Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Blog

  • Policies of Mass Destruction

    There is a force – a secret force hidden wisely from our view – that makes you and me, this newspaper, our planet, our sun and the Milky Way galaxy stretching trillions of miles around us. This force is omnipresent, coursing through every particle of your body. Indeed, this force IS you. It is the most powerful force we know, a force that makes the Universe we see, by the balance – the equilibrium – in its eternal action.

    57 years ago, this equilibrium was shattered when human beings split atoms within a primitive nuclear weapon. Through intervening decades, the phrase “weapon of mass destruction” has become all too well known in our lexicon.

    I became familiar with the controversy surrounding weapons of mass destruction in the late 1970s, when my father and mother organized Utahns United Against the Nuclear Arms race, an activist movement that confronted the United States military and ultimately helped to defeat the monstrous MX missile “shell game” basing plan. Before and since that era, other historic visionaries have battled the nuclear weapon insanity and its obscene policy fig leaf, mutually assured destruction.

    But life took me in other directions. into business, investment, and the technology breakthroughs of Silicon Valley. For more than a decade I pursued the American entrepreneurial dream as a CEO, driven by innovation and measured by profit. I was successful and content in this pursuit. That is, until I came to appreciate that there are other kinds of weapons of mass destruction than those launched from bunkers, subs and planes.

    Since 1998, I have come to realize that weapons of mass destruction come in many forms.

    A global economic program that rapes the natural world is a weapon of mass destruction far more lethal than any device in any arsenal of this world.

    An energy policy that invests in destructive rather than benign production is a weapon of mass destruction.

    Copyright and patent laws that artificially inflate the cost of sharing stories, songs, and science are weapons of mass destruction.

    Education systems that fail our children are weapons of mass destruction.

    Media that places ratings over truth is a weapon of mass destruction.

    A national security policy that shreds the sacred civil liberties within our democracy, and which sheds the international obligations between democracies, is a weapon of mass destruction.

    Indeed, a nation – our nation – whose high-school history teacher has a deeper grasp of world affairs than the man it entrusts with the future history of the world… is a weapon of mass destruction.

    To be sure, Saddam Hussein’s attempts to develop devices of mass destruction must be halted by the community of nations. But at the same time, we must ask ourselves: how can such devices best be eliminated from every nation’s arsenal? Shall it be by the development, testing and deployment of more such devices by a 21st century empire? Or rather by the global abolition of them, and a global program of verification, catalyzed by the greatest democracy the world has ever known?

    To me, one thing seems certain: we will not succeed in eliminating devices of mass destruction while we fail in eliminating policies of mass destruction. I find myself in rare agreement with George Bush in saying that we cannot allow the world’s worst leaders to use the world’s most dangerous weapons. I am hard pressed to identify a single major policy initiative of the Bush administration that is not a weapon of mass destruction.

    The elections of 2002 and 2004 are our opportunities for regime change. Let us use them wisely.

  • Choose Hope And Change The World

    Choose Hope And Change The World

    Earth Charter Summit, San Francisco

    We are gathered to consider one of the most visionary documents of our time, the Earth Charter. Before we focus our attention on this great document, though, I need to say something about the drums of war and war itself.

    I wrote this poem in 1971, more than thirty years ago during another war, but unfortunately it is again appropriate today. Listen carefully and you can hear the steady beating of the drums of war coming from Washington.

    THE DRUMS

    They’re beating on the drums again,
    the drums, the drums.
    They’re calling out the young men again,
    young men, young men.

    They’re training them to kill again,
    with knives and guns,
    with tanks and bombs.

    They’re sending them away again,
    across the ocean
    by ship, by plane.

    They’re acting up at home again,
    the mothers, the mothers.
    They don’t want their sons to go again
    to die, to die.

    And now they’re coming home again
    in caskets wrapped in flags
    with shrapnel in their backs,
    with heroin in their veins.

    And now they’re coming home again
    with snickers on their lips,
    with medals on their chests.

    They’re blowing on the bugles now.
    They’re beating on the drums,
    the drums, the drums.
    War is not an abstract. War kills people, particularly the innocent; war rips families apart, destroys cities and wastes our resources – including our most precious resource of all, our children.

    The political leaders of the most powerful nation that the world has ever known are beating on the drums of war, as they pursue perpetual war against terrorism, against the Taliban and now against Iraq. These men, flush with power, seek “regime change” in Iraq. They have decided that it is time that Saddam must go, regardless of the cost in lives of Iraqi civilians and of young Americans who will be sent to fight and die.

    If the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld team has its way, we Americans will see the face of Saddam on every Iraqi man, woman and child. They will become our targets, the “collateral damage” of the bombs we drop from 30,000 feet. They will serve as both the enemy and those we liberate with our bombs. They will be the victims of our arrogance. Their deaths and injuries will be the cause of the next cadres of terrorists who rise up after we have injured and killed their loved ones and destroyed their homes and families. The new terrorists who are created by this war will make us the victims of the hubris of our political leaders.

    Today’s American military force is an army of volunteers, composed primarily of young people who are seeking the opportunity to get ahead. They are promised a college education, something they generally could not otherwise afford, for serving in the military. They are not told when they sign up that they may have to fight and die on a far-away desert before their dreams of a college education could be fulfilled. These are the young people who will be sent to die because they lacked good economic alternatives.

    I would like to offer just one simple suggestion that could put an end to this war and perhaps all war: Let those who seek to send others to fight in wars, go themselves. Isn’t that the essence of leadership – to lead the way.

    I’m tired of leadership of the “do as I say, not as I do” variety. Unfortunately, that has become the principal form of leadership in Washington – and it is bipartisan. This style of leadership also applies to weapons of mass destruction. Our government doesn’t want Saddam to have even one nuclear weapon, but it plans to retain thousands for itself in perpetuity. Our government provided the materials for biological weapons to Iraq over many years, and now our government has sabotaged the verification protocol of the Biological Weapons Convention that the nations of the world, including our closest allies, were eager to implement.

    If Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld said they were ready to go off to fight Saddam Hussein, I would at least believe that they had a modicum of integrity for being willing to put their own lives on the line for what they believed in. Instead, they want to send someone else’s sons and daughters off to fight and die.

    And what about Congress? Do you think that those who vote for war will be willing to go or to send their sons and daughters? Of course not. They believe in sending others to fight and die so that their own patriotism will not be questioned.

    But why should we judge their patriotism by their willingness to send others to war? What is wrong with us, citizens of a democracy? How did we become so complacent, so willing to let politicians dictate the lives and deaths of our young people without being willing to put their own lives or even their careers on the line?

    Hermann Goering, the Nazi Head of the Luftwaffe, said this about war in a conversation with a prison psychologist during the Nuremberg Trials:

    Why of course the people don’t want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood.

    But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.

    Voice or no voice the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

    The human future stands on soft and precarious ground. Looking ahead, one path leads to war and devastation. Another path, far more hopeful, is the path of peace. But it must be an active, energetic and organized peace. We cannot wait for peace to come to us. We must choose peace and commit ourselves to attaining peace by our actions. A starting point for doing so is saying NO to war.

    Daisaku Ikeda has said, “Nothing is more precious than peace…. Peace is the most basic starting point for the advancement of humankind.”

    The drums of war are beating. Which will it be: Peace or war? We have choices. We can act.

    The Earth Charter is a blueprint for peace. It represents the hopes and dreams of millions of people for our common future. It is built upon an understanding of our shared humanity and our inextricable link with the web of all life. It is premised on our shared responsibility for passing the world on intact to the next generation and the next and the next. We must not be the generation that breaks faith with life and with the future.

    Never before in human history has the danger to our survival been greater. Today we live in a world in which nations are pitted against nations, in which wars are commonplace, in which overwhelmingly the victims of wars are civilians, and in which terrorists strike out at innocent civilians. All of this must change if we are to survive, if we are to flourish, and if we are to realize our full potential as human beings.

    The Earth Charter is a call to action. It is a call to each of us to rise to our full potential as human beings and to play our part in changing the world. Without our actions, the Earth Charter is only a flowery document – words upon a piece of paper. It is up to us, by our actions, to breathe life into this vision of global decency.

    Each of us is more special than we can possibly imagine. We are, in fact, miracles of creation. Each of us is entirely unique. There has never been anyone quite like you – with your combination of interests and talents, knowledge and appreciations — in the entire history of the universe. But beyond our magnificent uniqueness and our diversity, we all share a common humanity.

    We have been endowed with gifts that we often fail to realize or to use.

    We have the gift of thought and reflection, allowing us to grapple with the world’s problems and to find creative solutions, such as the Earth Charter itself.

    We have the gift of memory, making it possible for us to learn from our mistakes and those of others.

    We have the gift of voice and language, enabling us to communicate and to make our voices heard.

    We have the gift of conscience, enabling us to determine for ourselves right from wrong.

    We have the gift of creativity, allowing us to add to the world’s already enormous store of beauty through arts and literature, philosophies and religions, sciences and engineering, and day-to-day problem solving.

    We have the gift of love, making it possible to share closely with others the incredible gift of life in all its richness and beauty as well as in its sorrow and suffering.

    We have the gift of empathy, allowing us to understand another’s hurt and sorrow and to reach out with compassion and love.

    We have the gift of mobility, making it possible for us to go where we are needed.

    We have the gift to make and use tools, enabling us to extend our powers dramatically. Our tools have taken us into outer space, where our astronauts and cosmonauts have looked back on our beautiful, blue planet, so alone in the universe, so precious in its nurturing of life.

    And our tools have given us the power to destroy ourselves. That is the essence of the Nuclear Age. We can no longer be assured that the continuous flow of life, at least human life, will continue.

    Our tools are dual-purpose because we are dual-purpose, creatures capable of both good and evil.

    And we must choose. Choice itself is another of our great gifts as human beings. We each have the power of choice that we manifest each day of our lives by every act we make and decision we take.

    I believe that we are more powerful than our tools, including our most terrible weapons of mass destruction. We have the power to control these tools and to eliminate them. But we must exercise that power or our tools may eliminate us.

    As the Earth Charter tells us, the choice is ours: “We stand at a critical moment in Earth’s history, a time when humanity must choose its future.”

    That choice can be made by our apathy, complacency and ignorance. That is the choice of abandoning our humanity by default. That is the choice of abandoning our human responsibility. It is the choice of those who would sleepwalk through the greatest challenges of our time, perhaps of any time.

    That choice can be made by giving over our power to leaders who would lead us into war and greed and selfishness. That is the choice of abandoning our democratic responsibilities and playing the role of lemmings rushing over a cliff to our demise.

    Or our choice can be made by standing on our own two feet, by embracing others, by our compassion, our creativity and our commitment to changing the world.

    To choose the path of life and decency will not be easy. In fact, it will require every ounce of courage that we have. We will have to learn to believe in ourselves and to empower ourselves to be a force for peace, even against great odds.

    We will have to stand firm and confident in the power of right and decency against entrenched and powerful institutions that would have us be complacent consumers rather than active peacemakers.

    At the dawn of the Nuclear Age, just days after the first atomic weapon was dropped on the city of Hiroshima, Albert Camus, the great French writer said, “Before the terrifying prospects now available to humanity, we see even more clearly that peace is the only battle worth waging. This is no longer a prayer but a demand to be made by all peoples to their governments – a demand to choose definitively between hell and reason.”

    Let us stand with Camus and choose Peace, because it is necessary. Let us stand with Camus and demand that our governments choose reason.

    War no longer has a place on our planet, and we must stop preparing for war. We must stop squandering our resources on tools of destruction. We must demand that the $850 billion now spent on the world’s military forces be spent instead on meeting human needs. If human needs are met and principles of justice among all peoples are adhered to, there will be no need for war, and the need for defense will atrophy.

    Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “One day we must come to see that peace is not the distant goal we seek, but the means to that goal.”

    Let us stand with Martin Luther King, Jr. and choose Peace because it is a wiser course of action, respectful of human life. Let us join him in his dream for justice and dignity for all. Let us stand with him in his conviction that peace and nonviolence are not only the ends we seek, but also the means to attain those ends.

    Eleanor Roosevelt said, “The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams.”

    Let us stand with Eleanor Roosevelt and believe firmly in the beauty of our dreams. Let us believe deeply that the vision of the Earth Charter is not only right and necessary, but also possible. It is not an idle dream, but a vision of a world that must be built by our actions.

    Pablo Casals, the great master of the cello, said, “The love of country is a splendid thing. But why should love stop at the border?”

    Let us stand with Pablo Casals, and choose to be citizens of the world. Let us erase the borders in our minds and replace them with an all-embracing love for humanity. Let us work to create a world in which every person, no matter where he or she is born, is able to live with dignity and full human rights as set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

    Jacques Cousteau, who explored and shared the beauty of the oceans and who lived with a deep commitment to future generations, said, “The time has come when speaking is not enough, applauding is not enough. We have to act.”

    Let us stand with Jacques Cousteau and commit ourselves to action – to action that will change the world, even if it is done one person and one decision at a time.

    The Dalai Lama has reminded us that we must never give up. He has written:

    No matter what is going on
    Never give up
    Develop the heart
    Too much energy in your country
    Is spent developing the mind
    Instead of the heart
    Be compassionate
    Not just to your friends
    But to everyone
    Be compassionate
    Work for peace
    In your heart and in the world
    Work for peace
    And I say again
    Never give up
    No matter what is going on around you
    Never give up

    Let us stand with the Dalai Lama, who has spoken so passionately for peace and nonviolence, and pledge to never give up our struggle for a more decent and peaceful world, a world we can be proud to pass on to the next generation.

    I would like to ask each of you to take three steps today to build a peaceful world and make the Earth Charter the reality we live by.

    First, say NO to nuclear weapons – all nuclear weapons – no matter who possesses them. You can go to the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s web site at www.wagingpeace.org and sign our Appeal to End the Nuclear Weapons Threat to Humanity and All Life. While you are at the web site, you can sign up to receive our Sunflower e-newsletter that will keep you informed monthly about the latest developments in working for a nuclear weapons-free world.

    Second, say NO to war. Write to the President and to your Congressional representatives today, and tell them that war against Iraq is an unacceptable solution and that they must find peaceful means through the United Nations and international law to end our impasse with Iraq so that innocent Iraqis and Americans will not be killed and more terrorists will not be created. Send more letters to your newspapers and talk about this with your friends. You can find a sample letter and contact information at the Waging Peace web site.

    Third, say YES to Peace and Choose Hope. Put aside complacency and despair and choose Hope as the basis for all of your actions from this day forward. Not frivolous hope, but hope that is rooted in courage, compassion and commitment. Stand up for peace, for human dignity and for future generations in all you say and do.

    The Earth Charter states, “As never before in history, common destiny beckons us to seek a new beginning.” Let us begin.

    With hope as our foundation, with the Earth Charter as our guide, with each other for support, I am confident that together we will change the world.
    *David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. His most recent book is Choose Hope, Your Role in Waging Peace in the Nuclear Age.

  • Bush Abandons Biological Weapons Inspection Agreement

    Last week the Bush administration announced that it has no intention of cooperating with international efforts to verify compliance to the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC). This latest move in a series of similar policy decisions indicates a disinterest in weapons inspections and brings into question the Bush administration’s commitment to a comprehensive regime of nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

    In December 2001 the Bush administration rejected a draft Protocol to the BWC and pulled out of protocol negotiations, stating that it would return in a year with creative solutions to solve the negotiation impasse.

    The promised innovative solutions, however, were never proposed. Instead, the Bush administration stated last week that it had abandoned any efforts to come to an agreement over the protocol and that it would not return to discussions over the BWC until 2006, when the next review conference of the treaty is scheduled. As an alternative to the protocol the administration only offered guidelines for unilateral measures that countries can take to reinforce the BWC, with no international verification structure.

    The BWC announcement follows the Bush administration’s opposition to a verification structure for the recent strategic nuclear weapons reduction treaty with Russia, as well as displays of relative ambivalence about United Nations inspections in Iraq and recent signs that North Korea may be ready to allow unfettered inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Cuba has also recently announced its intention to sign on to the Non-proliferation Treaty, further evidence that US designated “rogues” are noting the importance of participating in multilateral non-proliferation efforts.

    International inspections have served as indispensable instruments of treaty verification, assuring countries that arms control agreements are indeed being adhered to. Without enforcement measures the weight of any international treaty is greatly reduced.

    Bush’s short-term enforcement alternative to inspection regimes seems to be the use of pre-emptive, unilateral force. This policy, however, falls short of a sustainable solution. Threatening a US invasion of every country suspected of developing weapons of mass destruction is impractical, inconsistent with international laws and norms, and unacceptable to the international community.

    Refusing to participate in reciprocal regimes de-legitimizes all US stated commitments to non-proliferation efforts and creates an atmosphere of distrust is likely to agitate, not ameliorate, the perceived need for state actors to possess weapons of mass destruction.

    Representatives from the international community have put decades of work into trying to develop lasting systems that would rein in the unnecessary threat caused by weapons of mass destruction. It is true that the regimes negotiated are not ideal and could be improved upon through creative diplomacy. The Bush administration, however, seems intent on unraveling the fruits of these nonproliferation and disarmament efforts while offering no sustainable alternative.

    For an in-depth critique of the Bush administrations policy towards the BWC see:http://www.stimson.org/pubs.cfm?ID=66

  • Peacful Tomorrow: Organization of Family Members of Sept. 11th Victims Speak Out at NAPF Event

    On September 24th, Kelly Campbell, who lost her brother in-law to the September 11th attacks, spoke at an event held at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation on how she and other family members of Sept. 11th victims came together in their grief to promote peaceful options in search for justice. These individuals formed an organization called September Eleventh Families for Peaceful Tomorrows (www.peacefultomorrows.org) in an attempt to prevent others from suffering the pains of loss they have in the midst of US military retaliation. “Our grief,” they said, “is not a cry for war.”

    To make clear the connection between their own suffering and the suffering of victims of the “War on Terror,” Peaceful Tomorrows has sent delegates to Afghanistan to meet Afghan civilians who have lost love ones in the US bombing campaigns. These delegates returned with the Afghans’ message of “do not forget us,” and they continue to be in contact with their Afghan sister families.

    According to Campbell, delegates who traveled to Afghanistan were shocked by the stark contrast between the lack of aid for Afghans devastated by US bombing and the outpouring of support and compassion from around the world to their families after the Sept. 11 attacks. To address this injustice, Peaceful Tomorrows advocates for government funded aid to Afghan civilians accidentally bombed by US forces, urging the administration to take responsibility for detrimental effects of its military campaign.

    Representatives from groups in the local community working on Afghan issues, such as the revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA), were also present at Tuesday’s meeting, and joined Campbell in strategizing on effective means to reach the media and policy makers with their important message.

    In addition, the participants discussed the links between the military campaign in Afghanistan and the Bush administration’s push to wage war on Iraq, which would no doubt have a devastating impact on the Iraqi civilian population. In a letter to President Bush the Peaceful Tomorrow members stated:

    “We know that war in Iraq would cause the suffering of many thousands of innocent Iraqi families, people who, like our family members on September 11th, will find themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time. A war would also place our military personnel in harm’s way, causing deaths and the suffering of more American families. It is out of concern for our own service people and for the Iraqi citizens that we implore you to pursue a resolution of the situation in Iraq without war.”

    After the NAPF event Campbell flew directly to Washington D.C. to meet with Congressional representatives to oppose war against Iraq.

  • As General Debate of 57th General Assembly Opens, Secretary-General Stresses Indispensable Necessity of Multilateralism

    United States President Bush Calls on International Community To Stand Up for Its Security, Saying Iraqi Government a ‘Grave Danger’

    Opening the general debate of the fifty-seventh session of the General Assembly this morning, Secretary-General Kofi Annan strongly reaffirmed the indispensable necessity and enduring relevance of multilateralism and multilateral institutions in efforts to maintain international peace, security and freedom for all.

    “I stand before you today as a multilateralist -– by precedent, by principle, by Charter and by duty”, he told delegations and world leaders. Recalling the 11 September terrorist attacks on the United States, he said the sustained global response to meet that “brutal and criminal challenge” could only be successful by making use of multilateral institutions. When countries worked together in such institutions –- developing, respecting and when necessary, enforcing international law –- they also developed mutual trust and cooperation on other issues, including ensuring open markets and providing protection from acid rain, global warming or the spread of HIV/AIDS.

    The more a country made use of multilateral institutions — on matters large or small — the more others would trust and respect that country and the stronger its chance to exercise true leadership. “And among multilateral institutions, this universal Organization has a special place”, he said. When States decided to use force to deal with broader threats to international peace and security, there was no substitute for the unique legitimacy provided by the United Nations.

    He said the existence of an effective international security system depended on the Security Council’s authority -– and therefore the Council must have the political will to act, even in the most difficult cases, when agreement seemed elusive. The primary criterion for putting an issue on the Council’s agenda should not be the receptiveness of the parties, but the existence of a grave threat to world peace. Highlighting several challenges facing the international community today, he noted that the leadership of Iraq continued to defy mandatory Council resolutions and urged that country to comply with its obligations. If Iraq’s defiance continued, the Council must face its responsibilities.

    George Bush, President of the United States, said the United Nations had been born of the hope of a world moving towards justice, escaping old patterns of

    conflict and fear. The Security Council had been created so that diplomatic deliberations would be more than talk, and resolutions would be more than wishes. After generations of deceitful dictators and broken treaties, the international community had dedicated itself to standards of dignity shared by all and to a system of security defended by all. Today, those standards and that security were challenged.

    Iraq had answered a decade of United Nations resolutions with a decade of defiance. “All the world now faces a test”, he said, “and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment.” And as the Assembly met today, it had been almost four years since last United Nations inspectors had set foot in Iraq, and Saddam Hussein’s actions, as well as history, logic and the facts, could lead to but one conclusion -– the Iraqi regime was a grave and gathering danger. To assume that regime’s good faith was to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. “And that is a risk we must not take.” Saddam Hussein continued to defy those efforts and to build weapons of mass destruction — a threat to the authority of the United Nations and a threat to peace.

    Were Security Council resolutions to be honoured and enforced? he asked. Or were they to be cast aside without consequence? Would the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or would it be irrelevant? The partnership of nations could meet the test before it by making clear what was expected of the Iraqi regime. The purposes of the United States should not be doubted –- Council resolutions would be enforced and the demands of peace and security would be met, or action would be unavoidable. The international community must stand up for its security and for the permanent rights and hopes of mankind. By heritage and by choice, the United States would make that stand. Representatives of United Nations Member States had the power to make that stand as well.

    Explaining that the root causes of terrorism were a sense of frustration and powerlessness to redress persistent injustice, Pervez Musharraf, President of Pakistan said that while terrorist attacks needed to be condemned, they should not be used to justify outlawing the struggles of a people for self-determination and liberation from colonial or foreign occupation, nor used to justify State terrorism. India had misused the rationale of war against terrorism against Pakistan on the issue of Kashmir, but his country would not be coerced or frightened into compromising on its principled position. The conflict in occupied Kashmir was being waged by Kashmiris, who needed to be allowed to exercise their right to determine their own future.

    He went on to say that, unfortunately, the war against terrorism had been used as a vehicle to spread hatred against Islam and Muslims. As a first step in creating a sustained dialogue between the Islamic and Western nations, he proposed the adoption of a Declaration on Religious and Cultural Understanding, Harmony and Cooperation. His own Government was focused upon restoring the traditions of a tolerant Islam, he said, and had laid the foundations for sustainable development and democracy in three short years by empowering people through the devolution of decision-making to the grass-roots level, improving human rights, rationalizing

    (page 1b follows)

    economic policies and setting up the first Human Development Fund in collaboration with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).

    Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Prime Minister of Denmark, speaking on behalf of the European Union, affirmed that the terrorist attacks of 11 September last year had not weakened, but rather had strengthened the resolve of its members to actively seek security and prosperity for all.

    Iraq remained a major source of concern as well, with regard to weapons of mass destruction, he said. Unconditional and unimpeded access for the weapons inspectors was needed, as well as compliance with the obligations contained in the several Security Council resolutions on the situation in Iraq. The European Union agreed with the United States position that the Security Council urgently needed to address the matter of Iraq. It also agreed with the Secretary-General’s statement that if Iraq’s defiance continued, the Security Council would need to face its responsibilities.

    He said the greatest global challenge remained the fight to rid the world of persistent poverty. Recognizing that aid alone would not eliminate poverty, he saluted the African leaders, who had taken an impressive lead with the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) initiative. Strong political will and partnership was required to translate poverty eradication policies into sustainable development. He also extended the European Union’s welcome to the new United Nations Members, Switzerland and East Timor.

    Also participating in this morning’s debate were Thabo Mbeki, President of South Africa; Alejandro Toledo, President of Peru; Georgi Parvanov, President of Bulgaria; Vaira Vike-Freiberga, President of Latvia; Valdas Adamkus, President of Lithuania; Rene Harris, President of Nauru and Robert Mugabe, President of Zimbabwe. The Minister for Foreign Relations of Brazil also spoke.

    The general debate of the fifty-seventh General Assembly will continue this afternoon at 3 p.m.

    Background

    The General Assembly began its annual general debate this morning following the presentation by the Secretary-General of his annual report.

    Statement by Secretary-General

    Secretary-General KOFI ANNAN said the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 were an extreme example of a global scourge that required a broad, sustained and global response. A broad response, because terrorism could be defeated only if all nations united against it. A sustained response, because the battle would not be won easily, or overnight. A global response, because terrorism was a widespread and complex phenomenon, with many deep roots and exacerbating factors.

    Such a response could only succeed if full use was made of multilateral institutions. “I stand before you today as a multilateralist -– by precedent, by principle, by Charter and by duty”, he said.

    Any government committed to the rule of law at home must also be committed to the rule of law abroad, he said. All States had a clear interest, as well as a clear responsibility, to uphold international law and maintain international order. On almost no item on the agenda did anyone seriously contend that each nation could fend for itself. Even the most powerful countries knew that they needed to work with others, in multilateral institutions, to achieve their aims.

    Only by multilateral action could it be ensured that open markets offered benefits and opportunities to all; that people in the least developed countries were offered the chance to escape the ugly misery of poverty; that protections were possible from global warming, the spread of HIV/AIDS, or the odious traffic in human beings. Only concerted vigilance and cooperation among all States offered any real hope of denying terrorists their opportunities. When countries worked together in multilateral institutions –- developing, respecting, and enforcing international law, they also developed mutual trust. The more a country made use of multilateral institutions, the more others would trust and respect it. And among multilateral institutions, the universal Organization had a special place. When States decided to use force to deal with broader threats to international peace and security, there was no substitute for the unique legitimacy provided by the United Nations.

    He said the existence of an effective international security system depended on the Security Council’s authority –- and therefore the Council must have the political will to act, even in the most difficult cases, when agreement seemed elusive. The primary criterion for putting an issue on the Council’s agenda should not be the receptiveness of the parties, but the existence of a grave threat to world peace.

    He said the limited objectives of reconciling Israel’s legitimate security concerns with Palestinian humanitarian needs could not be achieved in isolation from the wider political context. The ultimate shape of a Middle East peace settlement had been defined long ago in Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, as well as in resolution 1397: land for peace; an end to terror and to occupation; two States, Israel and Palestine, living side by side within secure and recognized borders. An international peace conference was needed without delay to set out a roadmap of parallel steps. Meanwhile, humanitarian steps to relieve Palestinian suffering must be intensified.

    The leadership of Iraq continued to defy mandatory resolutions adopted by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the Charter. Efforts to obtain Iraq’s compliance with the Council’s resolutions must continue, he said, appealing to all who had influence with Iraq’s leaders to impress on them the vital importance of accepting the weapons inspections. He urged Iraq to comply with its obligations. If Iraq’s defiance continued, the Council must face its responsibilities.

    The Secretary-General also pressed leaders of the international community to maintain their commitment to Afghanistan. It had been the international community’s shameful neglect of Afghanistan in the 1990s that had allowed that country to slide into chaos, providing a fertile breeding ground for Al Qaeda. Afghanistan’s Government must be helped to extend its authority throughout the country, and donors must follow through on their commitments. Otherwise, the Afghan people would lose hope -– and desperation bred violence.

    In South Asia, the world had recently come closer than for many years to a direct conflict between two nuclear-weapon capable countries, he said. The situation, while a little calmer, remained perilous. The underlying causes must be addressed. If a fresh crisis erupted, the international community might have a role to play.

    In conclusion, he asked all to honour their pledge of two years ago, at the Millennium Summit, “to make the United Nations a more effective instrument” in the service of the world’s people.

    Statements in Debate

    CELSO LAFER, Minister for Foreign Relations of Brazil, said that Brazil had faith in the United Nations. The Organization was at a difficult juncture that called for measures sustained by the principles on which the United Nations was founded. Throughout the eight years of the Presidency of Fernando Henrique Cardoso, certain fundamental requirements had been recurrent, including fostering democratic decision-making and overcoming the governance deficit in international relations. They also included designing a new financial architecture and providing effective solutions for volatility in capital flows; defending a fair and balanced multilateral trade regime; and affirming the value of human rights and development.

    Brazil could not face those challenges alone, he said. That was why President Cardoso had sought to strengthen the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR) together with South American integration. The President had also promoted the development of partnerships in all continents, pursuing well-balanced negotiations with countries taking part in the Free Trade Area of the Americas. Brazil was committed to seeing the entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol and the establishment of the International Criminal Court; to furthering the social development agenda and to moving forward on nuclear and conventional disarmament. The electoral process currently under way in Brazil would strengthen democracy in the country. Brazil’s commitment to the United Nations and to multilateralism would not waver.

    The tangled interests that formed a global Web of interdependence could only be managed through authority rooted in multilateral institutions and in respect for international law, he said. The commitment to negotiated settlements, under the aegis of multilateralism, must be upheld. Lasting solutions to terrorism, international drug trafficking and organized crime required careful and persistent efforts to set up partnerships and cooperative arrangements consistent with the United Nations multilateral system. Protectionism and all forms of barriers to trade, both tariff and non-tariff continued to suffocate development economies and to nullify the competitiveness of their exports. Liberalization of the agricultural sector had been nothing more than a promise repeatedly put off to an uncertain future. Globalization required reform of economic and financial institutions and should not be limited to the triumph of the market.

    The situation in the Middle East underscored how distant the world still was from the international order imagined by the founders of the United Nations Charter, he continued. Brazil supported the creation of a democratic, secure and economically viable Palestinian State as well as the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. Brazil also defended the right of the State of Israel to exist within recognized borders and of its people to live in security. Those were essential prerequisites for lasting peace in the Middle East. The use of force at the international level was only admissible once all diplomatic alternatives had been exhausted. Force must only be exercised in accordance with the Charter and consistent with the determinations of the Security Council.

    Regarding Iraq, Brazil believed that it was incumbent on the Security Council to determine the necessary measures to ensure full compliance with the relevant resolutions, he said. The exercise by the Security Council of its responsibilities was the way to reduce tensions and to avoid the unpredictable consequences of wider instability. In Angola, the international community must support recent positive developments that opened the way for rebuilding the country and consolidating peace. The Security Council needed reform so as to enhance its legitimacy and to lay the foundations for more solid international cooperation in building a just and stable international order. A central feature of reform should be the expansion of the number of members, both in the permanent and non-permanent categories. The United Nations was the crucial hinge in creating global governance focused on a more equitable distribution of the dividends of peace and progress.

    GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States, said meeting one year and one day after a terrorist attack that had brought grief to his country and the citizens of many others, it was time to turn to the urgent duty of protecting other lives -– without illusion and without fear. While much had been accomplished during the past year in Afghanistan and beyond, much remained to be done –- in Afghanistan and beyond. Many nations represented in the Assembly Hall had joined in the fight against global terrorism, and the people of the United States were grateful.

    He said the United Nations had been born of the hope of a world moving towards justice, escaping old patterns of conflict and fear. The founding fathers had resolved that the peace of the world would never again be destroyed by the wickedness of any man. The Security Council had been created so that –- unlike the League of Nations -– diplomatic deliberations would be more than talk, and resolutions would be more than wishes. After generations of deceitful dictators, broken treaties and squandered lives, the international community had dedicated itself to standards of dignity shared by all and to a system of security defended by all. Today, those standards and that security were challenged.

    The international community’s commitment to human dignity was challenged by persistent poverty and raging disease. The suffering was great, and the responsibility was clear. The United States was joining with the world to supply aid where it reached people and uplifted lives. It would also extend trade and the prosperity it brought. As a symbol of its commitment to human dignity, the United States would return to the newly reformed United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), and would participate fully in its mission to advance human rights, tolerance and learning.

    He said the international community’s common security was challenged by regional conflicts -– ethnic and religious strife that was ancient but not inevitable. There could be no peace for either side in the Middle East without freedom for both sides. America stood committed to an independent and democratic Palestine, living beside Israel in peace and security. Like all other people, Palestinians deserved a government that served their interests. Above all, international security was challenged by outlaw groups and regimes that accepted no law of morality and had no limit to their violent ambitions. The threat hid within many nations, including his own, he said, and the greatest fear was that terrorists would find a shortcut to their mad ambitions when an outlaw regime supplied them with the technologies to kill on a massive scale.

    He went on to say that all those dangers, in their most aggressive and lethal forms –- the very kind of threat the United Nations was born to confront — could be found in one place and in one regime. Twelve years ago, Iraq had invaded Kuwait without provocation, and the regime’s forces were poised to continue their march to seize other countries and their resources. Yet, that aggression had been stopped by the might of coalition forces and the will of the United Nations. To suspend hostilities and to spare himself, Iraq’s dictator, Saddam Hussein had entered into a series of commitments. The terms had been clear and he had agreed to comply with all those obligations. Instead, he had proven only his contempt for the United Nations and for all his pledges. By breaking every pledge -– by his deceptions and cruelties -– Saddam Hussein had made the case against himself.

    In 1991, Security Council resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities. That demand had been ignored. Through resolutions 686 and 687, the Council demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands. Iraq’s regime had agreed, but subsequently had broken that promise. Further promises to comply with Council resolutions, on renouncing involvement with terrorism, and ceasing the support of terrorism, had also been broken by the Iraqi regime.

    He added that Iraq’s Government openly praised the terrorist attacks of

    11 September. Moreover, that regime had agreed to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles and to comply with rigorous biological and chemical weapons inspections headed by the United Nations. It did not live up to those promises, and the inspections revealed that Iraq likely maintained stockpiles of anthrax, mustard gas and other chemical agents.

    He went on to say that today, Iraq continued to withhold important information about its nuclear weapons programme. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year. He went on to say that Saddam Hussein had subverted the United Nations “oil-for-food” programme, working around the sanctions imposed in 1991 to buy missile technology and military materials. Hussein blamed the suffering of Iraq’s people on the United Nations, even as he used oil wealth to build lavish palaces for himself and armed his country. As the Assembly met today, it had been almost four years since the last United Nations inspectors had set foot in Iraq, and Saddam Hussein’s actions, as well as history, logic and the facts, could lead to but one conclusion -– the Iraqi regime was a grave and gathering danger.

    To suggest otherwise was to hope against the evidence, President Bush continued. To assume that regime’s good faith was to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. “And that is a risk we must not take.” The international community had been more than patient, trying sanctions, the “carrot” of oil for food and the “stick” of coalition military strikes. But Saddam Hussein continued to defy those efforts and to build weapons of mass destruction. That regime’s conduct was a threat to the authority of the United Nations and a threat to peace.

    Iraq had answered a decade of United Nations resolutions with a decade of defiance. “All the world now faces a test”, he said, “and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment.” Were Security Council resolutions to be honoured and enforced? Or were they to be cast aside without consequence? Would the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or would it be irrelevant?

    He said that as a founding Member of the United Nations, the United States wanted the Organization to be effective, respected and successful. It wanted the resolutions of the world’s most important multilateral body to be enforced. The partnership of nations could meet the test before it by making clear what was expected of the Iraqi regime. If the Iraqi regime wished peace it must, among other things, immediately and unconditionally disclose, remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles and other materials. It must also release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fates remained unaccounted for. It must cease persecution of its civilian populations, and immediately end all illicit trade outside the “oil-for-food” programme. If those steps were taken, it would signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it would open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represented all Iraqis -– based on human rights, economic liberty and internationally supervised elections.

    The United States had no quarrel with the people of Iraq, for they had suffered too long, he continued. Liberty for the Iraqi people was a great moral cause and strategic objective. They deserved it, and the security of all nations required it. The United States supported political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq. The United States would work with the Security Council on a new resolution to meet the international community’s common challenge. If the Iraqi regime defied the international community again, the world must move deliberately and decisively to hold it in account. The purposes of the United States should not be doubted -– Security Council resolutions would be enforced and the demands of peace and security would be met or action would be unavoidable. “And a regime that had lost its legitimacy will also lose its power”, he said.

    Events could turn in one of two ways. If the international community failed to act in the face of danger, the people of Iraq would continue to live in brutal submission, and the people of the wider region would continue to be bullied. Perhaps horrors even worse than 11 September would be wrought. But if the international community met its responsibilities, the people of Iraq could shake off their captivity and one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reform throughout the Muslim world. The international community must stand up for its security and for the permanent rights and hopes of mankind. By heritage and by choice, the United States would make that stand. And representatives of United Nations Member States had the power to make that stand as well.

    THABO MBEKI, President of South Africa, called on the United Nations to assist Africa in realizing its long-deferred dreams. He said the African Union, the successor to the Organization of African Unity, was the continent’s practical and determined response to its past and present, and the Union’s programme for its revitalization was the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD).

    He called on the African Union, working with United Nations agencies, to give priority to such matters as human resources development and capacity-building, modernizing Africa’s economy and dealing with the intolerable debt burden, the emancipation and empowerment of women, AIDS and environmental degradation, among other things.

    He expressed approval for the peace processes taking place in such troubled areas as Angola, Burundi, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Sudan and noted that elections had been successfully held in the Comoros. This would bring about the rebuilding of these countries with a better life for all.

    Mr. Mbeki also urged a concrete programme of action to implement the Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development and was equally emphatic about the obligation to give real meaning to the message of hope proclaimed in the Millennium Declaration, as an answer to the murderous attack of 11 September 2001.

    The Millennium Declaration, he said, recognized that the central challenge of the world today was to make globalization a positive force for he world’s people. This had to be ensured so that sustainable development and prosperity for all would take place.

    ALEJANDRO TOLEDO, President of Peru, reaffirmed his country’s commitment to the international community to fight for democracy and international security. He also condemned the terrorist attacks perpetrated against the people of the United States on 11 September 2001. Peru was committed to continued collaboration with the Security Council’s Counter-Terrorism Committee. Nations must weave a vast network of commitments to cooperate in all areas to defeat terrorism. Decisive steps should be taken to eradicate terrorism, which threatened peace, security and democracy.

    Peace was an essential condition for human development, he said. Peru promoted limiting defence spending at the regional level with the goal of freeing resources for social investment and the fight against poverty. Today, more than ever, the international community must commit to the construction of a participatory and efficient system of collective security. Peru had promoted the Andean Charter for Peace and Security, approved last June by the Andean community. In the same spirit, Peru had reaffirmed its commitment to creating a South American Zone of Peace and Cooperation and proposed the inclusion of the topic in the agenda of the Assembly’s fifty-eighth session.

    The construction of peace and good governance was an indispensable prerequisite for the preservation of liberty, he said. Peru was aware of the urgent need to develop multilateral efforts to strengthen democracies. He reiterated Peru’s proposal to create a Mechanism of Financial Solidarity for the Defence of Democracy and Good Governance. The time had come to be creative. Emerging democracies urgently required new resources that would allow them to increase levels of public investment within their regions in order to generate employment and protect them from adverse financial shocks. Peruvian democracy was not an island in Latin America and the world. Peru was committed to facing great problems and challenges through the construction of democracy in a more just world. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, international democracy had a name: the United Nations.

    PERVEZ MUSHARRAF, President of Pakistan, said that his country was at the forefront of the fight against terrorism. Determined to prevent its being used as a staging ground for terrorist attacks, Pakistan had interdicted the infiltration of Al Qaeda into its territory and had arrested and deported foreign suspects. Unfortunately, however, the war against terrorism had been used as a vehicle to spread hatred against Islam and Muslims. As a first step in creating a sustained dialogue between the Islamic and Western nations, he proposed the adoption of a Declaration on Religious and Cultural Understanding, Harmony and Cooperation.

    Explaining that the root causes of terrorism were a sense of frustration and powerlessness to redress persistent injustice, he said that while terrorist attacks needed to be condemned, they should not be used to justify outlawing the struggles of a people for self-determination and liberation from colonial or foreign occupation, nor used to justify State terrorism. India had misused the rationale of war against terrorism against Pakistan on the issue of Kashmir, but his country would not be coerced or frightened into compromising on its principled position. The conflict in occupied Kashmir was being waged by Kashmiris, who needed to be allowed to exercise their right to determine their own future.

    President Musharraf pledged that Pakistan would not start a conflict with India, but would fully exercise its right to self-defence if attacked. Achieving peace in South Asia required the following steps: mutual withdrawal of forward-deployed forces by both States; observance of a ceasefire along the Line of Control in Kashmir; and cessation of India’s State terrorism against the Kashmiri people. In addition, the two parties needed to resume a dialogue that included the people of Kashmir and to agree upon measures for nuclear restraint and a conventional arms balance. Hindu extremism also needed to be opposed by the international community.

    His own Government was focused upon restoring the traditions of a tolerant Islam, he said, and had laid the foundations for sustainable development and democracy in three short years by empowering people through the devolution of decision-making to the grassroots level, improving human rights, rationalizing economic policies and setting up the first Human Development Fund in collaboration with the United Nations Development Programme. National and provincial elections were to be held in 30 days.

    Furthermore, Pakistan fully supported the positive changes in Afghanistan and that country’s President Hamid Karzai. The attempt last week to assassinate him underlined the need for an expanded international presence in Afghanistan. Also of concern were the urgent need to revive the Middle East peace process, the importance of the war against poverty and the pernicious aspects of the international banking system, which allowed corrupt elites to stash away money illegally acquired from developing and developed countries.

    GEORGI PARVANOV, President of Bulgaria, outlined what the main tasks of the fifty-seventh session should be. Attention had to be paid to the Millennium Declaration, the fight against terrorism and the persistent problems of underdevelopment and poverty. Unfortunately, the United Nations continued to focus instead on regional conflicts.

    In that regard, he called for assistance to the people of Afghanistan, especially relief from their foreign debt, and identified as urgent the implementation of Security Council resolutions concerning Iraq. Firm action had to be undertaken to win compliance.

    As a member of the Security Council and a party to all universal conventions against terrorism, Bulgaria commended the work being done to counteract the phenomenon. But he warned that “the fight against terrorism should not lead to persecution on religious or ethnic grounds or infringe on human rights”.
    Turning his attention to developments in South-Eastern Europe, he recommended the strengthening of democratic institutions and human rights along with economic development as the means to prevent conflicts. He ended his address by expressing support for the reform measures initiated by Secretary-General Kofi Annan in order to make the United Nations more effective.

    VAIRA VIKE-FREIBERGA, President of Latvia, welcomed Switzerland as the newest Member of the United Nations and recognized the concerted efforts of the United Nations and the international community towards creating a climate of peace and security, in which East Timor had become master of its own destiny and would soon join the United Nations. She also expressed Latvia’s continued solidarity and sympathy with the people of the United States, upon the anniversary of

    11 September. That contemptible act of aggression against the United States was a direct and frontal assault against the civilized world as a whole.

    The deep-seated respect for the sanctity of human life was the foundation of civilized society, she said. Determined to do everything in its power to stem the growing threat of international terrorism, Latvia intended to ratify all international antiterrorist conventions and increase the capacity of its administrative, security, law enforcement and military structures. Latvia continued to harmonize its national legislation with international and European Union standards, to tighten its control of immigration and the flow of strategic goods, to improve its air and border surveillance capabilities, emergency response procedures and public preparedness in emergency situations.

    She noted that Iraq continued to ignore repeated calls to allow United Nations weapons inspectors on its territory, which reinforced credible suspicions that it had sought to produce nuclear, chemical, bacteriological and other weapons of mass destruction. Among other pressing global issues facing the United Nations were organized crime and illegal trafficking, the abuse and exploitation of women and children, endemic poverty and unemployment, drug addiction, disease and environmental pollution. Continued work was needed on the reduction of poverty and increasing administrative capacity and financial discipline at the United Nations. However, progress had been made on the reform of peacekeeping operations and collaboration among United Nations institutions.

    Committed to sustainable development, Latvia had ratified the Kyoto Protocol and had established a Sustainable Development Council. She also noted Latvia’s success in changing its status with the United Nations Development Programme from recipient to net contributor. Now providing technical assistance and expertise to Ukraine, Georgia and Croatia, Latvia had one of the fastest growing economies in Europe and hoped to receive official invitations to join the European Union and the NATO Alliance soon. Her country had provided humanitarian aid to war-torn areas in the Balkans and Afghanistan, and was committed to the reduction of disparities in income and standards of living essential for the consolidation of peace and security. Each nation had its own contribution to make to humanity, whose benefit the United Nations was created to serve.

    VALDAS ADAMKUS, President of Lithuania, welcomed Switzerland and East Timor to the United Nations family. Expansion of United Nations membership was very important, and was taking place at a time when the need for global solidarity and partnership was greater than ever. Terrorism threatened global stability and the very basis of our lives. Countries must stand united and act together to avert threats to our existence and secure the future of our children.

    He said his country knew the power of solidarity. Some years ago, Lithuania and eight other countries from Central and Eastern Europe had formed an informal Vilnius Group, which had now grown to 10, to facilitate their accession to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Solidarity and mutual support were helping to make that happen. Hopefully, those countries would soon join the European Union and NATO, thus reinforcing common values in the region as well as common positions and actions in the face of future challenges and threats.

    Political stability, however, was not enough, he stressed. Those countries had also launched regional initiatives and taken other concrete steps to increase contributions to the global campaign against terrorism. The conference against terrorism was held at the Polish initiative of Poland in Warsaw last November; participating countries were determined to act and cooperate further, thus strengthening European and global security. In the face of common threats, solidarity must emerge as a consolidating driving force in global diplomacy.

    The tragedy of 11 September reinforced and strengthened the common resolve to combat and counter terrorism, he said. That should motivate the international community to work together to address the roots of terrorism; respond decisively to non-compliance with Security Council resolutions and gross violations of internationally recognized norms of behaviour; and fight terror worldwide and keep the weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists. Regrettably, a Member of the United Nations did not uphold its commitments and the underlying principles of the Organization. The Iraqi regime must allow unrestricted access for the United Nations inspectors to resume their work. All pressure should be exerted to ensure that objective. Indeed, that was a test case of the international community’s solidarity and unity.

    RENE HARRIS, President of Nauru, conveying condolences to the United States because of the terrorist attacks of last year, expressed full support for anti-terrorism measures contained in Security Council resolution 1373. He also wished the best future for the International Criminal Court. Commending the United Nations operations in East Timor, he supported that country’s entry into the Organization.

    Turning to issues facing the Pacific islands, he called for a universal campaign to address climate change and for the United States and Australia to ratify the protocol. The health of oceans was another major concern, and he said all users of that resource must work to prevent pollution and unsustainable use. He expressed concern over transshipment of nuclear waste through Pacific waters, and supported the United Nations action to make the Pacific a nuclear-weapon-free zone.

    In other areas, he reiterated his strong objection to the creation of tax “black lists” by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), preferring the development of a cooperative framework for that issue. He said that Nauru also had done all it could to combat money laundering, yet it was still subject to adverse criticism. Nonetheless, it had provided relevant information and would continue to work on satisfying key players on the issue.

    Finally, he said the most pressing issues currently facing Nauru were energy, freshwater supply and the economy in general, and he hoped for international partnerships in those areas. He supported reform of the Security Council and further budgetary reform in the United Nations. He announced the honouring of Nauru’s pledge to the Global Health Fund and called on all States to follow suit, underlining the reliance of small States on the United Nations in the post 9/11 world.

    ROBERT MUGABE, President of Zimbabwe, informed delegates that his country had completed its fast-track land redistribution programme which began in July 2000. He said the programme had been undertaken to redress the colonial injustice of dispossession perpetrated by a minority of British settlers in 1890.

    “By assuming its independence in 1980, Zimbabwe had discarded the colonial yoke for all time and, therefore, will never brook any interference in its domestic affairs by any foreign Power”, he stressed. He added that Britain’s Prime Minister, Tony Blair, needed to be informed of this. Having already waged a revolutionary struggle to secure its independence, Zimbabwe stood ready to defend it in the same way.

    A similar problem of outside interference also affected the Palestinian question, one that should be resolved without further delay. “We note with some concern that some countries wish to arrogate to themselves the right to choose and/or impose leadership in developing countries by sidelining and/or overthrowing democratically elected governments.” That must be resisted, he said.

    Even as he acknowledged terrorism as a threat, he also warned, “The adoption of unilateral measures by some countries to combat terrorism is not only counterproductive but also undermines the mandate and effectiveness of the United Nations.”

    He was fully supportive of the emergence of peace in Angola and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, adding his country was withdrawing its remaining forces there.

    In the economic arena, Zimbabwe wanted the decisions of the Monterrey International Conference on Financing for Development and the World Summit on Sustainable Development held in Johannesburg, South Africa, to result in meaningful cooperation among development partners. The World Trade Organization (WTO) should also create a level playing field so that exports from developing countries could have access to developed markets. And, because of the drought in southern Africa, the region was in urgent need of food and other aid.

    ANDERS FOGH RASMUSSEN, Prime Minister of Denmark, speaking on behalf of the European Union, affirmed that the terrorist attacks of 11 September last year had not weakened, but rather strengthened the resolve of its members to actively seek security and prosperity for all. For its part, the European Union did not hesitate to support the initiatives of the United Nations Counter-Terrorism Committee and remained committed to finalizing and adopting the Comprehensive Convention against Terrorism.

    The Millennium Declaration, he said, had given the United Nations renewed impetus to deal globally with conflict prevention, crisis management, humanitarian assistance, post-conflict rehabilitation and development, and disarmament and arms control. The European Union had worked tirelessly with the United Nations to find solutions in the Middle East and Cyprus, to rebuild Afghanistan, to hold in check the civil war in Sierra Leone and to rebuild Kosovo.

    Iraq remained a major source of concern as well, with regard to weapons of mass destruction, he said. Unconditional and unimpeded access for the weapons inspectors was needed, as well as compliance with the obligations contained in the several Security Council resolutions on the situation in Iraq. The European Union agreed with the United States position that the Security Council urgently needed to address the matter of Iraq. It also agreed with the Secretary-General’s statement that if Iraq’s defiance continued, the Security Council would need to face its responsibilities.

    On the subject of human rights, he urged the adoption of the draft protocol of the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, as well as the universal abolition of the death penalty. Sustainable development would not be achieved until women gained full possession of their human rights, including protection from murder and mutilation through a misguided sense of honour. Hailing the International Criminal Court as an important historic milestone, he commented that people did not need revenge or impunity, but justice and accountability.

    He concluded that the greatest global challenge remained the fight to rid the world of persistent poverty. Recognizing that aid alone would not eliminate poverty, he saluted the African leaders, who had taken an impressive lead with the NEPAD initiative. Strong political will and partnership was required to translate poverty eradication policies into sustainable development. He also extended the European Union’s welcome to the new United Nations Members, Switzerland and East Timor.

  • Choose Hope – An Interview with Dr. David Krieger Living Buddhism, Journal of Peace, Culture and Education

    “Ordinary people can and must guide their leaders to create a future free from a nuclear menace.” This is the theme of Choose Hope, published this month by Middleway Press. It is a dialogue between Soka Gakkai International president, Daisaku Ikeda and Dr. David Krieger, founder of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

    This dialogue reveals how the development of true peace can grow only when narrow national loyalties are surpassed by a shared global vision. Inspiring examples of individuals working for an end to the nuclear threat showcase the role everyday people can play in the quest for peace. Living Buddhism interviewed Dr. Krieger about the book, which is available at leading bookstores and online.

    Living Buddhism: The title of your new book is Choose Hope. How do you define hope and what does it have to do with the seemingly intractable problems of war and the nuclear threat?

    David Krieger: The title of the book reflects our belief that hope must be a conscious choice. It is possible also to choose hopelessness or, in other words, to believe that nothing or not much is possible in the way of positive change. This is a formula for giving up and withdrawing into complacency and apathy, which are pervasive malaises of our time.

    I define hope as the belief that we can realize our dreams by our efforts. I don’t see hope as being wildly detached from reality and certainly not detached from our own efforts. I don’t think that hope is a magic wand that by itself can change the world, but it can certainly give direction and energy to one’s intention.

    Related to problems of war and nuclear threat, hope is a starting point for seeking change. War is our most destructive means of attempting to resolve human conflicts and, in fact, doesn’t resolve them. When nuclear weapons are added into the mix, war could result in the annihilation of large populations, even of the human species. Of course, we should not give up hope that we can make a difference on issues of such importance. Without hope, we are, in a sense, giving up on humanity and we simply can’t do this. We owe it to all previous generations and to all whom will follow us on Earth, to maintain our hope and to work for a world without nuclear weapons and without war.

    LB: The book’s subtitle is “Your Role in Waging Peace in the Nuclear Age.” Weapons policy, international relations and the nuclear threat seem very far removed from most people’s daily life concerns. With all the problems ordinary people have to deal with, what role are you urging people to take on? Can these efforts truly effect change?

    Krieger: It’s true that problems of a global scope may appear removed from our daily lives, but, of course, they are not. Finding solutions to these great global problems may be the most significant challenge of our time. The future of humanity rides on how we deal with these problems. If citizens opt out, decisions on weapons and warfare will be made by leaders whose interests are not necessarily aligned with the best interests of humanity and of future generations. These problems are far too important to be left to political or military leaders. I’m urging ordinary citizens throughout the world to engage in issues of war and peace because their voices and their efforts are needed. We all need to engage as if our very lives depended upon it because they do.

    I remember being with Jacques Cousteau, a man deeply committed to the welfare of future generations, when he said: “The time has come when speaking is not enough, applauding is not enough. We have to act.” It is time to act. I’d like to see ordinary citizens become change makers for a world free of nuclear weapons. One concrete action they can take is to sign, circulate and spread the word about our Foundation’s Appeal to End the Nuclear Weapons Threat to Humanity and All Life, which they can find on our web site at www.wagingpeace.org. The principles in this Appeal can help guide their actions.

    It is difficult to know if our efforts will bring about the change we desire. We can’t be certain, but we must proceed as if they will bring about this change because the alternative of giving up hope and doing nothing is unacceptable.

    LB: In the book, you and Mr. Ikeda advocate abolishing nuclear weapons. With the chance of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists and so-called rogue states, wouldn’t the United States be making itself vulnerable and weak if it gave up its nuclear stockpiles?

    Krieger: We’re not advocating that the US alone give up its nuclear arsenal. The elimination of these weapons would be done multilaterally and in phases and with verification and confidence-building measures to assure that all nuclear-armed nations were also eliminating their nuclear arsenals. In a world without nuclear weapons, the US would remain a very powerful nation. Giving up its nuclear arsenal would certainly not make the US vulnerable and weak.

    Mr. Ikeda and I agree strongly on the need to abolish nuclear weapons. This is a position nearly uniformly supported by the people of Japan where they know first-hand the terrible effects of the use of nuclear weapons. The truth is that nuclear weapons make a country more vulnerable rather than less so. If you have nuclear weapons, you must rely upon nuclear deterrence, the threat of nuclear retaliation, for security. But deterrence cannot provide security against terrorists, who do not fear retaliation, or against accidental launches.

    The more reliance there is by some states on nuclear weapons, the more likely it is that these weapons will proliferate to other countries and find their way into the hands of terrorists. That is why the United States, which now possesses overwhelming military force, should lead the way toward achieving the phased, verifiable and irreversible elimination of nuclear weapons. That would require wisdom and compassion. Such leadership is unlikely to come from political leaders. It is far more likely to originate from the people; ordinary people like you and me.

    LB: Through dialogue with Mr. Ikeda and association with SGI, have you learned anything that helps you in your own work?

    Krieger: I am very taken with Mr. Ikeda’s focus on “human revolution.” I share his belief that each of us has the power to make a difference far beyond our imaginations. Mr. Ikeda himself is an example of a single individual who has made an enormous difference in our world. Through his vision and perseverance, he has created a wide array of noble institutions that educate young people and contribute to the common good. I am also impressed by Mr. Ikeda’s tremendous commitment to dialogue and the open and flexible mind that he brings to solving problems. His annual peace proposals are among the most thoughtful and useful contributions to the global dialogue on bettering humanity’s future.

    I am also very appreciative of the positive spirit of the members of the SGI who I have met. As individuals and as an organization, there seems to be a deep concern in the SGI for embracing the world and all of its inhabitants. There is also a “can do” attitude, a willingness to roll up one’s sleeves and work, which I appreciate very much.

    LB: What are your long-term goals for this book?

    Krieger: One of my goals for this book is to help awaken people to action to create a better world, a world in which people are valued for what they contribute of themselves, not what they possess. I would be very pleased if this book helped people to see that hope is indeed a conscious choice and a starting point for committed action. I’d be delighted if Choose Hope encouraged more young people to become involved in the great issues of our time, engaging with compassion, commitment and courage. I hope that the book will contribute to realizing the dream of a world free of nuclear weapons.
    *David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • To a Child of Baghdad

    Our bombs may blast you
    to a better life. You and your vivid parrot
    may even change places. We give you
    a chance, at least, to better yourself.

    Who knows, you may be born beneath
    a lucky star next time, maybe live
    in our land of milk and honey,
    and do some bombing yourself.

    They say you’ll die this year,
    that our bombs did it–the power outage,
    polluted water, that sort of thing–
    but they’d be stretching a point.

    If you knew these bombs you would love them.
    We draw faces on them. We keep them spit-
    shined and give them pet names.
    And they are smart–that’s how they found you.
    “To A Child of Baghdad” is in KANGAROO PAWS: poems written in Australia
    For more information please visit http://www.davidraypoet.com

  • Iraq and the War on Terrorism

    Delivered to the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco

    Introduction

    Like all Americans I have been wrestling with the question of what our country needs to do to defend itself from the kind of intense, focused and enabled hatred that brought about September 11th, and which at this moment must be presumed to be gathering force for yet another attack. I’m speaking today in an effort to recommend a specific course of action for our country which I believe would be preferable to the course recommended by President Bush. Specifically, I am deeply concerned that the policy we are presently following with respect to Iraq has the potential to seriously damage our ability to win the war against terrorism and to weaken our ability to lead the world in this new century.

    First Thing First: War On Terrorism

    To begin with, I believe we should focus our efforts first and foremost against those who attacked us on September 11th and have thus far gotten away with it. The vast majority of those who sponsored, planned and implemented the cold blooded murder of more than 3,000 Americans are still at large, still neither located nor apprehended, much less punished and neutralized. I do not believe that we should allow ourselves to be distracted from this urgent task simply because it is proving to be more difficult and lengthy than predicted. Great nations persevere and then prevail. They do not jump from one unfinished task to another.

    We are perfectly capable of staying the course in our war against Osama Bin Laden and his terrorist network, while simultaneously taking those steps necessary to build an international coalition to join us in taking on Saddam Hussein in a timely fashion.

    I don’t think that we should allow anything to diminish our focus on avenging the 3,000 Americans who were murdered and dismantling the network of terrorists who we know to be responsible for it. The fact that we don’t know where they are should not cause us to focus instead on some other enemy whose location may be easier to identify.

    Nevertheless, President Bush is telling us that the most urgent requirement of the moment — right now — is not to redouble our efforts against Al Qaeda, not to stabilize the nation of Afghanistan after driving his host government from power, but instead to shift our focus and concentrate on immediately launching a new war against Saddam Hussein. And he is proclaiming a new, uniquely American right to pre-emptively attack whomsoever he may deem represents a potential future threat.

    Moreover, he is demanding in this high political season that Congress speedily affirm that he has the necessary authority to proceed immediately against Iraq and for that matter any other nation in the region, regardless of subsequent developments or circumstances. The timing of this sudden burst of urgency to take up this cause as America’s new top priority, displacing the war against Osama Bin Laden, was explained by the White House Chief of Staff in his now well known statement that “from an advertising point of view, you don’t launch a new product line until after labor day.” Nevertheless, Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power. Moreover, no international law can prevent the United States from taking actions to protect its vital interests, when it is manifestly clear that there is a choice to be made between law and survival. I believe, however, that such a choice is not presented in the case of Iraq. Indeed, should we decide to proceed, that action can be justified within the framework of international law rather than outside it. In fact, though a new UN resolution may be helpful in building international consensus, the existing resolutions from 1991 are sufficient from a legal standpoint.

    We also need to look at the relationship between our national goal of regime change in Iraq and our goal of victory in the war against terror. In the case of Iraq, it would be more difficult for the United States to succeed alone, but still possible. By contrast, the war against terror manifestly requires broad and continuous international cooperation. Our ability to secure this kind of cooperation can be severely damaged by unilateral action against Iraq. If the Administration has reason to believe otherwise, it ought to share those reasons with the Congress — since it is asking Congress to endorse action that might well impair a more urgent task: continuing to disrupt and destroy the international terror network.

    I was one of the few Democrats in the U.S. Senate who supported the war resolution in 1991. And I felt betrayed by the first Bush administration’s hasty departure from the battlefield, even as Saddam began to renew his persecution of the Kurds of the North and the Shiites of the South — groups we had encouraged to rise up against Saddam. It is worth noting, however, that the conditions in 1991 when that resolution was debated in Congress were very different from the conditions this year as Congress prepares to debate a new resolution. Then, Saddam had sent his armies across an international border to invade Kuwait and annex its territory. This year, 11 years later, there is no such invasion; instead we are prepared to cross an international border to change the government of Iraq. However justified our proposed action may be, this change in role nevertheless has consequences for world opinion and can affect the war against terrorism if we proceed unilaterally.

    Secondly, in 1991, the first President Bush patiently and skillfully built a broad international coalition. His task was easier than that confronted his son, in part because of Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait. Nevertheless, every Arab nation except Jordan supported our military efforts and some of them supplied troops. Our allies in Europe and Asia supported the coalition without exception. Yet this year, by contrast, many of our allies in Europe and Asia are thus far opposed to what President Bush is doing and the few who support us condition their support on the passage of a new U.N. resolution.

    Third, in 1991, a strong United Nations resolution was in place before the Congressional debate ever began; this year although we have residual authority based on resolutions dating back to the first war in Iraq, we have nevertheless begun to seek a new United Nations resolution and have thus far failed to secure one.

    Fourth, the coalition assembled in 1991 paid all of the significant costs of the war, while this time, the American taxpayers will be asked to shoulder hundreds of billions of dollars in costs on our own.

    Fifth, President George H. W. Bush purposely waited until after the mid-term elections of 1990 to push for a vote at the beginning of the new Congress in January of 1991. President George W. Bush, by contrast, is pushing for a vote in this Congress immediately before the election. Rather than making efforts to dispel concern at home an abroad about the role of politics in the timing of his policy, the President is publicly taunting Democrats with the political consequences of a “no” vote — even as the Republican National Committee runs pre-packaged advertising based on the same theme — in keeping with the political strategy clearly described in a White House aide’s misplaced computer disk, which advised Republican operatives that their principal game plan for success in the election a few weeks away was to “focus on the war.” Vice President Cheney, meanwhile indignantly described suggestions of political motivation “reprehensible.” The following week he took his discussion of war strategy to the Rush Limbaugh show.

    The foreshortening of deliberation in the Congress robs the country of the time it needs for careful analysis of what may lie before it. Such consideration is all the more important because of the Administration’s failure thus far to lay out an assessment of how it thinks the course of a war will run — even while it has given free run to persons both within and close to the administration to suggest that this will be an easy conquest. Neither has the Administration said much to clarify its idea of what is to follow regime change or of the degree of engagement it is prepared to accept for the United States in Iraq in the months and years after a regime change has taken place.

    By shifting from his early focus after September 11th on war against terrorism to war against Iraq, the President has manifestly disposed of the sympathy, good will and solidarity compiled by America and transformed it into a sense of deep misgiving and even hostility. In just one year, the President has somehow squandered the international outpouring of sympathy, goodwill and solidarity that followed the attacks of September 11th and converted it into anger and apprehension aimed much more at the United States than at the terrorist network — much as we manage to squander in one year’s time the largest budget surpluses in history and convert them into massive fiscal deficits. He has compounded this by asserting a new doctrine — of preemption.

    The doctrine of preemption is based on the idea that in the era of proliferating WMD, and against the background of a sophisticated terrorist threat, the United States cannot wait for proof of a fully established mortal threat, but should rather act at any point to cut that short.

    The problem with preemption is that in the first instance it is not needed in order to give the United States the means to act in its own defense against terrorism in general or Iraq in particular. But that is a relatively minor issue compared to the longer-term consequences that can be foreseen for this doctrine. To begin with, the doctrine is presented in open-ended terms, which means that if Iraq if the first point of application, it is not necessarily the last. In fact, the very logic of the concept suggests a string of military engagements against a succession of sovereign states: Syria, Libya, North Korea, Iran, etc., wherever the combination exists of an interest in weapons of mass destruction together with an ongoing role as host to or participant in terrorist operations. It means also that if the Congress approves the Iraq resolution just proposed by the Administration it is simultaneously creating the precedent for preemptive action anywhere, anytime this or any future president so decides.

    The Bush Administration may now be realizing that national and international cohesion are strategic assets. But it is a lesson long delayed and clearly not uniformly and consistently accepted by senior members of the cabinet. From the outset, the Administration has operated in a manner calculated to please the portion of its base that occupies the far right, at the expense of solidarity among Americans and between America and her allies.

    On the domestic front, the Administration, having delayed almost —months before conceding the need to create an institution outside the White House to manage homeland defense, has been willing to see progress on the new department held up, for the sake of an effort to coerce the Congress into stripping civil service protections from tens of thousands of federal employees.

    Far more damaging, however, is the Administration’s attack on fundamental constitutional rights. The idea that an American citizen can be imprisoned without recourse to judicial process or remedies, and that this can be done on the say-so of the President or those acting in his name, is beyond the pale.

    Regarding other countries, the Administration’s disdain for the views of others is well documented and need not be reviewed here. It is more important to note the consequences of an emerging national strategy that not only celebrates American strengths, but appears to be glorifying the notion of dominance. If what America represents to the world is leadership in a commonwealth of equals, then our friends are legion; if what we represent to the world is empire, then it is our enemies who will be legion.

    At this fateful juncture in our history it is vital that we see clearly who are our enemies, and that we deal with them. It is also important, however, that in the process we preserve not only ourselves as individuals, but our nature as a people dedicated to the rule of law ..

    Dangers Of Abandoning Iraq

    Moreover, if we quickly succeed in a war against the weakened and depleted fourth rate military of Iraq and then quickly abandon that nation as President Bush has abandoned Afghanistan after quickly defeating a fifth rate military there, the resulting chaos could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam. We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.

    We have no evidence, however, that he has shared any of those weapons with terrorist group. However, if Iraq came to resemble Afghanistan — with no central authority but instead local and regional warlords with porous borders and infiltrating members of Al Qaeda than these widely dispersed supplies of weapons of mass destruction might well come into the hands of terrorist groups.

    If we end the war in Iraq, the way we ended the war in Afghanistan, we could easily be worse off than we are today. When Secretary Rumsfield was asked recently about what our responsibility for restabilizing Iraq would be in an aftermath of an invasion, he said, “that’s for the Iraqis to come together and decide.”

    During one of the campaign debates in 2000 when then Governor Bush was asked if America should engage in any sort of “nation building” in the aftermath of a war in which we have involved our troops, he stated gave the purist expression of what is now a Bush doctrine: “I don’t think so. I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I’m missing something here. We’re going to have a kind of nation building corps in America? Absolutely not.”

    The events of the last 85 years provide ample evidence that our approach to winning the peace that follows war is almost as important as winning the war itself. The absence of enlightened nation building after World War I led directly to the conditions which made Germany vulnerable to fascism and the rise to Adolph Hitler and made all of Europe vulnerable to his evil designs. By contrast the enlightened vision embodied in the Marshall plan, NATO, and the other nation building efforts in the aftermath of World War II led directly to the conditions that fostered prosperity and peace for most the years since this city gave birth to the United Nations.

    Two decades ago, when the Soviet Union claimed the right to launch a pre-emptive war in Afghanistan, we properly encouraged and then supported the resistance movement which, a decade later, succeeded in defeating the Soviet Army’s efforts. Unfortunately, when the Russians left, we abandoned the Afghans and the lack of any coherent nation building program led directly to the conditions which fostered Al Qaeda terrorist bases and Osama Bin Laden’s plotting against the World Trade Center. Incredibly, after defeating the Taliban rather easily, and despite pledges from President Bush that we would never again abandon Afghanistan we have done precisely that. And now the Taliban and Al Qaeda are quickly moving back to take up residence there again. A mere two years after we abandoned Afghanistan the first time, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. Following a brilliant military campaign, the U.S. abandoned the effort to destroy Saddam’s military prematurely and allowed him to remain in power.

    What is a potentially even more serious consequence of this push to begin a new war as quickly as possible is the damage it can do not just to America’s prospects to winning the war against terrorism but to America’s prospects for continuing the historic leadership we began providing to the world 57 years ago, right here in this city by the bay.

    What Congress Should Do

    I believe, therefore, that the resolution that the President has asked Congress to pass is much too broad in the authorities it grants, and needs to be narrowed. The President should be authorized to take action to deal with Saddam Hussein as being in material breach of the terms of the truce and therefore a continuing threat to the security of the region. To this should be added that his continued pursuit of weapons of mass destruction is potentially a threat to the vital interests of the United States. But Congress should also urge the President to make every effort to obtain a fresh demand from the Security Council for prompt, unconditional compliance by Iraq within a definite period of time. If the Council will not provide such language, then other choices remain open, but in any event the President should be urged to take the time to assemble the broadest possible international support for his course of action. Anticipating that the President will still move toward unilateral action, the Congress should establish now what the administration’s thinking is regarding the aftermath of a US attack for the purpose of regime change.

    Specifically, Congress should establish why the president believes that unilateral action will not severely damage the fight against terrorist networks, and that preparations are in place to deal with the effects of chemical and biological attacks against our allies, our forces in the field, and even the home-front. The resolution should also require commitments from the President that action in Iraq will not be permitted to distract from continuing and improving work to reconstruct Afghanistan, an that the United States will commit to stay the course for the reconstruction of Iraq.

    The Congressional resolution should make explicitly clear that authorities for taking these actions are to be presented as derivatives from existing Security Council resolutions and from international law: not requiring any formal new doctrine of pre-emption, which remains to be discussed subsequently in view of its gravity.

    Pre-Emption Doctrine

    Last week President Bush added a troubling new element to this debate by proposing a broad new strategic doctrine that goes far beyond issues related to Iraq and would effect the basic relationship between the United States and the rest of the world community. Article 51 of the United Nations charter recognizes the right of any nation to defend itself, including the right in some circumstances to take pre-emptive actions in order to deal with imminent threats. President Bush now asserts that we will take pre-emptive action even if we take the threat we perceive is not imminent. If other nations assert the same right then the rule of law will quickly be replaced by the reign of fear — any nation that perceives circumstances that could eventually lead to an imminent threat would be justified under this approach in taking military action against another nation. An unspoken part of this new doctrine appears to be that we claim this right for ourselves — and only for ourselves. It is, in that sense, part of a broader strategy to replace ideas like deterrence and containment with what some in the administration “dominance.”

    This is because President Bush is presenting us with a proposition that contains within itself one of the most fateful decisions in our history: a decision to abandon what we have thought was America’s mission in the world — a world in which nations are guided by a common ethic codified in the form of international law — if we want to survive.

    America’s Mission In The World

    We have faced such a choice once before, at the end of the second World War. At that moment, America’s power in comparison to the rest of the world was if anything greater than it is now, and the temptation was clearly to use that power to assure ourselves that there would be no competitor and no threat to our security for the foreseeable future. The choice we made, however, was to become a co-founder of what we now think of as the post-war era, based on the concepts of collective security and defense, manifested first of all in the United Nations. Through all the dangerous years that followed, when we understood that the defense of freedom required the readiness to put the existence of the nation itself into the balance, we never abandoned our belief that what we were struggling to achieve was not bounded by our own physical security, but extended to the unmet hopes of humankind. The issue before us is whether we now face circumstances so dire and so novel that we must choose one objective over the other.

    So it is reasonable to conclude that we face a problem that is severe, chronic, and likely to become worse over time.

    But is a general doctrine of pre-emption necessary in order to deal with this problem? With respect to weapons of mass destruction, the answer is clearly not. The Clinton Administration launched a massive series of air strikes against Iraq for the state purpose of setting back his capacity to pursue weapons of mass destruction. There was no perceived need for new doctrine or new authorities to do so. The limiting factor was the state of our knowledge concerning the whereabouts of some assets, and a concern for limiting consequences to the civilian populace, which in some instances might well have suffered greatly.

    Does Saddam Hussein present an imminent threat, and if he did would the United States be free to act without international permission? If he presents an imminent threat we would be free to act under generally accepted understandings of article 51 of the UN Charter which reserves for member states the right to act in self-defense.

    If Saddam Hussein does not present an imminent threat, then is it justifiable for the Administration to be seeking by every means to precipitate a confrontation, to find a cause for war, and to attack? There is a case to be made that further delay only works to Saddam Hussein’s advantage, and that the clock should be seen to have been running on the issue of compliance for a decade: therefore not needing to be reset again to the starting point. But to the extent that we have any concern for international support, whether for its political or material value, hurrying the process will be costly. Even those who now agree that Saddam Hussein must go, may divide deeply over the wisdom of presenting the United States as impatient for war.

    At the same time, the concept of pre-emption is accessible to other countries. There are plenty of potential imitators: India/Pakistan; China/Taiwan; not to forget Israel/Iraq or Israel/Iran. Russia has already cited it in anticipation of a possible military push into Georgia, on grounds that this state has not done enough to block the operations of Chechen rebels. What this doctrine does is to destroy the goal of a world in which states consider themselves subject to law, particularly in the matter of standards for the use of violence against each other. That concept would be displaced by the notion that there is no law but the discretion of the President of the United States.

    I believe that we can effectively defend ourselves abroad and at home without dimming our principles. Indeed, I believe that our success in defending ourselves depends precisely on not giving up what we stand for.

  • Study shows Military Attack Against Iraq Not Justified

    A thorough report released last week by the London based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) confirmed that Iraq does not possess any nuclear weapons and is years away from being able to produce the fissile material necessary to make a nuclear weapon.

    Some commentators have portrayed the report entitled “Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction: A Net Assessment,” as providing justification for the Bush administration’s call for an invasion of Iraq. In actuality, however, the report provides no evidence that Iraq’s nuclear weapons program warrants a military attack.

    The study did conclude that the pursuit and retention of weapons of mass destruction is the core objective of the Hussein regime, and that the regime has persistently resisted unfettered U.N. inspections. The authors noted that even if Iraq was to allow inspectors to return, it would require time and experience for the U.N. Monitoring Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) to develop and refine the successful inspection techniques. These conclusions, though disconcerting, fall far short of the support that the Bush administration has been seeking to justify invading Iraq.

    Several nonmilitary options exist through which the administration could derail Iraq’s proliferation attempts without the severe costs of a direct invasion. Such efforts include reducing and securing fissile materials, working towards a fissile material cut off treaty, and providing Iraq with clear commitments to lifting sanctions if Iraq allows inspectors to return.

    Even if such nonproliferation efforts were to fail and Iraq was to obtain nuclear weapons in the future, pre-emptive strikes based on the premise of such possession would still violate international legal norms and US policy precedent. To be in line with international law the administration would have to be able to prove that an attack by Iraq was imminent, such as in July 1991 when Iraq moved their troops to the border with Kuwait and made diplomatic moves indicating the likelihood of attack. Also, the United States would have to receive UN approval for any use of force.

    The IISS has made it clear that the international community must develop a strategy to deal with Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs and to prevent further proliferation. However, the recent report should not be interpreted as adding any substantive support to the Bush administration’s case for war against Iraq.

    Visit the IISS website at: http://www.iiss.org.

  • Text of Iraq’s Letter to U.N.

    Following is the text of the letter from Iraqi Foreign Affairs Minister Naji Sabri to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan as released by Annan’s spokesman.
    Dear Secretary-General,

    I have the honor to refer to the series of discussions held between Your Excellency and the Government of the Republic of Iraq on the implementation of relevant Security Council resolutions on the question of Iraq which took place in New York on 7 March and 2 May and in Vienna on 4 July 2002, as well as the talks which were held in your office in New York on 14 and 15 September 2002, with the participation of the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States.

    I am pleased to inform you of the decision of the Government of the Republic of Iraq to allow the return of the United Nations weapons inspectors to Iraq without conditions.

    The Government of the Republic of Iraq has responded, by this decision, to your appeal, to the appeal of the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States, as well as those of Arab, Islamic and other friendly countries.

    The Government of the Republic of Iraq has based its decision concerning the return of inspectors on its desire to complete the implementation of the relevant Security Council resolutions and to remove any doubts that Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction. This decision is also based on your statement to the General Assembly on 12 September 2002 that the decision by the Government of the Republic of Iraq is the indispensable first step towards an assurance that Iraq no longer possesses weapons of mass destruction and, equally importantly, towards a comprehensive solution that includes the lifting of sanctions imposed in Iraq and the timely implementation of other provisions of the relevant Security Council resolutions, including resolution 687(1991). To this end, the Government of the Republic of Iraq is ready to discuss the practical arrangements necessary for the immediate resumption of inspections.

    In this context, the Government of the Republic of Iraq reiterates the importance of the commitment of all Member States of the Security Council and the United Nations to respect the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Iraq, as stipulated in the relevant Security Council resolutions and article (II) of the Charter of the United Nations.

    I would be grateful if you would bring this letter to the attention of the Security Council members.

    Please accept, Mr. Secretary-General the assurances of my highest consideration.

    Dr. Naji Sabri
    Minister of Foreign Affairs
    Republic of Iraq