Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Blog

  • We Caught The Wrong Guy

    Saddam Hussein, former employee of the American federal government, was captured near a farmhouse in Tikrit in a raid performed by other employees of the American federal government. That sounds pretty deranged, right? Perhaps, but it is also accurate. The unifying thread binding together everyone assembled at that Tikrit farmhouse is the simple fact that all of them – the soldiers as well as Hussein – have received pay from the United States for services rendered.

    It is no small irony that Hussein, the Butcher of Baghdad, the monster under your bed for these last twelve years, was paid probably ten thousand times more during his time as an American employee than the soldiers who caught him on Saturday night. The boys in the Reagan White House were generous with your tax dollars, and Hussein was a recipient of their largesse for the better part of a decade.

    If this were a Tom Clancy movie, we would be watching the dramatic capture of Hussein somewhere in the last ten minutes of the tale. The bedraggled dictator would be put on public trial for his crimes, sentenced to several thousand concurrent life sentences, and dragged off to prison in chains. The anti-American insurgents in Iraq, seeing the sudden futility of their fight to place Hussein back into power, would lay down their arms and melt back into the countryside. For dramatic effect, more than a few would be cornered by SEAL teams in black facepaint and discreetly shot in the back of the head. The President would speak with eloquence as the martial score swelled around him. Fade to black, roll credits, get off my plane.

    The real-world version is certainly not lacking in drama. The streets of Baghdad were thronged on Sunday with mobs of Iraqi people celebrating the final removal of a despot who had haunted their lives since 1979. Their joy was utterly unfettered. Images on CNN of Hussein, looking for all the world like a Muslim version of Charles Manson while getting checked for head lice by an American medic, were as surreal as anything one might ever see on a television.

    Unfortunately, the real-world script has a lot of pages left to be turned. Former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter, reached at his home on Sunday, said, “It’s great that they caught him. The man was a brutal dictator who committed terrible crimes against his people. But now we come to rest of story. We didn’t go to war to capture Saddam Hussein. We went to war to get rid of weapons of mass destruction. Those weapons have not been found.” Ray McGovern, senior analyst and 27-year veteran of the CIA, echoed Ritter’s perspective on Sunday. “It’s wonderful that he was captured, because now we’ll find out where the weapons of mass destruction are,” said McGovern with tongue firmly planted in cheek. “We killed his sons before they could tell us.”

    Indeed, reality intrudes. The push for war before March was based upon Hussein’s possession of 26,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 1,000,000 pounds of sarin gas, mustard gas, and VX nerve gas, along with 30,000 munitions to deliver these agents, uranium from Niger to be used in nuclear bombs, and let us not forget the al Qaeda terrorists closely associated with Hussein who would take this stuff and use it against us on the main streets and back roads of the United States.

    When they found Hussein hiding in that dirt hole in the ground, none of this stuff was down there with him. The full force of the American military has been likewise unable to locate it anywhere else. There is no evidence of al al Qaeda agents working with Hussein, and Bush was forced some weeks ago to publicly acknowledge that Hussein had nothing to do with September 11. The Niger uranium story was debunked last summer.

    Conventional wisdom now holds that none of this stuff was there to begin with, and all the clear statements from virtually everyone in the Bush administration squatting on the public record describing the existence of this stuff looks now like what it was then: A lot of overblown rhetoric and outright lies, designed to terrify the American people into supporting an unnecessary go-it-alone war. Said war made a few Bush cronies rich beyond the dreams of avarice while allowing some hawks in the Defense Department to play at empire-building, something they have been craving for more than ten years.

    Of course, the rhetoric mutated as the weapons stubbornly refused to be found. By the time Bush did his little ‘Mission Accomplished’ strut across the aircraft carrier, the occupation was about the removal of Saddam Hussein and the liberation of the Iraqi people. No longer were we informed on a daily basis of the “sinister nexus between Hussein and al Qaeda,” as described by Colin Powell before the United Nations in February. No longer were we fed the insinuations that Hussein was involved in the attacks of September 11. Certainly, any and all mention of weapons of mass destruction ceased completely. We were, instead, embarking on some noble democratic experiment.

    The capture of Saddam Hussein, and the Iraqis dancing in the streets of Baghdad, feeds nicely into these newly-minted explanations. Mr. Bush and his people will use this as the propaganda coup it is, and to great effect. But a poet once said something about tomorrow, and tomorrow and tomorrow.

    “We are not fighting for Saddam,” said an Iraqi named Kashid Ahmad Saleh in a New York Times report from a week ago. “We are fighting for freedom and because the Americans are Jews. The Governing Council is a bunch of looters and criminals and mercenaries. We cannot expect that stability in this country will ever come from them. The principle is based on religion and tribal loyalties,” continued Saleh. “The religious principle is that we cannot accept to live with infidels. The Prophet Muhammad, peace be on him, said, `Hit the infidels wherever you find them.’ We are also a tribal people. We cannot allow strangers to rule over us.”

    Welcome to the new Iraq. The theme that the 455 Americans killed there, and the thousands of others who have been wounded, fell at the hands of pro-Hussein loyalists is now gone. The Bush administration celebrations over this capture will appear quite silly and premature when the dying continues. Whatever Hussein bitter-enders there are will be joined by Iraqi nationalists who will now see no good reason for American forces to remain. After all, the new rhetoric highlighted the removal of Hussein as the reason for this invasion, and that task has been completed. Yet American forces are not leaving, and will not leave. The killing of our troops will continue because of people like Kashid Ahmad Saleh. All Hussein’s capture did for Saleh was remove from the table the idea that he was fighting for the dictator. He is free now, and the war will begin in earnest.

    The dying will continue because America’s presence in Iraq is a wonderful opportunity for a man named Osama bin Laden, who was not captured on Saturday. Bin Laden, it has been reported, is thrilled by what is happening in Iraq, and plans to throw as much violence as he can muster at American forces there. The Bush administration spent hundreds of billions of dollars on this Iraq invasion, not one dime of which went towards the capture or death of the fellow who brought down the Towers a couple of years ago. For bin Laden and his devotees, Iraq is better than Disneyland.

    For all the pomp and circumstance that has surrounded the extraction of the former Iraqi dictator from a hole in the ground, the reality is that the United States is not one bit safer now that the man is in chains.

    There will be no trial for Hussein, at least nothing in public, because he might start shouting about the back pay he is owed from his days as an employee of the American government. Because another former employee of the American government named Osama is still alive and free, our troops are still in mortal danger in Iraq.

    Hussein was never a threat to the United States. His capture means nothing to the safety and security of the American people. The money we spent to put the bag on him might have gone towards capturing bin Laden, who is a threat, but that did not happen. We can be happy for the people of Iraq, because their Hussein problem is over. Here in America, our Hussein problem is just beginning. The other problem, that Osama fellow we should have been trying to capture this whole time, remains perched over our door like the raven.

    *William Rivers Pitt is the Managing Editor of truthout.org.

  • Challenging ‘Pre-emption’

    The older I get, the more I become convinced that wisdom is enhanced by age, and I think the same can be said of The Nation magazine. It is more than a good read. It has become, over the years, an essential publication and a voice for the loyal opposition that is needed today as perhaps never before.

    Tonight, I have been asked to speak about Iraq.

    Early this morning came news of the capture of Saddam Hussein. That is good news. Despite his fall from power many months ago, the specter of a possible return to power had cast a constant shadow over Iraq and the Iraqi people. I applaud the tenacious work of the military and intelligence communities for their success today.

    But that success does not diminish the challenges that remain in Iraq, and it certainly does not tamp the passions inflamed against the United States throughout the Muslim world by our actions in Iraq. The capture of Saddam Hussein will not be the keystone for peace in that volatile region. This day’s news does not lessen the danger that the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive strike poses to international peace and stability.

    In order to bring lasting stability to Iraq, that nation needs the help of the entire world, not just America and her fighting needs.

    As each day passes and as more American soldiers are killed and wounded in Iraq, I become ever more convinced that the war in Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place for the wrong reasons. Contrary to the President’s rosy predictions–and the predictions of others in the Bush Administration–the United States has not been universally greeted as a liberator in Iraq. The peace–if one can use the term “peace” to describe the chronic violence and instability that define Iraq today–the peace is far from being won. Iraqi citizens may be glad that Saddam Hussein is no longer in power, but they appear to be growing increasingly resentful that the United States continues to rule their country at the point of a gun.

    What a huge price we are now paying for the President’s bullheaded rush to invoke the unwise and unprecedented doctrine of pre-emption to invade Iraq, an invasion without provocation, an invasion without the support of the United Nations or the international community.

    It would be tragic enough if the casualties of the Iraq war were confined to the battlefield, but they are not. The casualties of this war will have serious repercussions for generations to come. Truth is one casualty. Despite the best efforts of the White House to contort the invasion of Iraq into an extension of the war on terror, there was never a connection between Saddam Hussein and September 11. There was never a connection between Iraq and September 11. Not a single Iraqi was among the nineteen hijackers of those four planes. Despite dire warnings from the President, Saddam Hussein had at his fingertips neither the means nor the materiel to unleash deadly weapons of mass destruction on the world. Despite presidential rhetoric to the contrary, Iraq did not pose a grave and gathering menace to the security of the United States. The war in Iraq was nothing less than a manufactured war. It was a war served up to a deliberately misled and deluded American public to suit the neoconservative political agenda of the Bush White House.

    A lasting casualty is the international credibility and reputation of the United States of America. We have squandered the good will that had rallied to our side after the attacks of 9/11, attacks that struck just a few short blocks from where we sit tonight. At the end of that fateful day, the world was with us. The French newspaper Le Monde proclaimed, “We Are All Americans.” But we squandered that good will. We turned our sights on Iraq and turned our back on the United Nations. As a result, in some corners of the world, including some corners of Europe and Great Britain, our beloved nation is now viewed as the world bully.

    Finally, and most disheartening to me, Congress allowed the Constitution to become a casualty of the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive strikes. Congress allowed its constitutional authority to declare war to fall victim to this irresponsible strategy. Just a little more than a year ago, in October 2002, the Senate obsequiously handed to the President the constitutional authority to declare war. It failed to debate; it failed to question; it failed to live up to the standards established by the Framers. Like a whipped dog, the Senate put its tail between its legs and slunk away into the shadows, slunk away from its responsibility. Congress–and I mean both houses–Congress delegated its constitutional authority to the President and effectively washed its hands of the fate of Iraq. It is a dark and despicable mark on the escutcheon of Congress.

    The roots of this travesty can be traced directly back to the President’s doctrine of pre-emption, that cockeyed notion that the United States can pre-emptively attack any nation that for whatever reason may–may!–appear to pose a threat in the future. Not only is the doctrine of pre-emption a radical departure from the traditional doctrine of self-defense but it is also a destabilizing influence on world affairs. The Bush doctrine of pre-emption is a dangerous precedent. The Bush doctrine of pre-emption is a reckless policy. The rising tide of anti-Americanism across the globe is directly attributable to the fear and distrust engendered by this Bush doctrine of pre-emption.

    Yet too many Americans are willing–yes, even eager–to swallow the Administration line on pre-emption without examining it, without questioning it, without challenging it.

    Thank God for courageous institutions–like this one–which are willing to stand up to the tide of popular convention. I commend The Nation magazine for filling this vacuum, and I urge you to continue in your mission, without fear, without constraint, and with an unyielding commitment to truth.

    Today, for better or worse, the United States has embroiled itself in the future of Iraq. But that does not mean that we need to continue to be the lone wolf in Iraq. Unfortunately, the Administration’s latest edict to freeze out the French, German, Russian and Canadian companies from Iraq gives me little reason to hope that the President is even remotely interested in internationalizing the political, economic and security reconstruction effort. As a result, the White House continues to feed the perception throughout the world that Iraq’s reconstruction is a spoil of war. Reconstruction contracts, funded with $18.6 billion from the American taxpayer, seemingly have become kickbacks to those countries which dared not speak out–as Germany, France, Russia and Canada did speak out–against a policy of pre-emptive war.

    Like all roads to peace in the Middle East, the path to stability in Iraq may still face obstacles. We cannot precisely what those obstacles will be. But we must demand accountability from the Bush White House. We must continue to raise questions. We must continue to seek the truth. We must continue to speak out against wrongheaded policies and dangerous strategies.

    I am reminded of the closing lines from Tennyson’s “Ulysses”:

    …tho’

    We are not now that strength which in old days
    Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are–
    One equal temper of heroic hearts,
    Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will,
    To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

    For my part, I will continue to speak out, I will continue to challenge, to question, and never to yield in defense of the Constitution, the United States Senate and the American people. For your part, I hope that The Nation magazine will sail on, always serving as an advocate for the truth and an antidote to the tide of imperialism that threatens to encompass our government. Congratulations on your remarkable achievements.

    *Remarks on the 138th Anniversary Celebration of The Nation Magazine in New York City.

  • A Letter to UC President Robert Dynes

    A Letter to UC President Robert Dynes

    The following is the text of David Krieger’s letter to the University of California’s President Robert Dynes opposing the UC’s management of the Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories, which research and develop nuclear weapons.

     

    Dear President Dynes,

    I am writing on Human Rights Day to urge you to oppose further collaboration between the University of California and the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Laboratories. It is highly inappropriate for a great university like the University of California to involve itself in the research and development of weapons of mass destruction. By providing oversight and management to the nation’s nuclear weapons laboratories, the University of California places itself in the position of researching and developing weapons capable of causing massive suffering and slaughter, such as occurred at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    The International Court of Justice has stated, “There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.” Rather than contributing toward the elimination of nuclear weapons, the University of California is providing support for continued U.S. reliance on and development of nuclear weapons. Policies of the current administration include research on more usable nuclear weapons, such as mini-nukes and “bunker-busters,” research being carried out at the UC-managed labs.

    A great university should provide not only knowledge but a moral compass to the students it educates and to the larger society. The University of California cannot fulfill this function so long as it remains an accomplice in the U.S. effort to base its security on the ongoing threat of mass annihilation. The University of California should be a leader in working to end the nuclear weapons era; not a leader in contributing to new nuclear arms races that extend the nuclear weapons era.

    I encourage you to take a strong and principled stand against a continued relationship between the University of California and the nation’s nuclear weapons laboratories, a stand that will contribute to nuclear sanity and the security of all Americans.

    Sincerely,

    David Krieger
    President

    *David Krieger is the president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org). He is the editor of Hope in a Dark Time (Capra Press, 2003).

  • ‘No way except understanding’

    This year, the Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded to a woman from Iran, a Muslim country in the Middle East. My selection will make women in Iran, and much farther afield, believe in themselves. Women constitute half of the population of every country. To disregard women and bar them from active participation in political, social, economic and cultural life is tantamount to depriving the entire population of every society of half its capability. The patriarchal culture and the discrimination against women, particularly in the Islamic countries, cannot continue.

    Today coincides with the 55th anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a declaration that begins with the recognition of the inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family. Yet disasters distance humankind from the idealistic world of the authors of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In 2002, almost 1.2 billion human beings lived in glaring poverty, earning less than one dollar a day. More than 50 countries were caught up in war or natural disasters. AIDS has claimed 22 million lives, and orphaned 13 million children.

    And some states have violated the universal principles and laws of human rights by using the events of Sept. 11 and the war on terrorism as a pretext. Several United Nations resolutions have underlined that all states must ensure that any measures taken to combat terrorism comply with their obligations under international law, in particular international human- rights and humanitarian law. However, regulations restricting human rights and basic freedoms have been justified under the cloak of the war on terrorism.

    Worse, these principles are also violated in Western democracies, in other words countries that were themselves among the initial codifiers of the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Hundreds of individuals who were arrested in the course of military conflicts have been imprisoned in Guantanamo, without the benefit of the rights stipulated under the international Geneva Conventions, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

    Why is it that some decisions and resolutions of the UN Security Council are binding, while other council resolutions have no binding force? Why is it that in the past 35 years, dozens of UN resolutions concerning the occupation of the Palestinian territories by the state of Israel have not been implemented — yet, in the past 12 years, the state and people of Iraq were twice subjected to attack, military assault, economic sanctions, and, ultimately, military occupation?

    I am an Iranian, a descendent of Cyrus the Great. This emperor proclaimed at the pinnacle of power 2,500 years ago that “he would not reign over the people if they did not wish it.” He promised not to force any person to change his religion and faith and guaranteed freedom for all. The Charter of Cyrus the Great should be studied in the history of human rights.

    I am a Muslim. In the Koran, the Prophet of Islam has said: “Thou shalt believe in thy faith and I in my religion.” That same divine book sees the mission of all prophets as that of inviting all human beings to uphold justice. Since the advent of Islam, Iran’s civilization and culture have become imbued and infused with humanitarianism, respect for the life, belief and faith of others, propagation of tolerance and avoidance of violence, bloodshed and war.

    The luminaries of Iranian literature, such as Mowlavi [known in the West as Rumi], are emissaries of this humanitarian culture. Their message manifests itself in this poem by Saadi: “The sons of Adam are limbs of one another/Having been created of one essence.”

    The people of Iran have seen consecutive conflicts between tradition and modernity for more than 100 years. By resorting to ancient traditions, some are trying to see the world through the eyes of their predecessors and to deal with the problems and difficulties of the existing world by virtue of the values of the ancients. But many others, while respecting their cultural past and their religion, seek not to lag behind the caravan of civilization, development and progress. The people of Iran deem participation in public affairs to be their right; they want to be masters of their own destiny.

    This conflict can be seen in many Muslim states. Some Muslims, under the pretext that democracy and human rights are not compatible with the traditional structure of Islamic societies, have justified despotic governments, and continue to do so. Islam is a religion whose first sermon begins with the word “Recite!” Such a sermon and message cannot be in conflict with knowledge, wisdom, freedom of opinion and expression, and cultural pluralism.

    The discriminatory plight of women in Islamic states, whether in the sphere of civil law or in the realm of social, political and cultural justice, has its roots in the male-dominated culture prevailing in these societies, not in Islam. This patriarchal culture does not tolerate freedom and democracy or equal rights of men and women, because it would threaten the traditional position of the rulers of that culture.

    Some have mooted the idea of a clash of civilizations, or prescribed war and military intervention for this region. One must say to them, if you consider international human-rights laws, including a nation’s right to determine its own destiny, to be universal rights — and if you believe in the superiority of parliamentary democracy over other political systems — then you cannot selfishly think only of your own security and comfort.

    The decision by the Nobel peace committee to award the 2003 prize to me, as the first Iranian and the first woman from a Muslim country, inspires me and millions of Iranians and nationals of Islamic states with the hope that our efforts toward the realization of human rights and the establishment of democracy in our respective countries will enjoy the support of international civil society. This prize belongs to the people of Iran, Islamic states, and the people of the South.

    I have spoken of human rights as a guarantor of freedom, justice and peace. When human rights are not manifested in codified laws or put into effect by states, then human beings will be left with no choice but to rebel against oppression. If the 21st century wishes to free itself from the cycle of violence, and avoid repetition of the disasters of the 20th century, there is no other way except by understanding and putting into practice every human right, for all mankind — irrespective of race, gender, faith, nationality or social status. I anticipate that day.

    This article was orginally published in the Globe and Mail and has been adapted from the speech Shirin Ebadi in Oslo on formally accepting the Nobel Peace Prize.

  • Terrorism Has Altered The Nuclear Equation Forever

    LOS ANGELES: Fifty years ago this month President Dwight Eisenhower delivered his Atoms for Peace proposal at the United Nations. This seminal event laid the groundwork for much of the nuclear enterprise that we see around the world today. It also generated a nuclear Trojan horse.

    Countries around the world greeted the prospects of the atom with glee: nuclear power plants would be too cheap to meter and nuclear isotopes would generate a renaissance in science, medicine and industry. While the atom contributed to some of these laudable objectives, it unwittingly booby-trapped the landscape with nuclear mines that terrorists can now set off.

    The world is littered with possibilities. Dirty-bomb ingredients are ubiquitous. They are in hospitals and industry. They are transported through cities as nuclear waste to storage sites. They cannot just disappear. Nuclear power plants are vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Nuclear weapons derived from the peaceful atom reside in such unstable countries as Pakistan and North Korea. In more stable regions, countries insist on recycling weapons useable plutonium which can be diverted.

    Booby-trapping the world certainly was not Eisenhower’s intention. Anguished by the accelerating nuclear arms race with the Soviet Union, he sought a way out. His solution was to reduce the capacity of the superpowers to produce nuclear weapons by conveying their “normal uranium and fissionable materials” to an atomic energy agency. The new organization would house and distribute the stocks for peaceful purposes.

    While an international “bank of fissionable material” never came about, the Atoms for Peace address broke the American inhibition against spreading nuclear knowledge and technology to the rest of the world. In 1955, Washington initiated the United Nations Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy. Twenty-five thousand scientists descended on Geneva to take advantage of the declassification of documents that held many of the secrets of the nuclear age.

    Washington did not proceed down this road naïvely. It knew that Atoms for Peace was not risk-free. But it faced a conundrum: if the United States did not promote the atom, it could not control it either. Knowledge is universal; inevitably, the rest of the world would catch up. The challenge was to build dikes to curtail the negative implications of the spread of nuclear technology. In 1957, the International Atomic Energy Agency was created to promote and monitor global nuclear markets. The 1968 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty sought to halt the ambitions of nations to get the bomb in return for the peaceful nuclear assistance. Domestic and international controls over nuclear and dual-use exports followed. Most recently, Washington gathered several nations together in a Proliferation Security Initiative to intercept nuclear contraband.

    The dikes were not enough to prevent seepage. Israel used the “peaceful” atom provided by a French research reactor to develop the bomb. India, Pakistan, North Korea, Iraq and South Africa followed. At the same time, the United States beat back the temptations of Argentina, Brazil, South Korea, West Germany and Taiwan. When regimes changed in Belarus, Ukraine, South Africa and now Iraq, nuclear weapons programs were abandoned.

    As the international community reinforced its dikes against proliferation, it continued to build its peaceful nuclear infrastructure oblivious to another risk: nuclear terrorism. During the early nuclear era, terrorism as we know it today had not raised its ugly head. When it did emerge in the 1970’s, terrorists seemed mindful about the political costs of taking too many innocent lives.

    Nonetheless, even from the beginning of the nuclear age, the creators speculated on the risks of nuclear terrorism. In 1944, scientists at University of Chicago working on the Manhattan Project conjectured that a political group could unleash a nuclear blitzkrieg by smuggling an atomic weapon into the United States on a commercial aircraft. The terrorism of the 1970’s prompted public policy groups, many driven by a phobia of all things nuclear, to demand that weapons-useable plutonium and highly enriched uranium no longer fuel nuclear power and research reactors. The Europeans, Russians and Japanese resisted. America wavered. Then, many of these same groups began asking questions about the vulnerability of nuclear plants to terrorist attack. American officials took umbrage.

    As the 20th century ended, the absence of any serious act of nuclear violence convinced officials that nuclear terror would remain to province of fiction writers. Then the Sept. 11 attacks occurred. President George W. Bush announced that in the caves of Afghanistan, U.S. forces had uncovered plots to attack nuclear power plants. But eliminating the risks in the short run was impossible. Enhancing protection, while imperfect, remained the only option.

    As we map our nuclear future we should be mindful of the closing remarks of Eisenhower’s Atoms for Peace speech: “The United States pledges before you – and therefore before the world – its determination to help solve the fearful atomic dilemma – to devote its entire heart and mind to find the way by which the miraculous inventiveness of man shall not be dedicated to his death, but consecrated to his life.”

    In the post-Sept. 11 world, solving “the fearful atomic dilemma” requires not more but less Atoms for Peace. The risk of nuclear terrorism, coupled to the environmental and proliferation burdens the initiative gave rise to, now requires that we roll back Eisenhower’s vision and try to put the nuclear genie back in the bottle.

    *This article was originally published in Atoms for Peace’. The writer, who served in the State Department’s Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs during the first Bush administration, is author of “Nuclear Power Plants as Weapons for the Enemy.”

  • Congressional Bills Passed Support Bush Agenda For New Nuclear Weapons

    November 2003 witnessed the passing of the Defense Authorization Bill (HR1588) and Energy and Water Appropriations Bill (HR 2754) for Fiscal Year 2004. These bills provide authorization and funding for the nuclear weapons activities of both the US Department of Energy and the US Department of Defense.

    The 2004 bills include proposals to research a new generation of “usable” nuclear weapons, construct a plutonium pit facility and shorten readiness for nuclear testing, revealing the administration’s intent to rely on its nuclear forces for many decades to come – a stark contrast to US demands that other nations should forgo their nuclear arms.

    Defense Authorization Bill
    This bill authorizes annual US defense programs, including the nuclear weapons budget which is allocated in the Energy and Water Appropriations Bill.

    The 2004 Defense Authorization Bill includes provisions that would authorize funding for:

    • Research on the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) or nuclear “bunker buster”;
    • Research on Advanced Nuclear Weapons Concepts for the development of low-yield nuclear weapons or “mini-nukes”;
    • Design, building and environmental review of a new nuclear bomb plant known as the Modern Pit Facility (MPF);
    • Reduction of Enhanced Test Readiness from between 24-36 months to 18 months.

    Most significantly, Congress voted to repeal of the Spratt-Furse amendment. Adopted as part of the 1994 Defense Authorization bill, the Spratt-Furse legislation prohibits the research and development of low-yield nuclear weapons (five kilotons or less). A final vote took place in November 2003 at the Conference Committee on Defense Authorization, where the Spratt-Furse ban was repealed by a House of Representatives vote of 362-40 and a Senate vote of 95-3. The bill, allocating $401billion, was signed by President Bush on 24 November 2003.

    Energy and Water Appropriations Bill
    The Energy and Water Appropriations Bill details the Department of Energy’s (DOE) nuclear budget, covering funds for the development and production of US nuclear weapons. In July 2003, the House accepted Senator Dianne Feinstein’s (D-CA) amendments, which included the following modifications to the administration’s request:

    • Cut spending on the RNEP from $15 million to $5 million;
    • Eliminate $6 million on Advanced Nuclear Weapons Concepts for the design of “mini-nukes”;
    • Eliminate $25 million allocated for “Enhanced Test Readiness” which proposes to shorten nuclear test readiness from 24-36 to 18 months;
    • Cut spending on planning and environmental review for the MPF from $23 million to $11 million.

    Most of these proposals, however, were restored in the Senate in September 2003. The bill was reconciled at the House-Senate Conference Committee the following November, where funds totaling $27 billion were approved for water and energy programs. The House voted 387-36 to approve the final version of the bill, and the Senate later approved the bill by a unanimous voice vote. The 2004 Energy and Water Appropriations bill was signed by the President on 1 December 2003

    What the Bills Approved

    Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP)/ Nuclear “Bunker Busters”
    The Bush administration claims that current US nuclear weapons are unsuitable for use against growing numbers of deeply buried bunkers or stockpiles of chemical and/or biological weapons in enemy states and calls for developing the nuclear “bunker buster.” Designed to withstand high-speed collision with the ground, the “bunker buster” is a nuclear bomb capable of boring through 20-30 feet of rock or concrete before exploding. Research and design activities are currently taking place at Livermore (California) and Los Alamos (New Mexico) nuclear weapons laboratories, both of which are managed by the University of California.

    Unlike the “mini-nuke,” the “bunker buster” is a high yield weapon of between 100 to 300 kilotons (the Hiroshima bomb which killed 140,000 people was 15 kilotons). The detonation of such a weapon would create massive collateral damage; the targeting of underground stockpiles of chemical and/or biological weapons could spread dangerous contaminants and between 10,000-50,000 people would be exposed to a fatal dose radiation within 24 hours if used in urban areas.

    The 2004 Defense Authorization bill approved the continuation of current research on the nuclear “bunker buster.” Under its guidelines, scientists at nuclear weapons labs are able to draft detailed plans of nuclear “bunker busters,” but must seek approval from Congress prior to the commencement of engineering work on its production – a term often referred to as “bending metal.” The 2004 Energy and Water Appropriations Bill approved $7.5 million in funds for the research and development (if further authorized by Congress) of the “bunker buster,” half of the $15 million that the Bush administration had requested.

    Low-yield nuclear weapons/“Mini-nukes”
    The concept of “mini-nukes” involves the development of small-scale nuclear warheads which are under five kilotons. With an explosive impact that is small and easier to control, the Pentagon argues that such weapons would be more accurate to target, thereby minimizing collateral damage and inducing only small amounts of radioactive fallout. Research of such weapons is also taking place at Livermore and Los Alamos nuclear weapons laboratories.

    Since the Spratt-Furse amendment in 1994, research and development of low-yield nuclear weapons or “mini-nukes” has been prohibited. The introduction of “mini-nukes” would blur the distinction between nuclear and conventional weaponry, increasing the likelihood of their use in conflict.

    The passing of the 2004 Defense Authorization Bill was significant in revoking the Spratt-Furse amendment, reversing a decade of self-imposed restrictions. The 2004 Energy and Water Appropriations bill granted the full $6 million requested by the Bush administration for Advance Concept studies of “mini nukes.” $4 million of this amount will, however, be contingent on the administration’s submittal of a Nuclear Weapons Stockpile report to Congress, detailing reductions made to the US nuclear stockpile. As with the ‘bunker busters,” scientists are able to perform research on the development of “mini nukes,” but must receive Congressional approval prior to plans for production.

    Modern Pit Facility
    A plutonium pit is a steel encased ball that forms the explosive core of nuclear weapons. It serves as a trigger for the fission of atoms within a nuclear warhead, ensuring its explosion upon impact.

    The US had observed a 14-year moratorium since the 1989 closure of the Rocky Flats plutonium pit facility in Colorado. However, on 22 April 2003, Los Alamos nuclear weapons laboratory announced on that it had produced the first (small-scale) US plutonium pit, effectively re-establishing the nation’s capability to manufacture new plutonium cores for nuclear weapons. The DOE estimates that certification of Los Alamos produced pits will be complete by 2007, thus authorizing the laboratories to produce 10 pits annually for testing purposes.

    In addition, the DOE has also launched plans to build a Modern Pit Facility (MPF), a new nuclear bomb plant that would boost production in excess of 500 plutonium pits a year. Based on this, each year’s production would equal the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world, that of China’s. The construction of the MPF could produce the next generation of nuclear weapons with the introduction of “mini-nukes” and “bunker busters” and could also facilitate the contingency held open by the Bush administration to bring old nuclear weapons out of storage and back on active duty.

    The MPF will cost between $2 to $4 billion to construct, with estimated annual operational costs of $300 million. The facility is due to be constructed by 2020 and an environmental investigation is being prepared to determine how and where the pits should be manufactured. The DOE plans to name a location for the plant by April 2004 and is considering the Savannah River Site near Aiken, South Carolina; the Pantex Plant facility in Texas; the Nevada Test Site; and sites at Los Alamos and Carlsbad in New Mexico.

    With over 10,000 intact warheads, the US has manufactured enough pits for this stockpile, with another 5,000-12,000 pits in reserve. The renewed production of plutonium pits contravenes US commitments to de-emphasize its reliance on nuclear weapons and adds to speculations regarding Bush’s nuclear weapons ambitions. Plans to launch the MPF and the development of the Los Alamos pit facility coincides with the administration’s plans to increase the US nuclear arsenal and develop a new generation of nuclear weapons.

    The 2004 Defense Authorization bill approved plans for the MPF while the 2004 Energy and Water Appropriations bill allocated only $11 million for the project, $12 million short of the $23 billion that the White House had originally requested.

    Enhanced Test Readiness
    Despite the current 11-year US test moratorium, the Bush administration has called for the recommencement of nuclear testing in order to prevent the “degradation” of the US nuclear arsenal.

    The last nuclear explosion at the main US nuclear testing ground, the Nevada Test Site, occurred on 23 September 1992. A US test moratorium was subsequently established in 1994, and between 24-36 months was required to prepare the site for the resumption of full-scale testing. For Fiscal Year 2004, the Bush administration has requested the shortening of this time to 18 months.

    While Bush insists that he will not end the moratorium, simultaneous plans for increased funding towards nuclear testing and enhanced readiness of the Nevada Test Site form part of a well-coordinated effort to resume production of nuclear weapons, including new and untested weapons.

    The 2004 Defense Authorization bill allocated $34 million in funds to improve the Nevada Test Site. The 2004 Energy and Water Appropriations bill approved $25 million in spending toward Enhanced Test Readiness, but restricted the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to improve its current test readiness capability to 24 months rather than the administration’s proposal of 18 months.

    Analysis: What do the Bills mean?

    In the 2002 US Nuclear Posture Review, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld stated that the US nuclear infrastructure had “atrophied,” and emphasized the importance of revitalizing it “to increase confidence in the deployed forces, eliminate unneeded weapons and mitigate the risks of technological surprise.” Furthermore, the Pentagon report, “Future Strategic Strike Force” asserts its aims “to transform the nation’s forces to meet the demands placed on them by a changing world order.” The report advocates a new role for nuclear weapons in US strategy, making them “relevant to the threat environment” in the “war on terror.”

    The Bush administration’s view is that US must obtain the technology and skills needed to counter threats of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. In April 2003, Linton Brooks, administrator at the NNSA and the Under Secretary of Energy for Nuclear Security told a Congressional hearing, “We are seeking to free ourselves from intellectual prohibitions against exploring a full range of technical options.”

    Despite restrictions of certain funds, the approval of the Defense Authorization and Energy and Water Appropriation bills for 2004 shows strong support for most requests sought by the Bush administration. To critics this indicates moving a step closer to realizing the administration’s aggressive nuclear doctrine. The authorization of the bills further confirms to the world that nuclear weapons constitute a central component of the US defense strategy, prompting other countries to redouble their own efforts to acquire nuclear arms and begin nuclear testing.

    The Bush administration’s “vertical proliferation” plans contravene US commitments to de-emphasize reliance on nuclear weapons as well as disregard pledges made under Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in taking steps towards disarmament. While the Bush administration demands that North Korea, Iran and other countries renounce their nuclear ambitions and submit to inspections in accordance with the NPT, the US does not engage in a process of transparent and irreversible reduction and elimination of its own arsenal.

    As Director General of International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohammed ElBaradei, recently stated, “Double standards are being used here. The US government insists that other countries do not possess nuclear weapons.” He adds, “On the other hand they are perfecting their own arsenal. I do not think that corresponds with the treaty they signed.”

    By assigning a new, more “usable” role for nuclear weapons, the US is increasing the probability of nuclear weapons use, either by a nation or terrorist group. This would make it more likely, not less, that nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction would be used against the US. Unless effective measures are enforced to curb the current administration, the US will be guilty of leading the world down the slippery slope of an emerging global nuclear arms race.

    Opportunities are still available to prevent Bush’s aggressive nuclear plans from materializing. The future deployment of the administration’s new nuclear strategy will depend upon the outcome of the next presidential election, as well as congressional debates over the next few years. These, in turn, will depend upon US and international citizens engaging in a debate on future nuclear policies, and calling on Congress and presidential candidates to take a principled stance against the dangerous Bush nuclear policies.

    *Justine Wang is the Research and Advocacy Coordinator at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • Shirin Ebadi Biography

    The Iranian lawyer and human rights activist Shirin Ebadi was born in 1947. She received a law degree from the University of Tehran. In the years 1975-79 she served as president of the city court of Tehran, one the first female judges in Iran. After the revolution in 1979 she was forced to resign. She now works as a lawyer and also teaches at the University of Tehran.

    Both in her research and as an activist, she is known for promoting peaceful, democratic solutions to serious problems in society. She takes an active part in the public debate and is well-known and admired by the general public in her country for her defence in court of victims of the conservative faction’s attack on freedom of speech and political freedom.

    Ebadi represents Reformed Islam, and argues for a new interpretation of Islamic law which is in harmony with vital human rights such as democracy, equality before the law, religious freedom and freedom of speech. As for religious freedom, it should be noted that Ebadi also includes the rights of members of the bahai community, which has had problems in Iran ever since its foundation.

    Ebadi is an activist for refugee rights, as well as those of women and children. She is the founder and leader of the Association for Support of Children’s Rights in Iran. Ebadi has written a number of academic books and articles focused on human rights. Among her books translated into English are The Rights of the Child. A Study of Legal Aspects of Children’s Rights in Iran (Tehran, 1994), published with support from UNICEF, and History and Documentation of Human Rights in Iran (New York, 2000).

    As a lawyer, she has been involved in a number of controversial political cases. She was the attorney of the families of the writers and intellectuals who were victims of the serial murders in 1999-2000. She has worked actively – and successfully – to reveal the principals behind the attack on the students at Tehran University in 1999 where several students died. As a consequence, Ebadi has been imprisoned on numerous occasions.

    With Islam as her starting point, Ebadi campaigns for peaceful solutions to social problems, and promotes new thinking on Islamic terms. She has displayed great personal courage as a lawyer defending individuals and groups who have fallen victim to a powerful political and legal system that is legitimized through an inhumane interpretation of Islam. Ebadi has shown her willingness and ability to cooperate with representatives of secular as well as religious views.

  • ElBaradei Aims to End Nuclear Threat

    It was a bold response to a fearsome menace: erasing the threat of nuclear annihilation by establishing a global agency to keep nations from abusing the power of the atom. But 50 years after President Eisenhower’s landmark “Atoms for Peace” speech on Dec. 8, 1953, the U.N. nuclear agency born of his address is still struggling to contain the threat and move the world “out of the dark chamber of horrors into the light.”

    Nuclear weaponry poses even more of a danger than it did during the arms race between the United States and the former Soviet Union, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, conceded in an interview marking Monday’s anniversary of the speech.

    When Eisenhower addressed the U.N. General Assembly, there were just two nuclear powers. Today, there are at least seven: the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France, India and Pakistan. Israel is widely believed to have nuclear weapons, and North Korea says it has them, a claim that has not been verified. Washington accuses Iran of covertly developing atomic arms, a charge the Tehran regime denies.

    “I’d like us to see nuclear weapons the way we perceive slavery or genocide — that it’s taboo,” ElBaradei told a small group of reporters at his agency’s sprawling headquarters overlooking the Danube River.

    “I would not be surprised if we see more countries acquire nuclear weapons,” he said. “We need to change that environment — to move toward a world free of nuclear weapons, which have no place in our defense arsenals of the future.”

    This year alone, the IAEA has convened emergency meetings on Iraq, Iran and North Korea — the Bush administration’s “axis of evil” and the countries that pose the most immediate threat.

    Not that ElBaradei, an Egyptian, caters to Washington. His inspectors angered U.S. officials before the war in Iraq by declaring they had found no signs of an active nuclear weapons program.

    Coalition troops have not uncovered any evidence since toppling Saddam Hussein, although ElBaradei is pressing for the return of his U.N. inspection teams to make sure.

    The IAEA also has clashed with Washington over how best to deal with Iran. Convinced that keeping Iran engaged is better than driving it back underground with an explicit threat of U.N. sanctions, the agency last month withstood American attempts to toughen a resolution demanding greater Iranian openness to inspections.

    ElBaradei also has criticized Congress for releasing $6 million for U.S. research into “mini-nuke” weapons. “Far from aiming for nuclear disarmament, the United States is looking to improve its arsenal,” he told the Paris newspaper Le Figaro.

    Eisenhower believed the best way to deal with the nuclear threat was to get countries to commit to using atomic technology for purely peaceful purposes. ElBaradei said in the interview that the IAEA is supporting efforts to develop a new “proliferation-free” fuel cycle that would produce waste unfit for reprocessing for weapons use.

    The U.N. agency also is focusing on ways to minimize the risks of terrorists acquiring nuclear material that could be used to make “dirty bombs” — conventional explosives that would scatter radioactive material — a menace he said didn’t occur to the IAEA until after the Sept. 11 attacks.

    “Now we’re spending a great deal of time working on this threat,” ElBaradei said.

    Eisenhower’s speech, anchored in his belief that “if a danger exists in the world, it is a danger shared by all,” envisioned a U.N. nuclear agency that would control the world’s atomic stockpile by putting it “into the hands of those who will know how to strip its military casing and adapt it to the arts of peace.”

    The IAEA, created four years later, didn’t turn out that way.

    It doesn’t have the world’s uranium and plutonium under lock and key. Instead, the agency polices more than 900 facilities in 70 countries to ensure they comply with their commitments under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and other international accords.

    IAEA inspectors regularly visit nuclear facilities to check records on the whereabouts and inventories of nuclear materials, looking for signs that uranium and plutonium at reactors or laboratories might be diverted to military uses.

    “The vision is still as valid today as it was 50 years ago. We’re working diligently to rid ourselves of the destructive force of nuclear weaponry,” ElBaradei said.

    “But we’re not there yet. `Atoms for Peace’ is still a work in progress. We need to do better.”

     

    Associated Press

  • Peace Education on Peaceboat

    Published by CommonDreams.org

    Peaceboat, the cruise with a conscience, recently devoted an entire month onboard to exploring the nuances of peace education on a global level. Comprised mainly of Japanese students aged 20-30, with a few staunch elder generational supporters, the workshops and dialogues featured onboard covered the parallel shortcomings in Japanese and American education, as well as the potential for change through a student-lead educational revolution.

    The students revealed the complex impacts of formulaic education on self- esteem, attention span, (mis)behavior and career paths. But they were not just empty complainers: they also gave creative input for restructuring the framework of education so that all learners are nurtured and supported.

    Moreover, they recognized that the entire foundation and purpose of education must undergo a transformation of ecological proportions.

    In The Web of Life, author Fritjof Capra differentiates between a holistic and ecological worldview. Using his example of a bicycle, a holistic view would wee how the parts interact with each other, the bike chain with the pedals, the gears, the treads with the road and perhaps the whole apparatus with the rider.

    An ecological approach would see all of those interactions plus the origins of the bike materials, the fabrication of the machine, the process of assembling it from mining the metal components to the individual welder, as well as the impact on the terrain.

    This bike metaphor can also be a model for viewing the state of education in the world today. Judging by the crisis in the United States, education has unraveled to the point that teachers quit after their second year in the classroom, students despairingly drudge through the school day, many in under resourced districts lacking in both funding and morale. Pressure to perform on high-stakes testing has resulted in a catastrophic decline in true learning, sacrificed at the expense of teaching to the test. Learning for the sake of truth and knowledge is hard find.

    If we view the components of education in disarray in a holistic manner, we may try to adjust this or that part of the system, i.e., more funding here, more support there. We can tweak and adjust the various parts of the educational system, hoping that each improvement will have some impact. The majority of educational problem-solvers are addressing the issue through a holistic perspective.

    But what we really need is an ecological understanding of education.

    This means examining the path that education took on this road toward more accountability and less compassion, and the path ahead for how communities will respond to the diverse needs of students in a time when education seems to be getting short shrift.

    Is school meant to mirror factory life, with children neatly in rows, performing identical tasks at the same rate, reaching the same conclusions and the same ends? Is school meant to prepare students for a life of conformity, where repetitive motions propel them in the direction of advancement? Will standardized tests make students pass the final ‘factory inspection’?

    Or is this factory model outdated?

    Based on student input, the answer seems to be yes. An ecological approach to education means that students are heard, and their suggestions taken seriously. It means that educational change begins from the ground up, in a grassroots student revolution.

    On PeaceBoat, students of all ages participated in an Ideal Schools Workshop, an activity geared toward brainstorming the best conditions for an ideal learning environment. Not surprisingly, their ideas reflect principles of ecology and ecological thinking.

    For example, they want cows, a tree house, an organic garden, big windows, field trips in nature and permission to walk barefoot, just to name a few suggestions. One young woman wanted a pottery class to make plates and bowls for the cafeteria, with the logic that students will care for things they themselves create.

    Yet taking the students’ suggestions further means entirely rethinking the fundamental nature and purpose of education. Rather than producing cookie- cutter patterned students, students want education to acknowledge and support the individual talents and aspirations of each learner.

    An ecological view of education means moving from a compartmentalized to an integrated approach; from a factory to an agrarian framework; from an impersonal to an individual environment; from a fixed to a flexible system; from a pedagogy based on theory to one in step with experience and reality; and from a gray, boxed arena to a colorful, open space where all learners can walk in and know who is valued here.

    Leah C. Wells is a freelance journalist and coordinator of PeaceEd.org, the hub of peace education information in the U.S. For more information, contact Ms. Wells at leah@peaceed.org.

  • UC must use position to lead WMD debate: U.S. move toward more offensive weapons signals dangerous trend

    The situation surrounding the University of California’s potential bid to manage the Los Alamos National Laboratory is complex. The UC never has had to bid to manage Los Alamos. It was asked by the federal government to manage the labs and develop nuclear weapons as a public service. Competing to continue the research and development of weapons of mass destruction – a relationship that always has been in contradiction with the core mission of a university that promotes the principles of academic openness – is ethically questionable. Competing against defense contractors like Lockheed Martin and Bechtel Corp. is even more questionable.

    It is true that the ethical dimensions of this managerial role have changed greatly since the original Manhattan Project, when we justified our pursuit of the original weapons of mass destruction as necessary to counter Hitler’s program of atomic weapons development.

    Similarly, the ethical dimensions have changed since the end of the Cold War, during which our justification was the vital necessity to balance the threat posed by the Soviet Union.

    Now, we use the “War on Terror” to justify the development, planned production and threatened use of new nuclear weapons. But the role of nuclear weapons has changed as well.

    The current administration has implemented a major strategic shift in U.S. foreign/defense policy, discarding the “threat-based approach” of the Cold War and assuming an “abilities-based approach” as outlined in the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review. This means that rather than producing nuclear weapons for defensive purposes – deterrence – we are now researching and designing a new generation of offensively designed nuclear weapons. Meet the euphemistically termed “bunker buster” and “mini-nuke” that UC employees are creating.

    “Mini-nukes” are still designed to be immensely powerful. Even worse, the planned bunker busters would most likely create huge clouds of radioactive dirt after detonation. Studies have shown that weapons detonated close to the ground or in shallow pits actually create more fallout than weapons detonated as an airburst. Supposedly, these weapons would be used against enemy command posts and weapons stockpiles.

    As nuclear strategies and policies change, so should our highly prestigious and respected university. Furthermore, students should have substantial say in these changes.

    Whose university is this? Am I wrong in believing that universities exist for students? Shouldn’t students be welcomed (not to mention correctly informed) to enter this critical debate? Isn’t it our right as an inseparable part of the UC to be consulted on major decisions such as this, one that will affect the course of the university and the world for decades to come? I say yes. Is Los Alamos the real UCLA? I say no.

    But this debate is bigger than who should manage the nuclear weapons complex. Catastrophic terrorism – terrorism plus WMD – is now regarded as the most significant threat to global security. The German foreign minister went so far as to call catastrophic terror a new “totalitarian threat” because it is not deterrable. So how do we meet this challenge? Preemptive strikes and nation-building are both very limited and inefficient strategies.

    In the face of this new “totalitarian” threat, many new questions must be posed and debated – by everyone. What effect on the psyche and policy of other nations is produced through the continued research, development and threat to use weapons of mass destruction by the nation who spends more on the military then the next nine nations combined? Can the United States have weapons of mass destruction without everyone else having them? If everyone has them, how can we stop terrorists from acquiring these weapons? Is it possible to stop terrorists from acquiring biological and nuclear weapons?

    If we truly and objectively ask and answer these questions to the best of our ability as rational human beings, I think the debate about the U.S. nuclear weapons complex would quickly shift from who should manage the nuclear weapons complex to whether there should be a nuclear weapons complex to manage.

    The UC, despite its deep contradictions, is the greatest university system in the world. Why else would we have been trusted to manage Armageddon for 60 years? Since the nuclear age began with us, we are the most qualified institution to lead a much needed international debate about the future of WMD, the future of catastrophic terror and, ultimately, the future of Earth. It is not only our privilege, it is our responsibility.

    *Micheal Cox is the student organizer for the Foundation’s UC Nuclear Free Chapter at UCLA. This article was orginially published in the Daily Bruin Online athttp://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/news/articles.asp?ID=26587