source: J.League Division 1: , Notes:† Team played previous season in J2.


2004 J.League Division 1, Awards, Best Eleven
* The number in brackets denotes the number of times that the footballer has appeared in the Best 11.


2004 J.League Division 2
The 2004 J. League Division 2 season is the 33rd season of the second-tier club football in Japan and the 6th season since the establishment of J2 League.


2004 J.League Division 2
In this season, twelve clubs competed in the quadruple round-robin format. Starting this season, promotion slots increased to 2.5 slots. The top two received automatic promotion and the third-placed finisher advanced to the Pro/Rele Series for the promotion. There were no relegation to the third-tier Japan Football League.


2004 J.League Division 2, Clubs
Following twelve clubs played in J. League Division 2 during 2004 season. Of these clubs, Vegalta Sendai and Kyoto Purple Sanga relegated from Division 1 last year.


2004 J.League Division 2, League format
Twelve clubs will play in quadruple round-robin format, a total of 44 games each. A club receives 3 points for a win, 1 point for a tie, and 0 points for a loss. The clubs are ranked by points, and tie breakers are, in the following order:


2004 J.League Division 2, League format
A draw would be conducted, if necessary. However, if two clubs are tied at the first place, both clubs will be declared as the champions. The top two clubs will be promoted to J1, while the 3rd placed club plays a two-legged Promotion/Relegation series.


2004 J.League Division 2, Promotion / Relegation Playoff
Kashiwa Reysol won on 4-0 on aggregate, and therefore both clubs remained in their respective leagues.


2004 J.League Division 2, Attendance figures
Updated to games played on November 27, 2004Source: Notes:† Team played previous season in J1.


2004 JPMorgan Chase Open
The 2004 JPMorgan Chase Open was a women's tennis tournament played on outdoor hard courts in Carson, California in the United States that was part of the Tier II of the 2004 WTA Tour. It was the 31st edition of the tournament and held from July 19 through July 25, 2004. Third-seeded Lindsay Davenport won the singles title and earned $93,000 first-prize money.


2004 JPMorgan Chase Open, Finals, Doubles
Nadia Petrova /  Meghann Shaughnessy defeated  Conchita Martínez /  Virginia Ruano Pascual, 6–7(2–7), 6–4, 6–3


2004 JPMorgan Chase Open – Doubles
Mary Pierce and Rennae Stubbs were the defending champions, but had different outcomes. While Pierce did not compete this year, Stubbs partnered with Cara Black, but they lost in first round to Daniela Hantuchová and Chanda Rubin.


2004 JPMorgan Chase Open – Doubles
Nadia Petrova and Meghann Shaughnessy won the title, defeating Conchita Martínez and Virginia Ruano Pascual 6–7(2–7), 6–4, 6–3 in the final. It was the 5th title of the year for the pair, and the 9th title for both Petrova and Shaughnessy in their respective careers.


2004 JPMorgan Chase Open – Singles
Kim Clijsters was the defending champion, but did not compete this year due to a recovery from a cyst surgery.


2004 JPMorgan Chase Open – Singles
Lindsay Davenport won the tournament, defeating Serena Williams 6–1, 6–3 in the final.


2004 JPMorgan Chase Open – Singles, Seeds
The first eight seeds received a bye into the second round.


2004 Jacksonville Jaguars season
The 2004 Jacksonville Jaguars season was the tenth season in franchise history, Jack Del Rio’s second year as the head coach of the Jacksonville Jaguars and Byron Leftwich’s first full year as starting quarterback. In a time of transition for the franchise, Del Rio’s coaching and Leftwich’s play helped to pull the Jaguars out of a four season slump to a finish of 9–7, placing second in the AFC South. However, they missed the playoffs for the fifth successive season.


2004 Jacksonville Jaguars season, Schedule
In addition to their regular games with AFC South rivals, the Jaguars played teams from the AFC West and NFC North as per the schedule rotation, and also played intraconference games against the Steelers and the Bills based on divisional positions from 2003.


2004 Jade Solid Gold Best Ten Music Awards Presentation
The 2004 Jade Solid Gold Best Ten Music Awards Presentation (Chinese: 2004年度十大勁歌金曲頒獎典禮) was held on January 2005. It is part of the Jade Solid Gold Best Ten Music Awards Presentation series held in Hong Kong.


2004 Jade Solid Gold Best Ten Music Awards Presentation, Top 10 song awards
The top 10 songs (十大勁歌金曲) of 2004 are as follows.


2004 Jalna Mosque bomb attack
The 2004 Jalna Mosque bomb attack comprises two separate crude bomb attacks at local mosques in Jalna, Maharashtra on 27 August 2004. According to senior police officer, the first blast occurred at Kadriya Masjid in Jalna at 1:45 pm and the second explosion occurred barely 15 minutes later at another mosque on the outskirts of Poorna town in Parbhani district. The attacks were carried out during Friday prayer and total 18 people were injured. Later on 18 July 2012 all seven accused were acquitted in the case due to lack of evidence by a district and sessions court.


2004 James Madison Dukes football team
The 2004 James Madison Dukes football team represented James Madison University in the 2004 NCAA Division I-AA football season, and completed the 32nd season of Dukes football. They were led by head coach Mickey Matthews and played their home games at Bridgeforth Stadium in Harrisonburg, Virginia. The 2004 team came off of a 6–6 record the previous season. JMU finished the season 13–2 with a record of 7–1 in Atlantic 10 Conference play en route to the program's first NCAA Division I-AA national championship.


2004 Japan Football League
The 2004 Japan Football League (Japanese: 第6回日本フットボールリーグ, Hepburn: Dai Rokkai Nihon Futtobōru Rīgu) was the sixth season of the Japan Football League, the third tier of the Japanese football league system.


2004 Japan Football League, Overview
It was contested by 16 teams, and Otsuka Pharmaceuticals won the championship.


2004 Japan Football League, Promotion and relegation
Because of promotion of Otsuka Pharmaceuticals and Thespa Kusatsu and expulsion of Kokushikan University, no relegation has occurred. After the season, Honda Lock, Mitsubishi Motors Mizushima and Ryutsu Keizai University were promoted from Regional Leagues by the virtue of their placing in the Regional League promotion series.


2004 Japan Golf Tour
The 2004 Japan Golf Tour season was played from 18 December 2003 to 5 December 2004. The season consisted of 29 official money events in Japan, as well as the four majors and the three World Golf Championships.


2004 Japan Golf Tour, Tournament results
The following table shows all the official money events in Japan for the 2004 season. The number in parentheses after each winner's name is the number of Japan Golf Tour events he had won up to and including that tournament. This information is only shown for Japan Golf Tour members.


2004 Japan Series
The 2004 Japan Series, the 55th edition of Nippon Professional Baseball's championship series,  began on October 16 and ended on October 25, and matched the Pacific League playoffs winner Seibu Lions against the Central League Champion, Chunichi Dragons.


2004 Japan Series, Seibu Lions
After an embarrassing sweep at the hands of the Yomiuri Giants in the 2002 Japan Series and losing out on the Pacific League pennant to the Fukuoka Daiei Hawks in 2003, the Lions were back in the Japan Series in 2004 thanks in no small part to the healthy arm of Daisuke Matsuzaka. Also helping the cause offensively was Venezuelan import Alex Cabrera, who hit a record-tying 55 home runs in 2002. Seibu had not won the Japan Series since 1992.


2004 Japan Series, Chunichi Dragons
Unlike the Lions, the Dragons had not had any success in winning the Japan Series since 1954, and this was their first appearance in the series since 1999, when they lost in 5 games to the Hawks. The Dragons pitching staff was led by Kenshin Kawakami and Masahiro Yamamoto, while Hitoki Iwase anchored the back of the bullpen. Offensively, the Dragons were led by Alex Ochoa and Kosuke Fukudome. In the middle of the infield, the Dragons were led by the amazing double-play tandem of Hirokazu Ibata and Masahiro Araki.


2004 Japan Series, Game summaries, Game 1
The first Japan Series game held in Nagoya Dome since Game 5 of the 1999 Japan Series turned out to be quite the close game, but the end result was the same: the Dragons were defeated by great pitching, this time from unheralded Takashi Ishii, who only won four games in the regular season. Chunichi had their ace on the mound in Kenshin Kawakami, who bounced back nicely from an injury-plagued 2003 season.


2004 Japan Series, Game summaries, Game 1
The two teams matched zeroes for the first three innings as Ishii struck out four and Kawakami ducked in and out of trouble. Jose Fernández hit a two-out single in the first but was stranded there, and Kawakami left Kazuhiro Wada at third after he hit a leadoff triple, but Hiroyuki Nakajima and Kosuke Noda both grounded out, Hiroyuki Takagi drew an intentional walk to get to the pitcher Ishii, who struck out.


2004 Japan Series, Game summaries, Game 1
Wada would make sure he crossed the plate in his next at-bat. The fourth inning would also see the first run of the series on a towering home run to left field to give the Lions a 1-0 lead. That lead would be doubled in the next inning as Shogo Akada drove in Tomoaki Satoh with a single after Satoh doubled to lead off the inning.


2004 Japan Series, Game summaries, Game 1
The 2-0 lead would be enough for the Seibu pitching staff, as Ishii would work seven shutout innings, giving up just two hits and striking out six. Kiyoshi Toyoda worked a perfect 9th for the Lions to preserve the win. The shutout was also the third time in the last four home Japan Series games that Chunichi had been shut out, and it was the fourth time out of the last six overall.


2004 Japan Series, Game summaries, Game 2
This would be the first of a few wild games in this series. The Dragons finally ended their home playoff futility by winning their first playoff game at Nagoya Dome at the expense of Lions ace Matsuzaka. However, the game did not start well for the Dragons.


2004 Japan Series, Game summaries, Game 2
Pitching in his third Japan Series, wily veteran screwballer Masa Yamamoto was lit up for two runs in the first inning off the bat of Fernandez, who also drove in Satoh who led off the game with a single. The quick 2-0 lead was enough for Matsuzaka for the first two innings, but he ran into his first bit of trouble in the 3rd.


2004 Japan Series, Game summaries, Game 2
Shogo Mori led off the inning with a single, and Yamamoto reached on a dropped third strike. Matsuzaka got himself into further trouble when he hit Masahiro Araki with a pitch to load the bases with nobody out. Hirokazu Ibata got a hit but saw Mori get gunned down at home. With the rally in trouble after Tatsunami grounded out, Alex Ochoa tied the game up with a two-run single to right. Matsuzaka made matters worse by plunking his second batter of the inning, this time Masahiko Morino, to re-load the bases. Finally, light-hitting catcher Motonobu Tanishige walked to force another run home and give Chunichi their first-ever lead at Nagoya Dome in the Japan series, 3-2.


2004 Japan Series, Game summaries, Game 2
Both Yamamoto and Matsuzaka would regain their composure in the following innings. Yamamoto struck out five batters between the 2nd and the 5th, and Dice-K only gave up one hit from the 4th to the 6th, striking out five in the process.


2004 Japan Series, Game summaries, Game 2
Seibu would chase Yamamoto and regain the lead in the 5th with a three-run barrage of their own. Takagi led the inning off with a single, then Satoh and Akada bot hit doubles to vault Seibu into the lead, 4-3. Eiji Ochiai came in to replace Yamamoto for the righty-on-righty matchup to Fernandez. After a sacrifice by Fernandez, the dangerous Cabrera was intentionally walked. Wada followed up the walk with a double that gave the Lions the 5-3 lead. Wada would double the Seibu advantage in the 7th with his second home run of the series, a shot that gave Seibu a seemingly safe 6-3 lead.


2004 Japan Series, Game summaries, Game 2
Then, Matsuzaka imploded. He was lit up for five runs in the 7th inning, with the rally having been started by pinch-hitter Takayuki Ohnishi. Araki lined out to right, but the rally truly began with Ibata's single to center. Tatsunami followed it up with three of his four RBIs on the day, as he hit his first home run of the series to right field, a three-run blast that tied the game at 6-6.


2004 Japan Series, Game summaries, Game 2
However, the Dragons weren't done. Ochoa drew a walk and Morino was plunked for the second time on the day, and Tanishige got in on the fun by singling home Ochoa to give the Dragons the 7-6 lead. Pinch-hitter Mitsunobu Takahashi then singled home another run to finish Matsuzaka's day and give Chunichi an 8-6 lead.


2004 Japan Series, Game summaries, Game 2
The Dragons would add three more in the 9th off Shinji Mori. Ibata collected his fourth hit of the day, stole second, and was driven home by Tatsunami. After Ochoa reached again, an RBI triple and another Tanishige RBI single ended the scoring with an 11-6 win for the Dragons. With the series going back to Seibu Dome for the next three, the Dragons were tied. They had beaten Seibu's best in Matsuzaka. Could they keep the ball rolling and win their first Japan Series since 1954?


2004 Japan Series, Game summaries, Game 3
In what was one of the wildest games in Japan Series history, Game 3 was also the first time in Japan Series history that two grand slams were hit in the same game. Kazuyuki Hoashi faced off against Domingo Guzmán for the starting pitching matchup. The first three innings were a scoreless deadlock, with Chunichi having only one hit to their credit, and Seibu having no hits.


2004 Japan Series, Game summaries, Game 3
The fourth inning saw the first runs of the game, as the potent Seibu bats once again came alive, and the feared slugger Alex Cabrera finally came to life himself. Satoh and Fernandez both singled their way on, and then Cabrera launched his first home run of the series to give Seibu the 3-0 lead.


2004 Japan Series, Game summaries, Game 3
Hoashi would make it stand up, and he got another run in support of him in the 4th when young shortstop Hiroyuki Nakajima clubbed his first home run of the series. However, he ran into trouble in the 6th: trouble that would give the Dragons a 5-4 lead. The rally started when Nakajima muffed a ground ball. After Hoashi got the first out of the inning, Tatsunami and Ochoa both singled their way on to load the bases, and  Takahashi drew a walk to force in one run. Hoashi was taken out and replaced by Shuichiro Osada, who faced Tanishige as his first batter. Tanishige took a 3-1 inside fastball and crushed it down the line in left for his first career grand slam. All of a sudden, the Lions were trailing 5-4.


2004 Japan Series, Game summaries, Game 3
With Guzman out of the game after five innings, Shinya Okamoto took over. He preserved the Dragons lead, and his teammates got him another run in the 6th when Ochoa got a bases-loaded RBI single to give the Dragons a 6-4 lead. However, the 7th truly was the lucky inning for the Lions, as Okamoto suffered an implosion of his own, similar to Matsuzaka's in the previous game.


2004 Japan Series, Game summaries, Game 3
With one out, Nakajima singled his way on, Yoshihito Ishii walked, and Takagi was hit by a pitch. Satoh doubled Nakajima and Ishii in to tie the game up at 6. At this point, conventional wisdom would say that Okamoto should have been relieved, but he was allowed to continue. Akada grounded out, and Fernandez walked. With two down, the game was hanging in the balance as Okamoto pitched to Cabrera, even though it was only the 7th inning. Cabrera responded with a towering home run to left on a 1-1 pitch that was hit out of Seibu Dome. It was Cabrera's second home run of the day, and it was also the second grand slam of the day in total. The slam gave Seibu a 10-6 lead going into the 8th.


2004 Japan Series, Game summaries, Game 3
Chunichi would not go quietly though. Against Koji Ohnuma, Omar Linares got in on the home run derby by leading off with a home run to the back screen in center to pull the Dragons to within 10-7. Morino followed it up with a double, and he came around to score on two groundouts for a 10-8 score. However, Toyoda would not let the Dragons get any closer in the 9th, as he stuck out two batters in the 9th to record the save and give Seibu a 2-1 series lead.


2004 Japan national football team
This page records the details of the Japan national football team in 2004.


2004 Japan rugby union tour of Europe
The 2004 Japan rugby union tour of Europe was a series of test-matches played in November 2004 in Scotland, Romania and Wales Europe by Japan rugby union team.


2004 Japan rugby union tour of Europe, Results
Scotland: 15.Hugo Southwell, 14.Chris Paterson, 13.Ben Hinshelwood, 12.Andrew Henderson, 11.Sean Lamont, 10.Dan Parks, 9.Chris Cusiter, 8.Jon Petrie, 7.Donnie Macfadyen, 6.Ally Hogg, 5.Nathan Hines, 4.Stuart Grimes, 3.Gavin Kerr, 2.Gordon Bulloch (capt. ), 1.Allan Jacobsen,  – replacements: 16.Robbie Russell, 17.Craig Smith, 18.Scott Macleod, 19.Jason White, 20.Mike Blair, 21.Gordon Ross, 22.Graeme Morrison Japan: 15.Ryohei Miki, 14.Koichiro Kubota, 13.Seiichi Shimomura, 12.Yukio Motoki, 11.Hayato Daimon, 10.Keisuke Sawaki, 9.Wataru Ikeda, 8.Takuro Miuchi (capt. ), 7.Hajime Kiso, 6.Naoya Okubo, 5.Hitoshi Ono, 4.Takanori Kumagae, 3.Ryo Yamamura, 2.Takashi Yamaoka, 1.Yuichi Hisadomi,  – replacements: 16.Mitsugu Yamamoto, 17.Masahito Yamamoto, 18.Feletikiki Mau, 19.Takatoyo Yamaguchi, 20.Kiyonori Tanaka, 21.Masatoshi Mukoyama, 22.Hideyuki Yoshida