Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Blog

  • Force Above Law: The New International Disorder?

    The US has historically been one of the most resolute advocates of the Rule of Law. However, current trends indicate that it is moving dangerously towards completely shunning this approach, resulting in US reliance on Rule of Force as the principal means for solving global conflicts. While on the one hand the US disavows current obligations under international law and refuses to participate in new international legal mechanisms, it expects other countries to adhere to such laws and to US directives. Continued US attempts to increase its military domination combined with its withdrawal from international legal processes are eroding national and international security in an already unstable and unbalanced international environment.

    Security in the Post-September 11th World

    President Bush has used September 11th to define a new dichotomy dividing states—the states with the US and the states for terror—an overly simplistic dichotomy that had been missing since the dissolution of the USSR and the end of the Cold War. In the aftermath of September 11th, the US made an appeal to the international community to join in the fight against terrorism. On the surface, the anti-terrorism campaign initially offered a chance for many countries, including countries subsequently labeled by the Bush administration as part of an “axis of evil,” to realign themselves to be on more friendly terms with the US.

    As a result, many countries have changed their political priorities, diverting large amounts of resources and attention to the US-led war on terrorism. Furthermore, many countries in critical regions such as the Middle East, South Asia and North East Asia are following the US example, countering domestic and regional disputes with force and rejecting multilateral diplomacy and arms control. In fact, the war on terrorism has only added fuel to fire in escalating regional crises.

    September 11th also reinvigorated concerns about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery. There are legitimate fears regarding terrorists acquiring or making nuclear, chemical, biological or radiological weapons. However, the US-led response to these fears has been to offer solutions that would counter rather than prevent proliferation.

    Manifest Destiny: Divine Right to Use Force?

    The term Manifest Destiny was first coined in the 19th century. US leaders and politicians used the phrase in the1800s to justify US continental expansion. People in the US felt it was their mission and Divine right from God to extend the boundaries of freedom, idealism and democratic institutions to Native Americans and other non-Europeans on the North American continent. The Manifest Destiny of the 19th century was in reality a means to rationalize an imperialistic policy of expansion because of political, economic and social pressures to acquire more land, a highly valued commodity then and now.

    Manifest Destiny continues in the 21st century. Today it is evidenced as US neo-imperialistic policies driven by a highly technological military- corporate economy. Rationalized as “protecting” American freedom and economic interests, the goal of the new Manifest Destiny is complete dominance by force, even at the expense of individual, community, national and international security.

    For decades, the US has been actively researching and developing missile defenses. The US is now moving forward with plans to deploy missile defenses, regardless of whether or not they will work and regardless of costs to international security and its own security. While the stated purpose of missile defense systems is to defend against incoming missile attacks, it is apparent that such systems are really a Trojan horse for the US to “control and dominate” both the Earth and Outer Space. The US military and government view Outer Space as the new arena of expansion and the Pentagon is pursuing development and deployment of US warfighting capabilities in and through outer space.

    New Nuclear Policy: First Strike

    Serious concerns about US plans were raised this year when portions of the classified US Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) that was released to Congress in January 2002 leaked to the media in March. Despite treaty commitments to reduce its reliance on nuclear weapons, the NPR reaffirms the role of nuclear weapons in US national security policy. In the past, nuclear weapons have been viewed as a deterrent against the use of nuclear weapons. However, the NPR reveals that the US intends to integrate nuclear weapons into a full spectrum of war-fighting capabilities, including missile defenses. The NPR unveils that nuclear weapons are no longer weapons of last resort, but instruments that could be used in fighting wars. The NPR also raises the possible resumption by the US of full-scale nuclear testing and plans to develop and deploy new “earth-penetrating” nuclear weapons.

    Furthermore, the NPR calls for the development of contingency plans to use nuclear weapons against seven states—Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, North Korea, Russia and China—constituting a disturbing threat in particular to the named states and in general to international peace and security. Contrary to long-standing US assurances not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear States, five of these named states are non-nuclear states.

    The Bush administration announced in June that it will release a document outlining a strategy of striking first. The doctrine will be incorporated into the National Security Strategy that will be released in Fall 2002. President George W. Bush argues that the US needs such a strategy in order to counter “terrorists and tyrants,” a phrase that encompasses both states and non-state actors, because Cold War policies of deterrence and containment do not fit the post-September 11th world. The argument also extends a justification for developing new low-yield, earth-penetrating nuclear weapons that could be used preemptively to destroy deeply buried targets and bunkers. While there remains an opportunity to address the prospect of terrorism from weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and legitimate concerns about WMD and missile proliferation, this opportunity is being rapidly squandered. When the US reserves to itself the right to strike first with nuclear weapons, it relinquishes the moral high ground and the right to tell other nations to give up their weapons of mass destruction.

    Arms Control: Significant Nuclear Reductions or Maximum Nuclear Flexibility?

    Presidents George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin signed the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty between the US and the Russia during a summit in Moscow on 23 May. The treaty calls for the reduction of strategic forces of each country’s arsenal to 1,700 to 2,200 by 2012, the year in which the treaty expires. It also does not require the destruction of a single missile launcher or warhead and each side can carry out the reductions at its own pace and even reverse them to temporarily build up its forces. In other words, the treaty allows either side to worry more about protecting their own nuclear options than constraining the options of the other country. A senior US administration official stated, “What we have now agreed to do under the treaty is what we wanted to do anyway. That’s our kind of treaty.”

    Under the terms of the treaty, either side can temporarily suspend reductions or even build up forces without violating the treaty. This will allow maximum flexibility to the US, which insists on continuing to rely on nuclear weapons in its national security policy. The US Nuclear Posture Review, released in January 2002, stated, “In the event that US relations with Russia significantly worsen in the future, the US may need to revise its nuclear force level and posture.” The new treaty will allow the US to do so. Rather than completely destroying the strategic weapons, the US has repeatedly stated that it will shelve or stockpile the warheads.

    Retreat from Law

    The alternative to a rule-by-force policy is the Rule of Law. Since its founding, the US has historically sought to create a legal framework to foster national and international security. Under Article VI of the US constitution, “all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” A treaty becomes US law when two-thirds of the US Senate give “advice and consent” to its ratification. Although treaties may not be perfect, they are critical to articulating and codifying global norms and standards. Among other things, treaties contribute to national and international security by establishing mechanisms to enforce articulated norms, measure progress, and promote accountability, transparency, and confidence building measures between countries.

    Although US support for international law and institutions slowly began to decline as the 20th century progressed, since the Clinton administration, the US has been more hostile toward international law and international legal mechanisms. And the trend has only accelerated during the Bush administration. Under the Clinton administration, the US refused to sign the Treaty Banning Anti-Personnel Mines (Landmines Treaty); the Senate failed to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT); and the US attempted to obstruct completion of the Rome Statute to create an International Criminal Court (ICC), although Clinton did sign this Treaty at the final moment. Since President Bush took office, among other actions demonstrating its disdain for international law, the US has:

    • withdrawn from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty;
    • resisted the idea of a standardized procedure for reporting on nuclear disarmament obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and, in fact, increased the role of nuclear weapons in US national security policy;
    • sought to terminate the process to promote compliance with the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC);
    • spurned proposals from Russia and China to ban weapons in Outer Space and Space-based weapons;
    • withdrawn its signature from the International Criminal Court Treaty;
    • withdrawn its support for the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, even though it played a key role in its creation.

    Conclusions

    The shift in US policy to rely on force first and consider itself above law is detrimental to its own security as well as to international insecurity. Unless this process is reversed and unless the US begins to cooperate with other countries to ensure a global Rule of Law above the Rule of Force, international disorder will gain ground.

  • Law vs. Force

    Law vs. Force

    An important marker of civilization has always been the ascendancy of law over the unbridled use of force. At the outset of the 21st century, we are faced with a pervasive dilemma. Reliance on force given the power of our destructive technologies could destroy civilization as we know it.

    The trials at Nuremberg and Tokyo following World War II were an attempt to elevate the force of law over the law of force. The newly created International Criminal Court, which will bring the Principles of Nuremberg into the 21st century, is supported by all major US allies. Unfortunately US leaders are opposing the Court and seem to fear being held to the same level of accountability as they would demand for other leaders.

    Of course, law does not prevent all crime. It simply sets normative standards and provides that those who violate these standards will be punished. In the case of the most heinous crimes, the remedies of law are inadequate. But even inadequate remedies of law are superior to the unbridled use of force that compounds the injury by inflicting death and suffering against other innocent people. Perpetrators of crime must be brought before the bar of justice, but there must also be safeguards that protect the innocent from being made victims of generalized retribution.

    When an individual commits a crime, there should be clear liability. When a state commits a crime, however, who is to be held to account? According to the Principles of Nuremberg that were applied to the Axis leaders after World War II, it should be the responsible parties, whether or not they were acting in the service of the state. At Nuremberg, it was determined that sovereignty has its limits, and that leaders of states who committed serious crimes under international law would be held to account before the law. These crimes included crimes against peace, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

    Without the international norms that are established by law, the danger exists of reverting to international anarchy, in which each country seeks its own justice by its own means. Only established legal norms, upheld by the international community and supported by the most powerful nations, can prevent such chaos and the ultimate resort to war to settle disputes. International legal norms are essential in a world in which violence can have even more fearful results than were first experienced at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    International law is needed if we are to abolish war before war abolishes us. We cannot have it both ways. If we choose law, the nations of the world must join together in a common effort to support and enforce the law. Albert Einstein, the great 20th century scientist and humanitarian, wrote, “Anybody who really wants to abolish war must resolutely declare himself in favor of his own country’s resigning a portion of its sovereignty in favor of international institutions: he must be ready to make his own country amenable, in case of a dispute, to the award of an international court. He must in the most uncompromising fashion support disarmament all around….”

    In recent years, the United States has pulled away from international law by disavowing treaties, particularly in the area of disarmament, and by withdrawing its support from the International Criminal Court. Without US leadership in support of international law, force rather than law will gain strength as the international norm. Relying on force may be tempting to the most powerful country on the planet, but it portends disaster, not least for the United States itself.
    *David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

     

  • Yucca Mountain: A Salient Solution?

    In the push to open a national nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, the nuclear power industry claims that it is better to consolidate the nation’s waste at one site, rather than leave it at nuclear reactors across the country. Yucca Mountain is initially planned to hold 77,000 metric tons of nuclear waste, with possible expansion in the future. Although there is intense earthquake and volcanic activity at the site, risks of transporting the highly radioactive wastes cross-country, as well as the proposed dump’s rising costs, the decision to locate the national nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain is based on providing welfare to the nuclear lobby and the utilities that operate nuclear power plants.

    The Yucca Mountain proposal entails transporting highly radioactive waste from temporary storage sites in 45 states by train, truck and barge routes that come within miles of some 50,000,000 people. If you would like to see how close the proposed shipments come to your own residence, visithttp://www.mapscience.org. In the past 25 years alone, over 600 earthquakes of 2.5 or greater on the Richter Scale have struck within 50 miles of Yucca Mountain. In 1992, a 5.6 quake cracked walls, shattered windows, and caused some one million dollars in damage to the Department of Energy (DoE) field office studying the site. A 1999 quake derailed a train on a railway that could be used to haul nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain. The most recent earthquake registered a magnitude of 4.4 on June 14th, 2002.

    Even if Yucca Mountain opens, high-level nuclear waste will remain at every operating reactor site (unless the industry plans to permanently close its reactors-an unlikely scenario), including in California. According to the Department of Energy’s Environmental Impact Statement, there currently are 2,040 metric tons of lethal high-level radioactive waste in California. Following a 38-year waste shipment program, which would include anywhere from 13,690 shipments (if primarily by rail) to 14,479 shipments (if primarily by road) in California, we still would have 1,681 metric tons of this waste within our borders! This is because Yucca Mountain is limited, by law, in how much waste can be placed there.

    Clearly, Yucca Mountain would not solve the nation’s radioactive waste problem, it would just spread it across our highways and railways. The Senate, which is expected to vote on this issue in the next week, should reject the earthquake-prone Yucca project and begin working on a real solution to nuclear waste. The best alternative to Yucca Mountain is to stop making nuclear waste and to convert existing waste into dry cask storage to be maintained in the interim at reactor sites. While nuclear waste already exists, creating more nuclear waste without having a safe or scientifically credible means of disposal is simply irresponsible.

    What can you do?

    Write a letter or call your Senator and urge them to oppose the nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. The vote is expected to take place on 9 July, so your urgent action is needed now!

    To find your Senator, call the congressional switchboard or visit the following websites to locate contact information. You can also find local district contract information in the government pages of your phone book.

    Congressional Switchboard is 202-225-3121

    Senators:
    http://www.senate.gov/contacting/index.cfm

    Resources

    How close are YOU to proposed Yucca high level nuke waste transportation routes & the closest nuke reactor? Find out at http://www.mapscience.org

    Nuclear Information and Resource Service http://www.nirs.org

    Public Citizen http://www.publiccitizen.org/atomicroad

     

  • Real Fireworks, or Just Bombs Again?

    Published in Common Dreams

    As Interdependence Day approaches, the United States humbly admitted error in bombing a wedding party in Afghanistan, killing around 40 people and injuring more than 60. Bombs and rockets in our country symbolize a celebration of freedom, but in other parts of the world, these explosions are all too real, bringing carnage, death and grueling efforts to survive destruction of homes and livelihood.

    This error, undoubtedly labeled ‘collateral damage’, stands next to a smattering of misguided bombs which have inadvertently and regrettably killed hundreds of civilians in numerous countries over the past few years. As reported by the BBC, during the current Bush administration’s war on terror in Afghanistan, U.S. planes accidentally killed four Canadians in April, bombed the town of Hazar Qadam in January, fired at a caravan of tribal elders en route to the inauguration ceremony for Hamid Karzai and last October hit a residential area in Kabul rather than the intended helicopter at the airport. Oops.

    For the pilots and American citizens, these mistakes are akin to losses while playing a video game. From afar, with targets merely illuminated points on a screen, the people who die are unreal, just numbers and statistics. When we kill by remote control, our hands are theoretically clean. The computer won’t show blood and won’t cry; it’s a machine, an abstraction.

    The people affected by our ubiquitous blunders, however, are terribly real, as is their pain. In February of 1991, during the Gulf War, U.S. planes bombed a women’s and children’s shelter in Baghdad called al-Amiriya. Hundreds of civilians died as a result of the two bombs hitting this supposed-safe haven. The U.S. apologized after realizing what happened, but still continues to bomb the country, even in the past week.

    The rhetoric about a “new war” with Iraq is a farce. We are already at war informally with them. Friday June 28th we dropped bombs in the South of Iraq. Wednesday the 26th of June as well. On Thursday the 20th of June four people in Iraq were killed when U.S. planes bombed them. Eighteen people were wounded when bombs fell on Iraq on the 25th of May. And another four were killed when we bombed Iraq on February 6th. I’d imagine that Iraqis feel attacked and besieged as bombs continue to fall in an undeclared, ongoing, indefinite war that inevitably targets civilians.

    When I tell people this, they invariably say, “Where’d you hear this? Why didn’t I know about it?” It’s in the news, alright, but it’s just hard to find. These statistics get buried in the middle of stories about deposing Saddam Hussein and vilifying his evil acts.

    “But Saddam kills his own people!” He did this in the 1980’s as well when he was our friend. We just turned a blind eye then. Besides, we kill our own people, executing hundreds of people since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976. The crime of a state murdering its own civilians looks different when it’s on our own soil.

    Incidentally, these bombs that rain down on Iraq are illegal under international law. They were not approved by Congress nor by the United Nations. The United States justifies dropping bombs as we unlawfully patrol Iraqi borders enforcing the bogus “no fly zones.” Iraqis have become sadly accustomed to the noisy air raid sirens.

    You cannot achieve peace through war. The United States cannot continue to be proud guardians of weapons of mass destruction and deify their usage, apologize for their errors and claim that we are the land of the free and the home of the brave. Do these mistakes which take innocent lives make us safer or prove our strength or our liberty? Is it righteous or noble to kill unarmed guests at a wedding? Moreover, to what end are we still bombing Afghanistan – has it brought us closer to capturing Osama bin Laden? Has enough justice not been rendered on the citizens of Afghanistan to make up for the loss of lives on September 11th?

    We are not alone on this small planet, a fact that ought to be in the hearts and minds of all Americans as the nationally celebrated holiday approaches. We drive automobiles made in Japan, drink coffee from South America, wear clothes made in Southeast Asia, buy oil from the Middle East and Africa and import furniture from Sweden. Even our fireworks are made in China!

    On July 4th, millions of American children will be lighting sparklers and tracing their names in the night sky. They should also trace the names of any of the thousands of displaced Afghani children, due to the bombings, who are still refugees on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan. They should trace the names of the Iraqi children who are their same-age counterparts, held captive under the sanctions and threatened almost daily by U.S. bombs. On Interdependence Day, each and every one of us is affected by an errant bomb.
    *Leah C. Wells serves as Peace Education Coordinator for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. This article was also published at Commondreams.org and Counterpunch.org

  • Unusual Courage from 31 Members of Congress

    Unusual Courage from 31 Members of Congress

    Thirty-one courageous members of Congress, led by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), are challenging the president’s unilateral withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. These representatives deserve our appreciation for taking action to prevent Mr. Bush from trampling on the Constitution in his continuing effort to undermine international law and expand US military domination.

    This is a critical challenge to the abuse of presidential authority. A lot is riding on it. If the president can unilaterally voids our laws, which ones will be the next to go? Perhaps the first and fourth amendments? If your congressional representative is not one of the 31 parties to this lawsuit, he or she should be asked why not and urged to join the lawsuit and support it in the Congress.

    Not a single US Senator has had the courage to join this lawsuit. Sen. Russell Feingold (D-WI) initially indicated his intention to join the lawsuit, but then backed off when his request to receive pro bono legal services was not approved by the Senate Ethics Committee. All US Senators should also be urged to join in this challenge.

    The ABM Treaty required a two-thirds vote of the Senate in 1972 for ratification to enter into force and to become US law. Now the 100 members of the Senate appear content to sit on the sidelines as the president unilaterally nullifies the law they made.

    Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), a plaintiff in the lawsuit, recently wrote: “The ABM Treaty is the cornerstone of international arms control. Now that more countries have nuclear weapons, international treaties are even more important. International cooperation is the way to peace and international security; not increased military build-up. Over the past 30 years, the ABM Treaty has been a vital link to working with the international community and it is more important than ever that we not turn our back on it.”

    Meanwhile, at Fort Greely, Alaska, the Bush administration has broken ground on six underground missile interceptor silos, is spending more than $7 billion on missile defense this year, and continues to move ahead with its plans to weaponize outer space in order to protect US interests and investments throughout the world.

    Meanwhile, the Russians have withdrawn their ratification of the START II Treaty in response to the US withdrawal from the ABM Treaty. This opens the door for the Russians to use multiple independently targeted warheads (MIRVs) on their missiles.

    Meanwhile, the leaders of India and Pakistan, following the example of US leaders, act as though nuclear deterrence will prevent a nuclear war between them as they confront each other over Kashmir.

    Thank you, Representatives Kucinich and Woolsey and your colleagues in this lawsuit for demonstrating unusual courage at a difficult time.
    *David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • Ants Marching

    Published at Common Dreams & the Santa Barbara Newspress
    Originally Published in the Ventura County Star

    From a distance, an anthill looks like an inanimate mound of earth. Yet when from up close, you see movement – ants busily working for the greater good of their ecosystem, ants who bear the brunt of hard labor, carrying many times their body weight in food for the colony, working in unison.

    From a distance, Santa Barbara looks like this anthill. We might appear comfortably inert, insulated from the economic injustices which have plagued nearby areas like Ventura and Los Angeles Counties, but looking closely, we are a community in motion.

    The agricultural laborers, workers and pickers who sustain the local economy are like the ants: diligently working, yet often out of sight or unappreciatedly trampled underfoot. The People’s March for Economic Justice scheduled for Saturday, April 27 here in Santa Barbara will highlight the diverse groups working toward achieving a sustainable economy, a living wage and workplace justice in our community. This march aims to show the commitment, the momentum and the ongoing winnable struggles which affect everyone.

    Among the groups involved are the United Farm Workers, the Coalition for a Living Wage and two groups looking to challenge the role of the University of California’s involvement in less-than-humanitarian endeavors – the UC Nuclear Free Campaign and Students for a Free Tibet.

    Nearly fifty local groups have endorsed this march, overwhelming evidence that many people in Santa Barbara County are interested in economic justice and informed about the issues. Yet many people still live at a distance, believing that our anthill is just fine as is.

    Student groups disagree. Students for a Free Tibet and the student members belonging to the UC Nuclear Free Campaign support the local struggles for economic justice by challenging the UC school system’s involvement with BP Amoco petroleum investments in Tibet and the inappropriate relationship between the University of California and the Department of Energy regarding oversight and management of the nuclear weapons research facilities and laboratories.

    Michael Coffey of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation says that “these issues – human rights in Tibet and the military-industrial-academic complex – directly affect what goes on locally in the Santa Barbara Community.” He continued by saying, “We must support those who sustain our local economy by challenging the fundamentally undemocratic policy and practice of overseeing nuclear weapons research and development by the largest employer in Santa Barbara County, UCSB.”

    The need to de-link the University of California from the nuclear weapons industry is inextricably linked to the People’s March for Economic Justice. More than $6 billion in taxpayer dollars supports the relationship between UC and DoE, money which would be much more wisely spent on education, healthcare and social services infrastructure. Rather than funding the machinery of death, we should allocate our resources toward promoting a better quality of life for all people.

    The United Farm Workers from Ventura County will be present at the march to explain the situation with their employer, mushroom mogul Pictsweet, owned by United Foods, Inc. For nearly fourteen years the workers have tried to gain a contract, and in September 2000 initiated a boycott of Pictsweet products hoping to influence the management to come to the negotiating table. The workers want safer working conditions, a raise to accommodate the rising cost of living, a forum for mediating conflicts on the job and most of all, respect.

    The Pictsweet workers are encouraged and excited to be participating in this march.

    “Our community is in movement,” says United Farm Workers organizer Brendan Greene. “We are working to change our community, to better our community for ourselves and our families. We want everyone in Santa Barbara to see our struggles and our hard work and to become a part of our campaigns for justice.”

    A living wage for Santa Barbara County residents is tremendously important. UCSB instructor and Ph.D. candidate Keith Rosendal analyzed local data about the economic structure of our community and found that rents in Goleta have increased by 33% and over 20% in Santa Barbara, highlighting a need for affordable housing for all local residents. He learned that since 1996 more than 21% of people living in Santa Barbara County have no health insurance, compared to the national figure of 13%, and that the growth of jobs in Southern California has occurred in areas which pay very little – in the service and agricultural sectors. These statistics are a mirror held up to our faces: what kind of a society can accept the disparity of allocation of resources and access to important things like healthcare, decent wages and respect!

    Marches symbolize motion, movement, progress. Our community Economic justice ought to be attainable for all members of our society, which will require support and solidarity in Santa Barbara.

    The power in nonviolent action is unity, diversity and recognition of the delicate web of interconnectedness which binds all the issues together at the People’s March for Economic Justice.
    *Leah C. Wells serves as the Peace Education Coordinator at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • Struggle at Pictsweet Continues; Public Support of Boycott Sought

    Published in the Ventura County Star

    The goal is not to bring your enemies to their knees but to their senses. — Mahatma Gandhi

    Jim Lawson, the man who spent two years at Gandhi’s ashram studying nonviolent movements and who was responsible for desegregating the Nashville lunch counters through sit-ins and boycotts, says that violence has a simple dynamic: “I make you suffer until you say ‘uncle.’ ”

    Such are the tactics of Pictsweet toward its pro-union workers.

    The management at Pictsweet — led by General Manager Ruben Franco, Human Resources Manager Gilbert Olmos and the minion managers who oversee the various departments — are trying to bring the workers who want United Farm Workers representation and a contract with Pictsweet to their knees and strong-arm them into submission, to break their spirit and determination.

    On June 4, the Agricultural Labor Relations Board corroborated the anti-union practices at Pictsweet in a ruling that crescendos a similar ruling from Jan. 10. Both in January and this month, the ALRB upheld section 1152 of the Agricultural Labor Relations Act, which states that workers have the right to self-organization and forming, joining and assisting labor organizations. The ALRB found that Pictsweet is in violation of section 1153 (a) and (c) by way of interfering with the aforementioned rights as well as discriminating against workers who engage in pro-union activities.

    Enter Fidel Andrade. He was fired on May 31 as a result of engaging in protected activities a few days earlier — standing up for a co-worker, union movement leader Jesus Torres.

    In defending Andrade’s actions, the ALRB cited the provocation doctrine, which “prohibits an employer from provoking an employee to the point where he commits an indiscretion or insubordinate act and then relying on that indiscretion to discipline him.”

    In its ruling, the ALRB also pointed out that “it is apparent that management seized the May 27 incident as an opportunity to rid itself of an employee that union leader Torres characterized as his ‘right-hand.’ ”

    Last week, the ALRB ruled that not only was the termination of Andrade’s employment excessive punishment, but that Pictsweet routinely practices singling out union supporters. Pictsweet management already had its eye on Andrade, as he gave an interview to The Star after the compost fire last year, commenting that the fire aggravated his asthma and that he wished the company would give workers time off with pay while the fire was extinguished.

    Discrimination of this magnitude is commonplace at Pictsweet, which is owned by United Foods, Inc., a corporation based in Bells, Tenn., with policies rooted in plantation governance. The treatment of Pictsweet workers in Ventura shows an atavistic Civil War-era mentality where working conditions are treacherous and the work force disposable.

    Workers at Pictsweet are struggling for a contract that will provide for a means of arbitration in the case of disputes like the one on May 27. They want the law to work for them in protecting their rights and their jobs. They want a better salary, more than the 48 cents per basket they currently make; they want better health benefits so that they do not have to pay $150 per family member per year before insurance covers their medical costs. They want a pension plan so that, upon retirement, they have something to show for their commitment to Pictsweet and their hard work. Most of all, however, they want respect and a voice at work.

    The management at Pictsweet claims that the workers themselves are trying to bring the company to its knees rather than its senses.

    They claim that the boycott, which was called in September 2000, intends to hurt the company. So far, it has hurt Pictsweet: The company has lost millions in contracts with businesses like Ralph’s, Vons and Costco, and it continues to throw away tens of thousands of pounds of mushrooms every week rather than negotiate fairly for a contract with its workers.

    Gandhi taught that boycotts are a means of nonviolent persuasion that oppressed people can use to bring people to their senses. While successful, the Pictsweet boycott still needs support from the public, especially against mushrooms at Pizza Hut, to win a contract.
    *Leah C. Wells serves as peace education coordinator for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. The United Farm Workers may be reached at 486-9674.

  • Smoke and Mirror Security

    Last week, the Bush Administration took the American people a step backwards to the dark days of the Cold War. The U.S. formally withdrew from the Anti Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty with Russia. The withdrawal from the treaty will facilitate Bush’s development of a National Missile Defense System.

    Now, without the treaty and with $8 billion earmarked for National Missile Defense, the Bush administration is clear to develop this controversial and questionable program. But we have a major problem; we simply don’t have the technology to make it work. According to Dr. David Wright of the Union of Concerned Scientists, President Bush is rushing to develop “systems [that] will not provide ’emergency capability’ against real-world threats, only the illusion of capability.”

    A National Missile Defense system would not have prevented September 11th. Every day we encounter more national security challenges that do not have military solutions. We don’t need government “hocus-pocus,” we need to invest our scarce economic resources on proven, cost effective ways to provide for our national security and the future of our children. The $8 billion ear marked for National Missile Defense could be better spent on rebuilding our national economy, improving schools, developing alternative energy resources to lessen our dependency on foreign fossil fuels and enhancing our homeland security: protecting our international borders, increasing airline security and expanding public health measures to combat bioterrorism.

    When President Bush first threatened withdrawal, I introduced House Resolution 313 with the support of 50 of my colleagues to keep the U.S. on the ABM treaty. Most recently, I joined 31 of my colleagues in a lawsuit charging that President Bush does not have the authority to unilaterally withdraw from a treaty without the consent of Congress.

    The ABM treaty is the cornerstone of international arms control. Now that more countries have nuclear weapons, international treaties are even more important. International cooperation is the way to peace and international security; not increased military build-up. Over the past 30 years, ABM treaty has been a vital link to working with the international community and it is more important than ever that we not turn our back on it.

  • Farewell to the ABM Treaty

    Farewell to the ABM Treaty

    Without a vote of the United States Congress and over the objections of Russia and most US allies, George W. Bush has unilaterally withdrawn the US from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, rendering it void. His withdrawal from this solemn treaty obligation became effective today, June 13, 2002.

    Bush’s action is being challenged in US federal court by 31 members of Congress, led by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH). We should be thankful that there are still members of Congress with the courage and belief in democracy to challenge such abuse of presidential power.

    Since becoming president, Bush has waged a campaign against international law. Withdrawal from the ABM Treaty is but one of a series of assaults he has made, including pulling out of the Kyoto Accords on Climate Change, withdrawal of the US from the treaty creating an International Criminal Court, opposing a Protocol to the Biological Weapons Convention that would allow for inspections and verification, and failing to fulfill US obligations related to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.

    Bush told the American people that he was withdrawing from the ABM Treaty so that the US could proceed with the deployment of missile defenses defenses that most independent experts believe are incapable of actually providing defense. The president has traded a long-standing and important arms control treaty for the possibility that there might be a technological fix for nuclear dangers that would allow the US to threaten, but not be threatened by, nuclear weapons. In doing so, he has pulled another brick from the foundation of international law and created conditions that will undoubtedly make the US and the rest of the world less secure. He has also moved toward establishing an imperial presidency, unfettered by such constitutional restraints as the separation of powers.

    In 1972, when the US and USSR agreed to a treaty limiting anti-ballistic missile (ABM) systems, they did so for good reasons, which are described below in the Preamble to the treaty to which I have added some comments.

    Proceeding from the premise that nuclear war would have devastating consequences for all mankind, [Nothing has changed here, except that 30 years later we might better use the term “humankind.”]

    Considering that effective measures to limit anti-ballistic missile systems would be a substantial factor in curbing the race in strategic offensive arms and would lead to a decrease in the risk of outbreak of war involving nuclear weapons, [This relationship between offensive and defensive systems still holds true.]

    Proceeding from the premise that the limitation of anti-ballistic missile systems, as well as certain agreed measures with respect to the limitation of strategic offensive arms, would contribute to the creation of more favorable conditions for further negotiations on limiting strategic arms, [The recent treaty signed by Bush and Putin only applies limits to actively deployed nuclear weapons and at levels high enough to still destroy civilization and most life on the planet.]

    Mindful of their obligations under Article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, [The United States under the Bush administration has been contemptuous of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and its Article VI obligations to achieve nuclear disarmament.]

    Declaring their intention to achieve at the earliest possible date the cessation of the nuclear arms race and to take effective measures toward reductions in strategic arms, nuclear disarmament, and general and complete disarmament, [These promises remain largely unfulfilled 30 years later.]

    Desiring to contribute to the relaxation of international tension and the strengthening of trust between States…. [The US missile defense program and related US plans to weaponize outer space have the potential to again send the level of international tensions skyrocketing, particularly in Asia.]

    The ABM Treaty was meant to be for an “unlimited duration,” but allowed for withdrawal if a country should decide “that extraordinary events related to the subject matter of this Treaty have jeopardized its supreme interests.” Bush never bothered to explain to the American people or to the Russians how the treaty jeopardized the supreme interests of the United States. It is clear, though, that withdrawal from the treaty as a unilateral act of the president has undermined our true “supreme interests” in upholding democracy and international law.

     

    *David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • Bush Administration Stops One Dirty Bomber, But Targets US Cities With Largest Dirty Bomb Program in History

    While Attorney General Ashcroft announced the capture of an alleged al Qaeda operative intending to make a radioactive “dirty bomb,” the Bush Administration has given the rubber stamp for thousands of potential dirty bombs to move across the United States to a leaky dump at Yucca Mountain. A national nuclear dump in Nevada, located far from the sites of waste generation would result in millions of shipping miles of high-level nuclear waste – the most concentrated nuclear material on the planet. The routes (barge, rail and truck) would be general commerce routes that link trade centers. Major US cities in 43 states are in the cross hairs for Yucca shipments, which in the current era, could well become dirty bombs if exploded in transit.

    The radioactivity in these containers-primarily from commercial nuclear power–dwarfs the amount of persistent radioactivity released by nuclear weapons. Indeed, each truck cask contains the radiological equivalent of 40 times the persistent radioactivity released by the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima. A rail shipment contains as much as 240 times more than released at Hiroshima. While shipping containers are touted as robust, the US Department of Energy’s own tests have shown that rocket launchers that are for retail sale in many countries around the world are capable of penetrating a shipping cask, releasing deadly amounts of radioactivity.

    “The Yucca Mountain nuclear waste shipments would travel through thousands of communities and each and every one of them will be a rolling risk of terror. Here in DC the rail route travels through tunnels nearly under the US Capitol. How can the US Senate stand by and allow this program to go forward?” asked Mary Olson, Director of the Southeast Office of Nuclear Information and Resource Service. “My home in Asheville, NC is at the cross roads of three major nuclear waste routes so we call it the ‘Atomic Crossroads’ — but so is Albuquerque, Atlanta, Indianapolis, St Louis, Chicago, Lansing and hundreds of other US cities.”

    The US Senate will make the crucial decision about Yucca, likely in the next few weeks. The State of Nevada has vetoed President Bush’s approval of this flawed scheme. Congress has the opportunity to uphold or override Nevada’s veto. The US House has sided with Bush. “The senators in states with nuclear reactors should be clear that they are not getting rid of all the nuclear waste, Yucca just makes room for new waste to be made, and converts their cities and states to potential terrorist target ranges,” said Kevin Kamps, Nuclear Waste Specialist at NIRS.

    Up to 100,000 shipments over 30 years are projected depending on how much is moved by truck, barge or rail. “Providing security over a 30 year period for tens of thousands of moving targets is not realistic” Kamps continued. “These shipments will be no secret; the containers are so large that it would be practically like trying to hit a barn if a terrorist decided to shoot at one! Putting dirty bombs on the rivers, roads and rails through our cities will NOT increase our security; Yucca Mountain is the exact wrong plan.”

    Senate action on Yucca Mountain is expected in the coming weeks.
    -NIRS-