Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Blog

  • Groups Urge Countries to Oppose Bush’s Nuclear Plans

    Originally Published on OneWorld US

    As country representatives enter the second week of discussions on a treaty aimed at limiting the spread of nuclear arms around the world, peace groups are urging them to oppose a possible United States policy shift that could mean a new role for nuclear weapons as part of the “war against terrorism.”

    International delegates, who are currently meeting in New York to prepare the ground for a 2005 review of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), are under pressure from lobby groups to take a stand against controversial U.S. nuclear defense proposals which have been publicized in recent months.

    David Krieger, president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, which has a representative at the NPT meeting, says the U.S. is in danger of violating international law if it goes ahead with proposals to make nuclear weapons a legitimate part of the country’s portfolio of defense options.

    “That the U.S. is making contingency plans and preparations to use nuclear weapons is revealed in its secret Nuclear Posture Review,” said Krieger, referring to a confidential policy report, partially declassified in January, which outlined the case for the weapons in the post-September 11 security climate.

    “Just as planning and preparation for aggressive war was held to be a crime at Nuremberg, U.S. planning and preparation to use nuclear weapons constitutes…a crime under international law,” said Krieger, noting a 1996 International Court of Justice ruling that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be illegal.

    Leaks to the media last month revealed that the Posture Review named seven states–Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, North Korea (news – web sites), Russia, and China–against which nuclear weapons could be used. Of those states, only Russia and China are known to possess nuclear weapons.

    Since the second bomb was dropped by the U.S. on Nagasaki, Japan, in 1945, nuclear weapons have not been used. However, the Review raises the prospect of the development of smaller and more functional nuclear weapons that could be more easily deployed, according to media reports.

    Jan Øberg, director of the Sweden-based Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research, believes that the new U.S. posture signals a change in how nuclear weapons will be perceived in the future.

    “Morally and politically nuclear weapons are not something you just throw around, but now there is the prospect they could be used against a government we don’t like, and in particular, a list of countries that don’t have the capacity to invade or who don’t have nuclear weapons at all,” Øberg explained.

    The posture is consistent with the lack of enthusiasm demonstrated by the administration of George W. Bush for multilateral efforts to controls arms, said John Isaacs, head of Council for a Livable World, pointing to the U.S. government’s reluctance to support the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention.

    “We hope the rest of world does not do the same thing because the more the U.S. goes against world opinion, the more likely it will weaken treaties, leading other countries to withdraw and to begin to develop nuclear capabilities,” said Isaacs.

    The preparatory committee session, which began Monday, is scheduled to end April 19. The NPT itself, which includes 187 member states, has led international initiatives on non-proliferation, nuclear disarmament, and other nuclear treaties, such as the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, since 1970.

  • Our Taxes, Our Voices

    Originally Published by Common Dreams

    “A government which spends more on its military than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.” – Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

    As April 15th nears and Americans devote countless grueling hours toward tax preparation, how many people examine where their money actually goes?

    Certainly the prospect of shelling out money each spring to the Internal Revenue Service does not contribute to an atmosphere of personal tranquility and peace in the days and hours before the postmarked envelopes and begrudgingly-written checks are sent to the faceless bureaucracy which keeps our country afloat. The process of relinquishing hard-earned money sends pangs of frustration and resentment through many people.

    Is there a way to make this less painful? Can we envision a day when we give with glee because we know that our taxes ending up in the right places, helping the right people and addressing the problems in our society which affect us all? Can we ever become less resentful about paying taxes? Perhaps the answer is found in our priorities.

    If you want to personally quantify your values, follow where you spend your money. Are you buying movie tickets, supporting millionaires? Are you buying gasoline? Shopping at the GAP? Eating out? Are you donating to worthy causes? Are you sponsoring an underprivileged child overseas or in your town? If we want to know on an individual level where our priorities are, our expenses can provide important clues.

    If we want to know where our priorities are on a national scale, we can follow our federal spending as well. This year, our federal budget gives a big boost to the military, our way of solving problems internationally. The Osprey aircraft and Virginia attack submarines received a combined $4.2 billion dollars and nearly half our budget is allocated for past and present military spending. At the same time, significant cuts were made in “programs of social uplift”: $700 million in job training and employment, $85 million to train doctors in children’s hospitals, $596 million from the Department of Education and $417 million to repair housing. Interesting.

    And the core values which we hold dear are reflected in the national budget: power, authority, defense and protection. Education, healthcare, social services and investment in workers get short shrift this year. Nine million children (one in seven) have no health insurance in the United States. One in eight never graduate high school. One-fourth live with only one parent. Over the next ten years, more than 2.2 million teachers will be needed to address the high turnover rate in the educational system and compensate for retiring teachers. The average length of time a new teacher sticks with the profession? Two years.

    At the heart of the matter is what really will make us more secure – a big military or a healthy, smart, fulfilled population. Can we actually become safer if we are better educated, well-nourished and have well-paying stable employment and hope for the future? Or is a big military the only way? And what do taxes have to do with this?

    Almost half of our taxes are applied to keeping our country safe through a strong military.

    The quote by Dr. King gets at the heart of the matter. On a personal level, we are taught to rely on gadgets like mace, tasers, martial arts and self-defense, The Club and complex home security devices to protect our stuff and our well-being. On a national level, we are taught to rely on national missile defense, nuclear weapons, a large well-equipped military and the theory of mutually assured destruction. These ploys play upon our fears of death and insecurity, and they make a great deal of money for a small amount of people. Imagine if we began to embrace the idea that life is fundamentally insecure and that regardless of all the protective measures, the gizmos, the gimmicks and the firepower we buy or rely on, that our time on earth is limited and fragile.

    Moreover, do we need to live in fear and suspicion of others in order to be safe?

    By addressing the root causes rather than effects of violence – like lack of education, low-paying jobs, poor health care, stress and relationship problems – through adequate funding and appropriation of financial resources shows that American people are at the heart of our concern. In contrast, focusing only on tragedy and insecurity detracts from the positive components in American society.

    This year, Hart High School in Valencia, CA had to cut funding for its bus transportation for extra-curricular activities which require distance travel; many other high schools nationwide have experienced similar cutbacks. Is it morally right to deprive students of after school activities, thus increasing the likelihood that they will end up unsupervised and getting into trouble? Can we justify spending $1.1 billion in military aid to Colombia rather than funding buses for high school sports teams and bands?

    As tax day draws nigh, we as Americans are challenged to examine our lives, our budgets, our bank account balances and our priorities. We have power through deliberate acts of conscience to challenge the IRS to appropriate a portion of our money to a peace tax fund. We can ask Congress to fund a cabinet-level Presidential advisory Department of Peace. Our paycheck is our power and our voice. How should our money be spent?

    We decide.
    *An admirer of Henry David Thoreau, Leah C. Wells advocates peaceful applications of tax dollars toward increasing teachers’ salaries, funding to after school programs, college scholarships and social services.

  • The New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade – New Agenda Position Paper

    Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Preparatory Committee, New York
    April 2002

    I Background

    In 1995, the States parties extended the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty indefinitely and undertook to make every effort to achieve its universality. The Review Process of the Treaty was strengthened and Principles and Objectives to address the implementation of the Treaty were adopted. The Resolution on the Middle East was adopted as an integral part of the 1995 package.

    In 1996, the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice concluded unanimously that: “There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control”.

    The Final Document of the 2000 NPT Review Conference represents a positive step on the road to nuclear disarmament. In particular, nuclear-weapon States made the unequivocal undertaking to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals and agreed on practical steps to be taken by them that would lead to nuclear disarmament. To this end, additional steps were necessary to improve the effectiveness of the strengthened review process for the Treaty.

    II Fundamental Principles

    The participation of the international community as a whole is central to the maintenance and enhancement of international peace and stability. International security is a collective concern requiring collective engagement. Internationally negotiated treaties in the field of disarmament have made a fundamental contribution to international peace and security.

    Unilateral and bilateral nuclear disarmament measures complement the treaty based multilateral approach towards nuclear disarmament. It is essential that fundamental principles, such as transparency, verification and irreversibility, be applied to all disarmament measures.

    We reaffirm that any presumption of the indefinite possession of nuclear weapons by the nuclear-weapon States is incompatible with the integrity and sustainability of the nuclear non-proliferation regime and with the broader goal of the maintenance of international peace and security.

    Irreversibility in nuclear disarmament, nuclear reductions, and other related nuclear arms control measures is imperative. A fundamental pre-requisite for promoting nuclear non-proliferation is continuous irreversible progress in nuclear arms reductions.

    Each article of the Treaty is binding on the respective State parties at all times and in all circumstances. It is imperative that all States parties be held fully accountable with respect to the strict compliance of their obligations under the Treaty.

    Further progress on disarmament must be a major determinant in achieving and sustaining international stability. The 2000 NPT undertakings on disarmament have been given and the implementation of them remains the imperative.

    A nuclear-weapon-free world will ultimately require the underpinning of a universal and multilaterally negotiated legally binding instrument or a framework encompassing a mutually reinforcing set of instruments.

    III Developments since the 2000 NPT Review Conference

    To date, there have been few advances in the implementation of the thirteen steps agreed to at the 2000 NPT Review Conference. We remain concerned that in the post Cold War security environment, security policies and defence doctrines continue to be based on the possession of nuclear weapons. The commitment to diminish the role of nuclear weapons in security policies and defence doctrines has yet to materialise. This lack of progress is inconsistent with the unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear-weapon States to achieve the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals. In addition, we are deeply concerned about emerging approaches to the future role of nuclear weapons as part of new security strategies.

    The Conference on Disarmament has continued to fail to deal with nuclear disarmament and to resume negotiations on a non-discriminatory, multilateral and internationally and effectively verifiable treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devises taking into consideration both nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation objectives. The expectations of progress that resulted from the 2000 NPT Review Conference have to date not been met.

    Although implementation of the CTBT’s international monitoring system has proceeded, the CTBT has not yet entered into force. There are no indications that nuclear-weapon States have increased transparency measures. Measures have been taken by one nuclear-weapon State to unilaterally reduce the operational status of its nuclear weapons systems. To date, there is no evidence of any agreed concrete measures to reduce the operational status of nuclear weapon systems.

    There is no sign of efforts involving all of the five nuclear-weapon States in the process leading to the total elimination of nuclear weapons. On the contrary, there are worrying signs of the development of new generations of nuclear weapons. While welcoming the statements of intent regarding substantial cuts by the United States and the Russian Federation to deployed nuclear arsenals, we remain deeply concerned at the continuing possibility that nuclear weapons could be used. Despite the intentions of, and past achievements in bilateral and unilateral reductions, the total number of nuclear weapons deployed and stockpiled still amounts to thousands.

    There is concern that the notification of withdrawal by one of the State parties to the treaty on the limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile systems (ABM), the additional element of uncertainty it brings and its impact on strategic stability as an important factor contributing to and facilitating nuclear disarmament, will have negative consequences on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. It could also have grave consequences for the future of global security and create an apparent rationale for action based solely on unilateral concerns. Any action, including development of missile defence systems, which could impact negatively on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, is of concern to the international community. We are concerned about the risk of a new arms race on earth and in outer space.

    The achievements and promise the bilateral START process held, including the possibility it offered for development as a plurilateral mechanism including all the nuclear-weapon States, for the practical dismantling and destruction of nuclear armaments, undertaken in the pursuit of the elimination of nuclear weapons, is in jeopardy.

    In the United Nations Millennium Declaration, the heads of State and Government resolved to strive for the elimination of weapons of mass destruction, in particular nuclear weapons, and to keep all options open for achieving this aim, including the possibility of convening an international conference to identify ways of eliminating nuclear dangers.

    We are concerned by the continued retention of the nuclear-weapons option by those three States that operate unsafeguarded nuclear facilities and have not acceded to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, as well as their failure to renounce that option.

    There has been progress in the further development of nuclear-weapon-free zones in some regions, and, in particular, the movement towards freeing the Southern Hemisphere and adjacent areas from such weapons. In this context, the ratification of the treaties of Tlatelolco, Rarotonga, Bangkok and Pelindaba by all the States of the region, and all concerned States is of great importance. They should all work together in order to facilitate adherence to the protocols to nuclear-weapon-free zone treaties by all relevant States that have not yet done so. States parties to those treaties should be encouraged to promote their common objectives with a view to enhance cooperation among the nuclear-weapon-free zones and to working together with the proponents of other such zones. On the other hand, no progress has been achieved in the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones in the Middle East, South Asia and other regions.

    IV The Way Ahead

    We remain determined to pursue, with continued vigour, the full and effective implementation of the substantial agreements reached at the 2000 NPT Review Conference. That outcome provides the requisite blueprint to achieve nuclear disarmament.

    Multilaterally negotiated legally binding security assurances must be given by the nuclear-weapon States to all non-nuclear-weapon States parties. The Preparatory Committee should make recommendations to the 2005 Review Conference on the modalities for immediate negotiations on this issue. Pending the conclusion of such negotiations, the nuclear-weapon States should fully respect their existing commitments in this regard.

    The nuclear-weapon States must increase their transparency and accountability with regard to their nuclear weapons arsenals and their implementation of disarmament measures.

    Further efforts by nuclear-weapon States to effectively reduce their nuclear arsenals unilaterally are required. Formalisation by nuclear-weapon States of their unilateral declarations in a legally binding agreement including provisions ensuring transparency, verification and irreversibility is essential. Nuclear-weapon States should bear in mind that reductions of deployments are a positive signal but no replacement for the actual elimination of nuclear weapons.

    Nuclear-weapon States should implement the NPT commitments to apply the principle of irreversibility by destroying the nuclear warheads in the context of strategic nuclear reductions and avoid keeping them in a state that lends itself to their possible redeployment. While deployment reduction, and reduction of operational status, give a positive signal, it cannot be a substitute for irreversible cuts and the total elimination of nuclear weapons.

    Further reductions of non-strategic nuclear weapons should be a priority. Nuclear weapon States must live up to their commitments. Reductions of non-strategic nuclear weapons should be carried out in a transparent and irreversible manner and to include reduction and elimination of non-strategic nuclear weapons in the overall arms reductions negotiations. In this context, urgent action should be taken to achieve:

    • further reduction of non-strategic nuclear weapons, based on unilateral initiatives and as an integral part of the nuclear arms reduction and disarmament process;
    • further confidence-building and transparency measures to reduce the threats posed by non-strategic nuclear weapons;
    • concrete agreed measures to reduce further the operational status of nuclear weapons systems; and to formalising existing informal bilateral arrangements regarding non-strategic nuclear reductions, such as the Bush-Gorbachev declarations of 1991, into legally binding agreements.

    Nuclear-weapon States must undertake the necessary steps towards the seamless integration of all five nuclear-weapon States into a process leading to the total elimination of nuclear weapons.

    We underline the importance and urgency of signatures and ratifications to achieve the early entry into force of the CTBT without delay and without conditions. This gains additional urgency since the process of the installation of an international system to monitor nuclear weapons tests under the CTBT is more advanced than the real prospects of entry into force of the treaty. This is a situation not consistent with the idea of elaborating a universal and comprehensive test ban treaty.

    In the interim, it is necessary to uphold and maintain the moratorium on nuclear weapon test explosions or any other nuclear explosions pending entry into force of the CTBT. The strict observance of the CTBT’s purposes, objectives and provisions is imperative.

    The Conference on Disarmament should establish without delay an ad hoc committee to deal with nuclear disarmament.

    The Conference on Disarmament should resume negotiations on a non discriminatory, multilateral and internationally and effectively verifiable treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices taking into consideration both nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation objectives.

    The Conference on Disarmament, as the single multilateral negotiating forum, has the primary role in the negotiation of a multilateral agreement or agreements, as appropriate, on the prevention of an arms race in outer space in all its aspects. The Conference should complete the examination and updating of the mandate contained in its decision of 13 February 1992, and to establish an ad hoc committee as early as possible.

    The international community must redouble its efforts to achieve universal adherence to the NPT and to be vigilant against any steps that would undermine its determination to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Those three States [India, Pakistan and Israel] which are not yet parties to the NPT, must accede to the Treaty as non-nuclear weapon States, promptly and without condition, and bring into force the required comprehensive safeguards agreements, together with the additional model protocol, for ensuring nuclear non-proliferation, and to reverse clearly and urgently any policies to pursue any nuclear weapons development or deployment and refrain from any action that could undermine regional and international peace and security and the efforts of the international community towards nuclear disarmament and the prevention of nuclear weapons proliferation.

    The Trilateral Initiative between the IAEA, the Russian Federation and the United States must be implemented, and consideration should be given to the possible inclusion of other nuclear-weapon States.

    Arrangements should be made by all nuclear-weapon States to place, as soon as practicable, fissile material no longer required for military purposes under IAEA or other relevant international verification.

    International treaties in the field of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation must be observed, and all obligations flowing from those treaties must be duly fulfilled.

    All States should refrain from any action that could lead to a new nuclear arms race or that could impact negatively on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.

    V The Strengthened Review Process

    The Preparatory Committee should deal with the procedural issues necessary to take its work forward but also with matters of substance as was decided in the 1995 and 2000 outcomes, and to ensure that the issues of substance deliberated upon are recorded in the factual summary of the Preparatory Committee.

    The Preparatory Committee should substantively focus on nuclear disarmament so as to ensure that there is a proper accounting in their reports by States of their progress in achieving nuclear disarmament. Accountability will be assessed in the consideration of these reports that the States parties agreed to submit. The Preparatory Committee should consider regular reports to be submitted by all States parties on the implementation of article VI and paragraph 4(c) of the 1995 Decision.

    The strengthened review process envisioned in the 2000 NPT Final Document concerning the implementation of the Treaty and Decisions 1 & 2 as well as the Resolution on the Middle East adopted in 1995 should be fully implemented.

    These reports should be submitted to each session of the Preparatory Committee. The reports on article VI should cover issues and principles addressed by the thirteen steps and include specific and complete information on each of these steps (inter alia, the number and specifications of warheads and delivery systems in service and number and specifications of reductions, dealerting measures, existing holdings of fissile materials as well as reduction and control of such materials, achievements in the areas of irreversibility, transparency and verifiability). These reports should address current policies and intentions, as well as developments in these areas.

  • Letter to US Senators on ABM Treaty Nuclear Weapons Policy

    April 2002

    Senator Tom Daschle 1-202-224-7895
    Senator Joseph Biden, Chair, Senate Foreign Relations Committee 1-202-224-0139
    Senator Carl Levin, Chair, Senate Armed Services Committee 1-202-224-1388
    Senator Edward M. Kennedy, 1-202-224-2417,
    Senator Russell Feingold 1-202-224-2725,
    Senator Dianne Feinstein 1-202-228-3954,
    Senator Robert Byrd 1-202-228-0002
    Congressman Dennis Kucininch 1-202-225-5745

    Re: US Withdrawal from ABM Treaty

    Dear Senators Daschle, Biden, Levin, Kennedy, Feingold, Feinstien, and Congressman Kucinich,

    The undersigned organizations and parliamentarians, representing large numbers of people from around the world, write to you to express our concern over the proposed withdrawal from the Anti Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty by the Bush administration, and our concern over the direction of US nuclear weapons policy as expressed in the recent Nuclear Posture Review. This, combined with what seems to be a trend toward unilateral actions on a variety of fronts, can only serve to decrease the confidence of long-term US allies in US policy direction.

    We strongly urge the Senate to do all that is in its power to prevent a withdrawal from the ABM treaty.

    We further urge the Senate to impress on the administration the vital need for the US to demonstrate its determination to implement its obligations under Article VI of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty(NPT), and the final document of the Year 2000 NPT Review Conference. In the light of recent revelations from the nuclear policy review this is now more important than ever.

    The 2000 NPT Review Conference Final Document committed nuclear weapon states to an unequivocal undertaking to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals. It also urged the ‘…early entry into force and the full implementation of START-II and the conclusion of START-III as soon as possible while preserving and strengthening the ABM treaty as a cornerstone of strategic stability and as a basis for further reductions of strategic offensive weapons in accordance with its provisions’.

    The US should not set aside either the ABM treaty, or its obligations under the nearly universal NPT. The Senate has a clear duty to ensure that it does not do so.

    At a time when the US is working with a broad-based coalition of nations (including Russia and China) in the struggle against terrorism, unilateral withdrawal from an important arms-control treaty sends a very negative signal to the rest of the world. Now more than ever, the US should be mindful of its international treaty obligations.

    In the post-cold-war era, it is important to proceed with Russia toward the total and unequivocal elimination of nuclear arsenals, and to immediately remove weapons systems from launch on warning status.

    The agreements proposed for finalizing in Moscow and Petersburg 23-25 May do not do this. The deployment of an anti-ballistic missile system will make it unlikely that such an agreement can be reached. Already, the Russian Duma has passed a motion urging the Russian government to examine Russia’s military options in response to the US withdrawal from the ABM Treaty.

    The deployment of a US BMD system will also give China a pretext to further upgrade its nuclear missiles, from the current 20 single- warhead ICBMs to a system with 200 much more sophisticated warheads. This is not in the security interests of the US.

    The deployment of a US BMD system would have been of no utility whatsoever in preventing the terrible events of 11 September 2001. Such a system is of no relevance to the real security needs of the US, but diverts vital funding and attention from the measures that are truly required.

    The US Congress had to approve the ABM treaty before it became the law of the United States. In 1798 when the US had to withdraw from a treaty with France, the then President John Adams, signed an act of Congress to withdraw from treaty obligations. In 1846, Congress had to pass a joint resolution to withdraw from a treaty with the UK.

    A number of key US Senators have strongly expressed opposition to US withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, and rightly so. It is vital that the good statements that have been made by you be translated into action.

    There are a number of clear actions that the US should be taking instead of withdrawing from the ABM Treaty.

    It is unfortunate and alarming that the current nuclear posture review seems to assume that nuclear weapons will remain a part of the US strategic posture indefinitely, and envisages even the development of new varieties of nuclear weapon. This is directly contrary to US obligations under the NPT as reinforced by the final document of the year 2000 NPT Review Conference.

    We urge you to impress on other Senators and the Bush administration that the US, instead of proceeding to withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, should instead place the highest priority on the implementation of its obligations under Article VI of the NPT and the 13 points of the final document of the NPT Review Conference, on which international attention will be focussed at the NPT Prepcom of 8-19 April.

    To Reiterate:

    – The US should be seen to be clearly proceeding toward the implementation of its NPT obligations, to accomplish the total and unequivocal elimination of its nuclear arsenal.

    – We strongly urge the Senate to do all in its power to prevent withdrawal from the ABM Treaty.
    Signed:

    International Groups

    Mary Wynne-Ashford, Co-Chair, John Loretz Program Director, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), Victoria BC Canada/Boston, USA,
    William Peden, Disarmament Campaigner, Greenpeace International,Lond, UK,
    Ricardo Navarro, Chair, Friends of the Earth International (FOEI),
    Daria Cave, General Secy., Womens International League for Peace and
    Freedom International Office (WILPF-International), Geneva,
    Colin Archer, International Peace Bureau (IPB) Geneva,
    Ian Davis, Director, British/American Security Information Centre, (BASIC)
    Lond/Washington,
    Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space (Globenet),
    Gainesville Fl, USA,
    Pol D’ Huyvetter, For Mother Earth International, Ghent, Belgium,
    Ak Malten, Global Anti-Nuclear Alliance, The Hague, Neth,
    Per de Rijk, World Information Service on Energy (WISE), Amsterdam, NL,
    Peter Weiss, President, Phon Van Den Biesen, Secy., International
    Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms (IALANA), The Hague, Neth,
    Lorraine Krofchock, Director, Grandmothers for Peace International, Elk
    Grove, Calif, USA,
    Archdeacon Taimalelagi Fagamalama Tuatagaloa-Matalavea (Faga)
    Anglican Observer at the United Nations, ‘on behalf of 73 million Anglicans
    and Episcopalians around the world’
    Virginia Baron, International President, International Fellowship of
    Reconciliation, (IFOR), Alkmar, Neth,
    Rev. Vernon C. Nichols, President, NGO Committee on Disarmament, UN, NY,
    David Krieger, President, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (NAPF), Santa
    Barbara, Calif, USA,
    Dr. Rosalie Bertell (Recipient of the MacBride Peace Prize, International
    Peace Bureau, 2001 UNEP 500 Laureate 1993 Recipient of the Right
    Livelihood Award 1986) International Institute for Concern for Public
    Health, Toronto, Canada,
    Karen Talbot, International Council for Peace and Justice (ICPJ), San
    Francisco USA,
    Regina Hagen, Coordinator, International Network of Engineers and
    Scientists Against Proliferation (INESAP) Darmstadt, Germany,
    Douglas Mattern, President, Association of World Citizens, San Francisco, USA,
    Athanassios Pafilis, World Peace Council, Greece,
    Fiona Dove/Ophelia Cowell, Transnational Institute, Amsterdam/Jakarta,
    Prof. Charles Mercieia, International Association of Educators for World
    Peace,

    United States Groups

    Robert K Musil PHD MPH, Executive Director, Physicians for Social
    Responsibility (PSR) Washington, DC, USA,
    Andrew Harris MD, Past President, PSR,
    John Burroughs, Executive Director, Lawyers’ Committee on Nuclear Policy
    (LCNP), New York, NY, USA,
    Kevin Martin, Executive Director, Peace Action, Washington DC,
    Alfred L. Marder, US Peace Council, NY,
    James K. Galbraith, Chair, Economists Allied for Arms Reduction (ECAAR) NY,
    Sally Light, Executive Director, Nevada Desert Experience, Las Vegas, NV USA,
    Carol Wolman, Nuclear Peace Action Group, Albion, Calif, USA,
    Ellen Thomas Proposition One Committee Washington DC USA,
    Marylia Kelley, Executive Director,Tri-Valley CAREs (Communities Against a
    Radioactive Environment), Livermore, CA USA,
    Mary Olson, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, (NIRS) Wash, DC.,
    Bill Smirnow, Nuclear Free New York, Huntington, New York, USA
    Steve Malkus, Project Catalyst, Falmouth, Ma, USA,
    Robert M. Gould, MD, President, San Francisco Bay Area Chapter Physicians
    for Social Responsibility (PSR), Berkeley, USA,
    Ed Arnold, Executive Director, Tom Ferguson, Physicians for Social
    Responsibility Atlanta, Atlanta, GA, USA,
    Peter Wilk, Physicians for Social Responsibility Maine,
    Deborah Du Nun Winter, PhD, President, Psychologists for Social
    Responsibility, Wash DC, USA,
    Alice Slater, GRACE Public Fund, NY, USA,
    Dr. Kathleen Sullivan, Nuclear Weapons Education and Action Project, NY, USA,
    Stephen Kobasa, Trident Resistance Network, New Haven, Ct., USA,
    Alice Swift, CPPAX Nuclear Weapons Abolition Task Force,
    Robert Alpern, Sonoma County Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, CA, USA,
    Bob Kinsey, Peace and Justice Task Force, United Church of Christ, Rocky
    Mountain Conference, Colo, USA,
    Dr. David Joslin, Capitol Region Conference of Churches,
    Andrew Greenblatt, Coordinator, Religious Leaders for Sensible Priorities,
    NY, USA,
    Scott Kennedy, Chair, National Council, Fellowship of Reconciliation, NY,
    Tom Cordaro, Dave Robinson, Chair, Pax Christi USA,
    Darlene Ehinger, Pax Christi Huntsville,
    Peter Ediger, Pace e Bene,
    Sr. Mary Kay Flanagan, OSF, 8th Day Centre for Justice, Chicago, Ill,
    Robert M. Smith, Brandywine Peace Community, PA, USA,
    Stacey Fritz, Nonukes North, Fairbanks, Alaska,
    Andrew Hund, Coordinator, Alaska Arctic Environmental Defense Fund,
    Anchorage, Alaska, USA,
    Stacey Studebaker, Kodiak Rocket Launch Information Group, Alaska,
    Wilson(Woody) Powell, National Administrator, Veterans for Peace, St Louis,
    Mo.,
    James C. Allen MD, Veterans for Peace Chapter 25, Madison, Wisc,
    Peggy Macintyre, Coordinator, Grandparents for Peace,
    Molly Johnson, Coordinator, Grandmothers for Peace San-Luis Obispo, Calif, USA,
    Rochelle Becker, San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace, Calif, USA,
    Rosalie Tyler Paul, Peace Action Maine, Maine, USA,
    Francis Chiappa, Vice Pres., Cleveland Peace Action, Ohio, USA,
    Peter T. Ferenbach, Executive Director, California Peace Action,
    Peter Bergel, Oregon Peaceworks, Salem, Ore,
    Peter Bergel, President, Centre for Energy Research,
    Jeanne Koster, South Dakota Peace and Justice Centre, SD, USA,
    Lisa Brown, President, North Dakota Peace Coalition,
    Phyllis W. Stanley, Environment and Peace Education Centre, Fort Meyers, Fl,
    Myra Breshanan, Earth Day New York, USA,
    Alanna Hartzok, Director, Earth Rights Institute, Pa, USA,
    Elise Harvey, Lansing Area Peace Education Center, Lansing, Mich, USA,
    North Carolina Peace Action, NC, USA,
    Harvey Wasserman, Citizens Protecting Ohio, Ohio, USA,
    Glenn Carrol, Georgians Against Nuclear Energy, Atlanta, Ga,
    Bruce A. Drew, Prairie Island Coalition, Minn., USA,
    Dave Kraft, Nuclear Energy Information Service, Evanston, IL USA.
    Eric Garis, Director, Antiwar.Com., USA,
    Preston Truman -Director, Downwinders, Idaho, USA,
    Prof. Glen Acalay, Co-Chair, National Committee for Radiation Victims (NCRV),
    Jonathan Mark, Flyby News, Florida,
    Dr. Carol Rosin, President, Institute for Cooperation in Space (ICIS),
    Norman Cohen, Executive Director, Coalition for Peace and Justice, NJ,
    Florida Coalition for Justice and Peace ,
    Greg Mello, Director, Los Alamos Study Group (LASG), Santa Fe, NM,
    Michael J. Keegan, Coalition for a Nuclear-Free Great Lakes, Monroe, Mich,
    Corrinne Carey, Don’t Waste Michigan,
    Mitzi and Peter Bowman, Don’t Waste Connecticut, Conn, USA,
    Adele Kushner, Action for a Clean Environment, Alto, GA, USA,
    Keith Gunter, Citizens Resistance at Fermi-Two,
    Vivian Stockman, Concerned Citizens Coalition, WV, USA,
    George Crocker, North American Water Office, MN, USA,
    Juliette Majot, International Rivers Network, Berkeley, CA,
    Alyson Ewald, Sacred Earth Network, Amherst, MA, USA,
    Jan Hively, Peace Garden Project, MN, USA,
    Fern Katz, Womens Action for New Directions (WAND)Metro Detroit, Detroit,
    Jen Randolph Reise, Co-Director, Women Against Military Madness (WAMM)
    Minnesota,
    Mary Day Kent, Executive Director, Womens International League for Peace
    and Freedom (WILPF) USA, Philadelphia, PA,
    Bernice Fisher, Peninsula Chapter WILPF,
    Rear-Admiral Eugene J. Carrol, USN(Retd.), Vice Chair CDI(Pers Capy)
    Hyman Rudoff, (Physicist, Ex-Manhattan Project), Los Alamos,
    Paul R. Ehrlich, Stanford University,
    Daniel Ellsberg, Manhattan Project-II,

    Canadian Groups

    Peter Stoffer MP Sackville-Musquodboit Valley, Ottawa, Canada,
    Svend Robinson, MP Barnaby-Douglas Ottawa, Canada,
    Libby Davies MP, Vancouver East, Canada,
    Bill Blaikie MP, New Democrats, Canada,
    Jennifer Simons, President, Simons Foundation, BC, Canada,
    Desmond Berghofer, Institute for Ethical Leadership, Vancouver, BC,
    Hannah Newcombe, Director, Peace Research Institute, Dundas Ontario, Canada,
    Neil Arya, President, Ross Willcock, Physicians for Global Survival(PGS),
    Canada,
    Carolyn Bassett, Coordinator, Canadian Peace Alliance, Canada,
    Ernie Regehr, Project Ploughshares, Ontario, Canada,
    Gordon Edwards, President, Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility
    (CCNR)Montreal, Canada,
    Joan Russow, Global Compliance Research Project, Victoria BC, Canada,
    Stacey Chappel, Vancouver Island Public Interest Research Group (VPIRG),
    Vancouver, BC, Canada,
    Sue Fraser, Secy., Vancouver Island Network for Disarmament, BC, Canada,
    Ivan Bulic, Society Promoting Environmental Conservation, (SPEC), Vancouver
    BC, Canada,
    David Bruer, Peacefund Canada, Ottawa, Canada,
    Anne Williams, Chair, Lethbridge Network for Peace,Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada,
    Ben Webster, New Green Alliance, Saskatchewan, Canada,
    Gordon Simpson, Inter-Church Uranium Committee, Sask,
    Dave Greenfield, Who On Earth Music and Art Collective, Saskatchewan, Canada,
    David Morgan, National President, Veterans Against Nuclear Arms (VANA),
    Canada,
    Kira Van Deusen, Foundation for Siberian Culture and Native Exchange,
    Canada,

    UK Groups

    Commander Robert D Green, Royal Navy (Retd.) International Chair, World
    Court Project UK,
    Peter Nicholls, Chair, Abolition 2000 UK,
    Carol Naughton, Chair, CND (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament) Lond, UK,
    Anna Cheetham, Chair, Leicester Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament,
    Neil Kingsnorth/Dave Webb, Yorkshire CND,
    Jenny Maxwell, West Midlands CND(WMCND), UK,
    Jill Stallard, CND-Cymru, Wales,
    Camille Warren, Greater Manchester and District CND,
    Ralph Say, Woking CND, UK,
    David Platt, Barbara Sunderland, Christian CND, Lond, UK.,
    Lindis Percy and Anni Rainbow Joint Co-ordinators Campaign for the Accountability of American Bases (CAAB), Yorkshire, UK,
    Helen John, Menwith Hill Women, Menwith Hill, Yorks, UK,
    Ulla Roeder, Trident Ploughshares,
    Sian Jones, Aldermaston Womens Peace Campaign, AWE, Berkshire, UK.,
    Peter J. Davies, US Rep, Saferworld, UK.,
    Di Mc Donald, Nuclear Information Service, Southampton, UK,
    Pat Gaffney, Secy., Pax Christi UK,
    Tony Compton, Chair, Elizabeth Compton, Vice-Chair, Fellowship of
    Reconciliation, UK,
    Andrew Tanner, SMILE Tribe International, Cornwall, UK
    Penny Kemp, Chair, Green Party of England and Wales,
    David Drew MP, House of Commons, UK,
    Frank Cook, MP for Stockton North House of Commons, UK,
    Caroline Lucas MEP for SE England, Green Party, UK,
    Patricia Mc Kenna MEP, Greens, Ireland,

    German Groups

    Xanthe Hall, IPPNW-Germany, Berlin, Germany,
    Hans-Peter Richter, German Peace Council,
    Anette Merkelbach, Darmstaedter Friedensforum (Germany),
    Roland Blach, Gewaltfrieie Aktion Atomwaffen Abschaffen Kornwesthiem,
    Markus Pfluger, AGF-Trier, Germany,
    Roland Blach, Landesgeschaftsführer
    Deutsche-Friedens-Gesselschaft-Vereinigte Kriegsdienstgegner Innen
    Baden-Wurtemberg,
    Wolfgang Schlupp-Hauck, BoD Friedens -und Begegnungstaette Mutlangen eV, Germany,
    Wolfgang Schlupp-Hauck, Tragerkreis Atomwaffen Abschaffen, Germany,
    Dr. Reinhard J. Voss, Secy. General, Pax Christi, Germany,
    Wolfgang Hertle, Archiv-Aktiv, Hamburg, Germany,
    Hiltrud Breyer MEP,

    Austrian Groups

    Maria Reichl, President, Centre for Encounter and Active Nonviolence, Bad
    Ischl, Austria,
    Andreas Pecha, Secy., Austrian Peace Council, Vienna,
    Joseph Puehringer, OÖ Plattform Gegen Atomgefahr, Austria,

    Czech Groups

    Jan Beranek, Director, Hnuti Duha (Friends of the Earth Czech Republic), Brno,
    Joseph Puehringer, Centrum Energie, Ceske Budejovice, Czech Rep,
    Burgerinitiative Umweltschutz, Ceske Budejovice, Czech Rep.,

    Netherlands Groups

    Martin Broek, Campagne Tegen Wapenhandel Amsterdam, Neth,
    Karel Koster, Project on European Nuclear Nonproliferation (PENN), Neth,
    Carolien Van de Stadt, WILPF-Netherlands,
    Dr. J.P. Feddema MP, Green-Left, Neth,
    Frank Van Schaik, ASEED-Europe, Amsterdam, Neth,

    Belgian Groups

    Eloi Glorieux, MP(Greens) Flemish Parliament, Belgium,
    Peter Vanhoutte MP, Belgian Chamber of Representatives, Brussels, Belg,
    Claudine Drion MP(Greens) Brussels, Belgium,
    Zoe Genot, Federal MP, Greens(Ecolo), Belgium,
    Leen Laenens MP, Brussels, Belgium,
    Mich Crols, Forum Voor Vredesaktie, Belgium,
    Georges Spriet, Vrede VzW, Belgium,
    Saraswati Matthieu/Ruben Vanhaverbeke, Jong Agalev (Young Greens), Belgium,

    Other European Groups

    Pietro Folena MP, Italian Parliament, Rome,
    Ospaaal-Solidaridad, Madrid, Spain,
    Jordi Armadans, Director, Fundacio Per La Pau, Barcelona, Spain,
    Dr. Vasos Poupis, President, Cyprus Peace Council, Cyprus,
    Alba Circle Nonviolent Peace Movement, Hungary,
    Aurel Duta, Mama Terra/For Mother Earth Romania, Bucharest, Romania,
    Thor Magnusson, Peace 2000 Institute, Reykjavik, Iceland,
    Elizabeth Erlandsson, Women for Peace, Switzerland,

    Finnish Groups

    Malla Kantola, Committee of 100, Helsinki, Finland,
    Teemu Matinpuro, Finnish Peace Committee, Helsinki, Finland,
    Lea Launokari, Women for Peace
    Pirkko Lindberg, Women against Nuclear Power
    Gerd Söderholm, Amandamaji ry
    Lea Rantanen, Grandmothers for Peace
    Anneli Pääkkönen, Weaping Women

    Norwegian Groups

    Hallgeir H. Langeland MP, Norway,
    Prof. Bent Natvig, Chair, Norwegian Pugwash Committee, Oslo, Norway,
    Bjorn Hildt, Norwegian Physicians Against Nuclear Weapons (IPPNW-Norway),
    Trondhiem, Norway,

    Swedish Groups

    Maj-Britt Theorin MEP, Sweden,(President, International Peace Bureau)
    Ursula Mueller, Swedish Green Party,
    Stefan Bjornson, Swedish Scientists and Engineers Against Nuclear Arms (SEANA),
    Gunnar Westberg MD, President, SLMK (IPPNW-Sweden),

    Danish Groups

    Dr. Bo Normander, Friends of the Earth Denmark (NOAH),
    Poul-Eck Sorensen, Peace Movement of Esbjerg, Esbjerg, Denmark,
    Birgit Horn/Ulla Roeder, Women for Peace, Denmark,
    Finn and Tove Eckmann, Liason Committee for Peace and Security, Denmark,
    Anja Johansen, MILITAERNAEGTERFORENINGEN (Conscientious Objectors), Denmark,

    Russian Groups

    Prof. Sergei Grachev, Academician Sergei Kolesnikov (Member State Duma),
    IPPNW-Russia,
    Prof. Alexi Yablokov, President, Centre for Russian Environmental Policy,
    Moscow, Russia,
    Vladimir Slivyak, co-chair, Ecodefense, Moscow, Russia,
    Alla Yaroshinskaya, Ecological Fund, Moscow, Russia,
    Jennie Sutton, Baikal Environmental Wave, Irkutsk, Russia,
    Dr. Vyacheslav Sharov, Ural State Medical Academy, Chelyabinsk, Russia,
    Dr.Valery Sukhanov, Chief Director, MediTrust (Chelyabinsk , Russia)
    Oleg Bodrov, Chairman,NGO Green World, St. Petersburg region, RUSSIA
    Ecological North-West Line, St Petersburg, Russia,
    Dr. Andrei Laletin, Friends of the Siberian Forests, Krasnoyarsk, Russia,

    CIS Groups

    Victor Khazan Member of Verkhovna Rada (Parliament of Ukraine),
    Victor Khazan, Friends of the Earth Ukraine,
    Ilya Trombitsky, BIOTICA Ecological Association, Moldova,
    Green Alternative, Tblisi, Georgia,
    Rusudan Simonidze, Friends of the Earth Georgia,
    Farida Huseynova, Chairperson, Azerbaijan Green Movement, Baku, Azerbaijan

    French Groups

    Solange Fernex, Womens International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF), France, Paris, France,
    Abraham Behar/Patrice Richard, IPPNW-France (AFMPGN)
    Daniel Durand,Secy., Mouvement de la Paix, Paris, France,
    Jean-Marie Matagne, President, Action des Citoyens pour le Desarmement
    Nucleaire (ACDN),
    Dominique Lalanne, Stop-Essais, Paris, France,
    Bruno Barrilot, Director, Nuclear Weapons Observatory, France,

    Asian, African, & Latin-American Groups

    Bahig Nassar, Coordinator, Arab Coordination Centre of NGOs, Cairo, Egypt,
    Dr. Mourad Ghaleb, President, Afro-Asian Peoples Solidarity Organization
    (AAPSO), Egypt,
    Gideon Spiro, Israeli Committee for Mordecai Vanunu, Jerusalem, Israel,
    The Ceasefire Campaign, Braamfontein, Johannesburg, South Africa,
    Nnimmo Bassey, Friends of the Earth/Environmental Rights Action Nigeria
    Nam Abdul Hai, Secy. General, Youth Approach to Development and Cooperation
    (YADC), Dhaka, Bangladesh,
    Ron Mc Coy, Malaysian Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War,
    Petaling Jaya, Malaysia,
    Bishan Singh, President, Sustainable Development Network, (SUSDEN), Malaysia,
    Hyun Sook Lee, Women Making Peace, Korea,
    Longgena Ginting, WALHI-Friends of the Earth Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia,
    Harley, Executive Director, Forum for the Environment (WALHI), Central
    Sulawesi, INDONESIA,
    Grace de Haro, APDH, Bariloche, Argentina,
    Jean Patterson, LIMPA-Heredia, (WILPF) Costa-Rica,
    Luis Gutierrez-Esparza, President, Latin American Circle for International
    Studies (LACIS) Mexico City (MEXICO)
    Ricardo Navarro, Friends of the Earth El-Salvador,(Chair, Friends of the
    Earth International)

    Pakistani Groups

    Prof. M. Ismail, Chair, RISE-Peshawar, Pakistan,
    Dr. A. H. Nayyar, Pakistan Peace Coalition, Islamabad, Pakistan,
    Muhammed Sharif Bajwa, Human Rights Foundation, Pakistan,
    M.A. Hakim, Save the Earth International,
    Arshad Mahmood, SPARC, Pakistan,

    Indian Groups

    Ammu Abraham, Womens Centre, Santa Cruz, Mumbai, India,
    Dr. Vikram Vyas, The Ajit Foundation, Jaipur, India,
    S. P. Udayakumar, Community Centre for Education, Research and Action,
    Nagercoil, Tamil Nadu,
    Dr. George Thomas, Physicians for Peace, Chennai (Madras) India,

    Phillipines Groups

    Myrla Baldonado, Coordinator, Alliance for Bases Cleanup (ABC), Quezon
    City, Phillipines,
    Corazon Valdes-Fabros, Nuclear-Free Phillipines Coalition, Quezon City,
    Phillipines,
    Olola Ann Zamora OLIB, exec. Director, Peoples Task Force for Bases
    Cleanup-Phillipines,
    John Witeck, Phillipine Workers Support Committee,

    Japanese Groups

    Riko Asato, Japan Council Against A and H Bombs (Japan Gensuikyo), Tokyo, Japan,
    Satomi Oba, Plutonium Action Hiroshima, Hiroshima City, Japan,
    Mari Takenouchi, Citizens Nuclear Information Centre (CNIC) Japan,
    Yumi Kikuchi, Founder, Global Peace Campaign,
    Sachiyo Oki/Kuzhou Sanada MD, President, Japanese Physicians for the
    Prevention of Nuclear War (JPPNW),
    Hiro Umebayashi, President, Akira Kawasaki, Peace Depot, Yokohama, Japan,

    New Zealand Groups

    Dr. Kate Dewes, Disarmament & Security Centre, Christchurch, New Zealand,
    Marion Hancock, Peace Foundation Aotearoa/NZ, Auckland, NZ,
    Desmond Brough, Chair, National Consultative Committee on Disarmament and
    Peace, NZ,
    Desmond Brough, President, Peace Council of Aotearoa/New Zealand
    Peter Low, Quaker Peace and Service Action Committee, Aotearoa/NZ,
    Alyn Ware, Aotearoa Lawyers for Peace, Aotearoa/NZ,
    Roger Kemp, Quaker Peace and Service, Aotearoa/NZ.,
    Margot Parkes/Simon Hales, Med. Eco, Aotearoa/NZ,
    Wellington Quakers Peace and Public Questions Committee, Aotearoa/NZ.,
    Nelson Peace Group, Nelson, New Zealand,
    John La Roche, National President, Engineers for Social Responsibility,
    Auckland, NZ
    R.E. White, Deputy Director, Centre for Peace Studies, Auckland, NZ.,
    Lawrence F. Ross, New Zealand Peacemaking Association, Auckland, NZ,
    Keith Locke MP, Greens, NZ.,
    Sue Kedgley, MP Greens, NZ,

    Australian Groups

    Lee Rhiannon MLC, Greens, NSW, Aust,
    Giz Watson MLC, WA Greens,
    Senator Natasha Stott-Despoja, Leader, Australian Democrats,
    Senator Vicki Bourne, Spokesperson for Foreign Affairs, Defence &
    Broadcasting, Australian Democrats Senator for NSW, Aust,
    Senator Andrew Bartlett, Australian Democrats Senator for Qld, Aust,
    Senator Lyn Allison, Australian Democrats Senator for Victoria,
    Kelly Hoare MHR, ALP Federal Member for Charlton, NSW, Aust,
    Jill Hall MHR, ALP Federal Member for Shortland, NSW, Aust,
    Jann Mc Farlane MHR, ALP Federal Member for Stirling, W.A.,
    Sharon Grierson MHR ALP Federal Member for Newcastle, NSW,
    Tanya Plibersek MHR, ALP Federal member for Sydney, NSW,
    Sue Wareham, President, Giji Gya, Executive Officer, Medical Association
    for the Prevention of War Australia (MAPWA),
    Irene Gale AM, Australian Peace Committee, Adelaide, SA,
    Jo Vallentine, People for Nuclear Disarmament W.A.,
    Natalie Stevens, Campaigner, People for Nuclear Disarmament(PND) NSW, Surry, Hills, NSW,
    Michael Priceman, Nuclear Study Group, Sutherland Shire Environment Centre,
    Joan Shears, Rally for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament Brisb, Aust,
    Kirsten Blair and Mark Wakeham, Coordinators, Environment Centre of the
    Northern Territory(ECNT) Darwin, NT,
    Jan Dixon, Big Scrub Environment Centre, Lismore, NSW,
    Glenn Marshall, Coordinator, Arid Lands Environment Centre (ALEC), Alice
    Springs, NT,
    Ray Richmond, Wayside Chapel, Uniting Church in Australia, Kings Cross, NSW,
    Rev. Greg Thompson, St Johns Anglican Church, Darlinghurst,
    Margaret Hinchley, Catholics in Coalition for Justice and Peace, Croydon
    Park, NSW, Aust,
    Matt Skellern, National Environment Officer, National Union of Students,
    (NUS)
    Cherie Hoyle, Urban Ecology Australia,
    Kel Dummett, Global Justice Inc., Melbourne, Aust,
    John Hallam, Nuclear Weapons Spokesperson, Friends of the Earth Australia
    (Letter Coordinator)

     

  • Let Us Choose Life; Let Us End The Nuclear Weapons Threat Now

    As a member of the human family, as a person who feels a deep kinship with all life, as a war veteran who supported President Truman’s decision to use atom bombs to end the war in the Pacific in 1945, I call upon the leaders of my country to act now to end the nuclear weapons threat to humanity’s future.

    Mr. Truman told me that he made his horrifying decision when our nation and other nations were in hell. “War is hell,” he said. “We were burning up thousands of Japanese men, women, and children with fire bombs, night after night. I wanted to end that slaughter.” In a speech he made in 1948, he said: ” I decided that the bomb should be used in order to end the war quickly and save countless lives – Japanese as well as American.”

    I was a soldier in Jefferson Barracks in St. Louis when he took that action. With thousands of other soldiers there and elsewhere, I knew that I might be sent to Japan, to take part in an invasion that might cost my life and the lives of many thousands of people. When the bombs were dropped and the Japanese Emperor surrendered quickly, I took part in a celebration. The hellish time of torment was ended. The joy of release from war uplifted us all.

    As a science fiction writer in the 1930’s, I assumed that the release of nuclear energy would occur. I knew it would cause great dangers, but I thought it could be harnessed for peaceful purposes. I thought that the unlocking of nuclear knowledge might be part of the Creator’s plan for the high development of civilization. With unlimited power available, prosperity might be available for everyone. Poverty would be abolished. Humanity would enter a new age of fulfillment.

    But now I know that nuclear weapons are monstrous instruments that threaten to obliterate life on our beautiful planet. My country, as the nation that used these weapons in a war, has a special obligation to take the lead in getting rid of them.

    As a taxpayer, I helped to finance the construction and proliferation of these terrible weapons. When I worked as a speechwriter for President Truman and for members of the U.S. Senate, I supported the idea of “deterrence” – the belief that such weapons would keep heavily armed nations from going to war. I realized that President Ronald Reagan was right when he said: “A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.” But I did not fully understand that the very existence of such weapons constituted an unbearable peril. Now I do.

    Now I completely endorse the statements in the recent appeal issued by the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. The signers of the appeal declared:

    “We call upon the leaders of the nations of the world and, in particular, the leaders of the nuclear weapons states to act now for the benefit of all humanity and all life by taking the following steps:

    • De-alert all nuclear weapons and de-couple all nuclear warheads from their delivery vehicles.
    • Reaffirm commitments to the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
    • Commence good faith negotiations to achieve a Nuclear Weapons Convention requiring the phased elimination of all nuclear weapons, with provisions for effective verification and enforcement.
    • Declare policies of No First Use of nuclear weapons against other weapons states and policies of No Use against non-nuclear weapons states.
    • Reallocate resources from the tens of billions of dollars currently spent for maintaining nuclear arsenals to improving human health, education, and welfare throughout the world.”

    That appeal has been signed by former President Jimmy Carter; Mikhail Gorbachev, former President of the Soviet Union; Archbishop Desmond Tutu; Elie Wiesel, and many other Nobel prize winners.

    I believe it is an appeal that could be signed by millions of human beings like myself, who have become aware that nuclear weapons endanger all of us and may destroy the whole earth.

    I ask for the forgiveness of my fellow citizens and people everywhere for the part I had in supporting the nuclear arms race when I worked in Washington as a special assistant to the Senate Majority Leader from 1949 to 1952; for the belligerent speeches I wrote for Senators, and the statements I made to friends.

    I still believe that Harry Truman was principally motivated by a desire to save lives when he authorized the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The destruction of those two cities, depicted on film and viewed later by millions of people, had profound effects on the leaders of nations in the subsequent years. It is possible that those bombings prevented a third world war.

    But now it is folly to risk the survival of life on earth by permitting nuclear weapons to exist. Let us choose life; let us get rid of them as fast as we can. I can no longer support their existence. I urge everyone to call for their abolition, as I do now.
    *Frank K. Kelly is senior vice president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • A New Court to Uphold International Criminal Law: The World Moves Forward without the United States

    A New Court to Uphold International Criminal Law: The World Moves Forward without the United States

    Since the devastating carnage of World War II, a war that left some 50 million people dead, far-sighted individuals have worked for a world in which the force of law will prevail over the law of force. The first step toward realizing this vision was the establishment of the Nuremberg Tribunals to hold leaders of the Axis powers to account for crimes committed under international law. This unprecedented step on the part of the Allied powers was led by the United States.

    The American Supreme Court Justice, Robert Jackson, who became the US chief prosecutor at Nuremberg, argued in his opening statement: “We must summon such detachment and intellectual integrity to our task that this trial will commend itself to posterity as fulfilling humanity’s aspirations to do justice.”

    Following the trials, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Principles of Nuremberg, principles of individual accountability that were meant to serve as a standard and a warning to potential violators of international law, no matter how high their position. The first principle stated: “Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment.”

    Principle two clarified that the perpetrator of a crime under international law was not exempted from responsibility by the fact that the crime was not subject to penalty under the internal law of his or her nation. The third principle made clear that even Heads of State and responsible government officials were to be held accountable for acts constituting crimes under international law. The fourth principle provided that superior orders were not a defense to the commission of crimes under international law.

    Principle five allowed that anyone charged with a crime under international law was entitled to a fair trial. The sixth principle set forth the following punishable crimes under international law: crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity. The seventh and final principle made complicity in any of these crimes itself a crime under international law.

    Despite the success of the Nuremberg trials and those held in Tokyo, as well as the adoption of the Nuremberg Principles, for more than forty years the idea of creating a permanent International Criminal Court languished. Then in 1989, the leader of the small island nation of Trinidad and Tobago, Arthur N. R. Robinson, put the issue back on the United Nations agenda.

    In the 1990s the idea of creating the Court gathered momentum at the United Nations. Ad Hoc Tribunals were established for the crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia and in Rwanda. And in 1998 delegates from the nations of the world met in Rome and agreed upon a statute for an International Criminal Court. It was agreed in Rome that when 60 nations had ratified the treaty establishing the Court, it would come into existence.

    In April 2002, far sooner than was predicted, the treaty surpassed the needed 60 ratifications, and is now set to enter into force on July 1, 2002. This is a great milestone for the world. The Principles of Nuremberg can now be made applicable to crimes committed in the Nuclear Age, and no longer will leaders of nations be able to hide from accountability for the most heinous of crimes under international law.

    Somehow, though, between the Nuremberg Trials and the twenty-first century, the United States has gone from being the strongest advocate of individual accountability under international law to an opponent of the Court. President Clinton signed the treaty establishing the Court on December 31, 2000, just weeks before leaving office. The Bush administration, however, has spoken out against the Court, has informed the United Nations that it is nullifying its signature on the treaty, and has indicated that it does not intend to support the Court. Richard Prosper, the US ambassador at large for war crimes issues, stated, “If the prosecutor of the ICC seeks to build a case against an individual, the prosecutor should build the case on his or her own effort and not be dependent or reliant upon US information or cooperation.”

    When it comes to international law, the US appears to practice a double standard. It doesn’t seem to want the same standards of international criminal law to apply to its citizens as are applied to the citizens of the rest of the countries in the world. Fortunately, the world is moving forward with or without the US. Among the US friends and allies that have already ratified the treaty establishing the Court are Austria, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Spain, Sweden and the UK.

    Hans Correll, the UN undersecretary for legal affairs, remarked, “A page in the history of humanity is being turned.” It is shameful that the United States, once passionate about international justice, will not be on this new page of international justice that gives renewed life to the Nuremberg Principles.
    *David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • Peace Proposal: Bring in the Children

    We receive many positive proposals for peace from friends and readers of the Sunflower and our wagingpeace.org web site. I want to share some of them from time to time with a broader audience in the hope that they may spark your ideas and actions. Here is one from Janie, a mother in Philadelphia. She begins by observing that “the world seems to be falling apart” and notes that the format of international meetings hardly changes and the results are generally minimal. “What are we to do?” she asks.

    She answers her question this way: “When things don’t work out with a child, a new tactic is in order, and various tactics are attempted until the right one surfaces and the final breakthrough is accomplished.” Based on her experience, she makes the following proposal:

    “Why doesn’t someone initiate at the next world conference for anything (nuclear disarmament, environment, peace in the Middle East, etc.) that each representative brings to the meeting a grandchild (under the age of about 7 years) and if no grandchild fits this category then a grandniece/nephew or any child that one is extremely fond of?”

    “I think the results would be alarming, surprising,” she writes. “Representatives to these meetings come with their egos, agendas, power, etc. No wonder nothing much is achieved. Get some children in there and what will happen right off the bat is that no one’s heart remains with quite the same hardness and impenetrability. The egos become a little less, the feeling of nationalism decreases a notch. My religion, your religion doesn’t quite hold the power it had. Why? Because the hearts of children have the power, tremendous power to melt the heart, anyone’s heart.”

    She concludes: “So that’s my contribution to conflict resolution, the peace process, disarmament put the future generations before these people, put their very own loved ones, vulnerable ones, sweet and innocent ones in their face and maybe things could get moving to secure a world that they deserve. I am so very serious about this. Is it not worth a try?”

    Of course, it is worth a try. We need leaders who think and act as if they are in the very presence of future generations. We need leaders who are able to shift their thinking and actions from representing powerful corporate interests to representing people and particularly the children who, after all, are the future. We need leaders who, like the native Americans, think of the seventh generation in the future when they make decisions.

    The problem, of course, is how to get a great idea like Janie’s implemented. It seems clear that it would change the tone and tenor of international meetings concerned with peace, disarmament, human rights, the environment, etc. It is difficult to move entrenched leaders, particularly those that seem indebted to vested interests. Perhaps the best way to implement an idea like this is for the children themselves to make their voices heard and to demand a seat at the table.

    I encourage you to talk this idea over with friends and family, including your children and grandchildren. Perhaps we should withhold our votes from leaders who do not make decisions as if in the presence of future generations and who would not be willing to bring children into the halls of government and to international meetings to determine whether it is possible to live in peace with our planet and each other.

     

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

  • Time is running out, and what is at stake is our common future

    Time is running out, and what is at stake is our common future

    The Non-Proliferation Treaty has never been in greater danger, and along with it the people of the world. The cavalier attitudes of the nuclear weapons states toward fulfilling their Article VI promises of nuclear disarmament, have stretched their credibility to the breaking point. A sober evaluation of the progress on the 13 Practical Steps for Nuclear Disarmament, agreed to at the 2000 NPT Review Conference, shows virtually no progress and some serious steps backward on the part of the nuclear weapons states, led by the United States.

    In support of the NPT and its Article VI obligation to achieve nuclear disarmament, many leading world figures have joined together in an Appeal to End Nuclear Weapons Threat to Humanity and All Life, a project initiated by the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. The Appeal has now been signed by many prominent leaders of our time, including Jimmy Carter, Mikhail Gorbachev, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the XIVth Dalai Lama, Queen Noor of Jordan, Coretta Scott King and Muhammad Ali. Among its signers are 38 Nobel Laureates, including 14 Nobel Peace Laureates.

    More than ten years after the end of the Cold War, the US and Russia each continue to deploy some 7,000 strategic nuclear weapons, and together keep some 4,500 of these on hair-trigger alert, ready to be fired in moments. The United States is withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in order to build missile defenses and extend its military domination of the earth through the weaponization of outer space. Thirteen nuclear capable countries, including the United States and China, have yet to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

    The recent US Nuclear Posture Review reveals that the US is planning to develop nuclear weapons that will be more useable and is developing contingency plans for such use against at least seven countries, including five non-nuclear weapons states. The US has also announced disarmament plans that will place large numbers of deactivated nuclear weapons in storage, thus making the “disarmament” process rapidly reversible.

    In addition to the unprincipled behavior of the nuclear weapons states, making nuclear proliferation as well as accidental and intentional nuclear war more likely, the risks of nuclear terrorism are increasing. These are not issues solely for some countries or regions. They are issues on humanity’s agenda, and that agenda is best taken up within the framework of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and by the international community as a whole.

    As the Appeal starkly states, “The only way to assure that nuclear weapons will not be used again is to abolish them.” We urge the delegates to the 2002 NPT PrepCom, and the leaders of the countries they represent, to join together in acting for all life, present and future, in setting forth a practical plan to bring nuclear weapons under strict and effective international control and to begin negotiations for a Nuclear Weapons Convention in order to fulfill the Non-Proliferation Treaty promise of eliminating these weapons completely. Grave risks are inherent in failing. We appeal to you, on behalf of humanity and all life, to accept this responsibility and to do the utmost to eliminate these ultimate weapons of annihilation.

    David Krieger, President
    Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

  • Taking Stock of the Non-Proliferation Regime

    From 8-19 April 2002, States parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) met at the United Nations in New York for the first Preparatory Committee (Prep Com) meeting to the 2005 review conference of the treaty. This was the first meeting of the States parties to the NPT since the 2000 Review Conference at which the Thirteen Practical Steps to Implement Article VI Obligations of the Non-Proliferation Treaty were adopted. While the NPT is the most universal arms control regime, there are serious problems facing its survival as the cornerstone for nuclear disarmament.

    Reporting

    The issue of reporting sparked heated debate during the meeting. In the final consensus document of the 2000 Review Conference, the States parties agreed to “regular reports, within the framework of the strengthened review process for the Non-Proliferation Treaty, by all States parties on the implementation of article VI and paragraph 4 (c) of the 1995 Decision on “Principles and Objectives for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament”, and recalling the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 8 July 1996.” However, at the Prep Com, the nuclear weapons states, led by the US, resisted the idea of a standardized procedure that was put forward by Canada and advocated by many other countries.

    While reporting would be a means to ensure that States are more transparent and accountable for their actions, the US argued that reporting should be left to the determination of individual States parties. Ambassador Javits of the United States delegation stated, “Engaging in technical or legal interpretation of the [13] steps [agreed to at the 2000 NPT Review Conference in the Final Document] individually or collectively would not, in our judgement, be a useful exercise. The question that should be before us on Article VI is not whether any given measure has or has not been fulfilled, but rather: is a nuclear weapon state moving toward the overall goal? For the United States, the answer is an emphatic yes.”

    While the reduction of large nuclear stockpiles that were built up during the Cold War is certainly welcomed, the nuclear weapons States must not simply limit their reporting to these reductions while ignoring specific commitments they made in the context of the NPT. It is a complete hypocrisy for the nuclear weapons States on the one hand to claim that they are fulfilling their obligations to eliminate nuclear weapons by making large reductions in strategic stockpiles, while on the other hand taking no action to reduce reliance on nuclear weapons. In fact, the nuclear weapons States continue to rely on nuclear deterrence, modernize nuclear arsenals and develop new nuclear weapons.

    The US Nuclear Posture Review

    Many statements made by delegations expressed concern, whether explicitly or indirectly, with the US Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) that leaked to the media in March 2002. Fears about US plans and the future of the NPT were heightened when the US said during its opening statement that it only “generally” agrees with the conclusions of the 2000 NPT Review Conference.

    Despite 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. States at the NPT Prep Com also raised concerns about the possible resumption by the US of full-scale nuclear testing and plans to develop and deploy new “earth-penetrating” nuclear weapons.

    The NPR contains contingency plans for using 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 the named states for which the US has contingency plans are non-nuclear states. As Reverend Joan Brown Campbell noted in a Middle Powers Initiative presentation, when the US reserves to itself the right of first strike, it gives up the moral high ground and the right to tell other nations to give up their weapons of mass destruction.

    Counter-proliferation or Prevention?

    After 11 September, there has been an effort to divert attention from key issues facing humanity to the war on terrorism. However, in the post-11 September environment there remains an opportunity to address the prospect of terrorism from weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in a way that deligitimizes their use. There is a legitimate concern about WMD and missile proliferation. However, the only way to ensure that WMD do not reach terrorists is to abolish them and their means of delivery.

    Serious concerns were raised about US plans to deploy missile defenses. Despite agreeing to preserving and strengthening the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in the 2000 Thirteen Practical Steps document, the US delivered formal notification to the States of the former Soviet Union on 13 December 2001 that it will withdraw from the treaty in June 2002 in order to proceed with the deployment of missile defenses. While the stated purpose of missile defenses is to defend against missile attacks, it is unlikely that they could do so effectively. The deployment of missile defenses will only produce instability and insecurity in critical regions of the world, including in North East Asia, the Middle East, and South Asia. Additionally, the inherent link between the deployment of missile defenses and the weaponization of outer space means that withdrawal from the ABM Treaty will allow the US to research and develop space weapons and space-based weaponry using technological overlaps from missile defenses.

    Regional Issues

    In light of the current conflict in the Middle East, many delegations condemned Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons and failure to join the NPT. There was also concern that no action has been taken by the States parties to promote the achievement of a nuclear weapons free zone in the Middle East, nor the realization of the goals of the 1995 resolution on the Middle East.

    There was little talk about India and Pakistan, despite the escalating conflict between the two nuclear rivals in the last several months. Neither India nor Pakistan has joined the NPT. The US called on all four non-NPT parties — Cuba, India, Israel and Pakistan — to show restraint in their nuclear programs and to “protect against the proliferation of technology and materials to others seeking nuclear weapons.”

    NGOs and the NPT

    Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) are playing an increasing role in the NPT process that is largely reflective of a more globalized world. During the Cold War, States were the primary actors in the world. However, today, groups and individuals are playing greater roles. The challenge for NGOs is to increase their role in the NPT process and at the same time to reach beyond the governmental process to the people. As UN Undersecretary for Disarmament Affairs Jayantha Dhanapala noted in his address during the Middle Powers Initiative presentation on the first day of the Prep Com, there is a need to reactivate civil society on the nuclear issue because of the complacency and apathy that set in after the Cold War.

    At the Prep Com, NGOs were given one meeting of the session to deliver 14 prepared statements on issues related to the NPT. Following the presentations, there was a roundtable for NGOs and delegates to exchange information. Several delegations complimented the NGOs on the level of expertise and professionalism in both the presentations and in the literature that NGOs brought to the Prep Com. NGOs also held a number of panel presentations outside of the Prep Com.

    Conclusion

    The time leading up to the 2005 NPT Review Conference is critical. NGOs bear great responsibility to raise awareness in civil society about the issues facing the survival of the non-proliferation regime and efforts towards eliminating nuclear weapons. NGOs also must transform the discussion of nuclear abolition into a dynamic of action by urging individuals everywhere and non-nuclear weapons States to put pressure on the nuclear weapons States to fulfill their obligations of verifiable and irreversible nuclear disarmament.

    Resources

    Nuclear Age Peace Foundation Briefing Book on the Status of Nuclear Disarmament
    https://wagingpeace.davidmolinaojeda.com/new/programs/index.htm

    The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and its Importance to Disarmament Efforts
    http://www.nuclearfiles.org/prolif/index.html

    Chairman’s Factual Summary of the NPT 2002 Prep Com
    http://www.nuclearfiles.org/articles/2002/020424ongchairman.htm

    NGO Presentations at the NPT Prep Com
    http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/npt/ngostate2002.html

    Reaching Critical Will NGO Shadow Report to the Prep Com http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/npt/shadowreport/ngoshadrepindex.html

    Thirteen Practical Steps to Implement Article VI Obligations of the Non-Proliferation Treaty
    http://www.nuclearfiles.org/docs/2000/0713nptsteps.html

  • Youth at the Millennium – Conference Update

    The following is a draft statement prepared by participants in the recent conference Youth at the Millennium: An Intergenerational Dialogue on Youth, Leadership, and Global Society. We welcome your thoughts and opinions regarding this statement. Our goal is to expand the statement, incorporating your feedback and input, as a means to provide interested individuals with clarity on international social justice issues as well as inspiration for action. Please send your comments and questions to youth@napf.org . Click here for testimonials from the conference.
    To Live Simply So that Others May Simply Live:
    Draft Statement from the Youth at the Millennium Conference, April 2002

    From April 1-4, 2002, in Santa Barbara, California, a group of young men and women met with a group of their elders to discuss the world as it is and the world as it could be. The Institute for World Culture, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, Santa Barbara City College, and the University of California at Santa Barbara provided support for this gathering which was a project of Group 21, an international organization dedicated to fostering intergenerational dialogue on issues of global importance. The following statement represents the sense of the meeting and the ability of the group to articulate its four-day dialogue on the final day of meeting and discussion.

    Globalization has had a dramatic impact on human society. The forces of globalization have intensified conflict locally as well as globally. People, particularly the young, are left feeling alienated, isolated, and discouraged from free thought. Many among the young have internalized the principles of consumer culture, which are promoted by the media through advertising. However, though the young are targeted as consumers, they are denied a political voice. Decisions are mostly made by older generations. This problems exists on a global level, where the people of the world have little say in the decisions made by international financial institutions on their behalf.

    Globalization does allow young people to connect with and learn about each other throughout the world. On the other hand, it also forces youth to face the disparities and inequalities that exist in the world, which are perpetuated by the rich and powerful at the expense of the poor and marginalized. While oppression has resulted from globalization, resistance to it has also resulted. Youth in particular, passionate and curious can and do serve as catalysts in opposition to the oppression caused by globalization.

    The powerful influence of globalization has shaken the ethical and spiritual foundations of humankind. Recognition of interdependence is necessary for the co-existence of people and planet. The fragile balance within the human body is analogous to the fragile balance of earth’s ecology. Careful attention to it is crucial to all life on Earth. Recent years have seen a degradation of the environment that is unprecedented. Fueled by globalization, the corporatization of nature is accelerating the mismanagement of the natural world. The resulting problems unjustly affect future generations, denying them the intrinsic value of the wilderness, and irreparably damaging their ability to sustain livelihoods.

    We must revere all life, of which humanity is a part. We must embrace diversity, both in the environment and in our brothers and sisters across the face of the earth. Such a global perspective goes beyond the material effects of global processes, and demands an awareness of the intrinsic values of each individual. It is in the best interest of humankind to celebrate the diversity and remain mindful of our actions towards each other and towards the natural world.

    There are over six billion people living on Earth, yet a minority benefits from the effects of globalization. Free trade has led to free reign by the few fully industrialized nations over the many which are not. Some nations enjoy robust economies at the expense of the majority of other nations without whose labor, land and resources the rich nations would not prosper. The undeniable gap between the haves and the have nots is exacerbated by such bodies as the World bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization.

    In spite of accelerating inequalities, youth remains optimistic because there is also an accelerating awareness of these inequities. Furthermore, there is a resistance to them. The world must be reclaimed at the local level through collective action and community development. Economic justice can only be attained if it is simultaneously pursued at the local and global levels. Discovering new personal and social models, which involve youth, is essential to the correcting economic imbalance.

    The consumption habits of the modern world are destroying the very thing that gives us life, the Earth. The processes that maintain the planet’s equilibrium are in jeopardy. Two main problems have resulted: the degradation of the environment and its ability to sustain future generations. These problems harm the integrity of all life. Emphasis on the right of the individual to act independently as a consumer has hidden the interdependence of all life, which is vital to the sustenance of life on Earth. The interest of one is really the interest of all. Recognition of interdependence leads to reverence for the unity of life. The Earth itself must be held in reverence for it sustains life. The moral imperative of this time is to live simply so that others may simply live.
    Draft Statement from the Youth at the Millennium Conference
    April 4, 2002
    Youth at the Millennium: Testimonials

    Student discuss The Political Consequences of Globalization

    I loved the speakers, both in that every one of them was so open and intelligent, but also that each had a different perspective and different focus, so that when everyone came together their views were very diverse.
    – Anonymous

    Youth at the Millennium provided so much – it brought us together and allowed for the networking vital to an effective movement for a positive globalization – to begin at a local level here among the students and groups located in Santa Barbara on one level, and with those outside of Santa Barbara through the wonderful guest speakers. Sharing the experience of experts helps us, the students, to understand what we can do, what to look out for, etc., making us more ready to face it.
    – Anonymous

    The other thing that was key to making this such a worthwhile event is its emphasis on ethics and morality. It is these discussions that are absent in the current discussions around globalization. The anti-globalization has become predictable, which is a problem. By framing questions about ethics, morality, and self-reflection, we are taking the discussion to another level.
    – Anonymous
    I have never before participated in an event with my peers that gave me such a strong sense of solidarity, and it gave me hope for my generation and for the future of humanity in general. The devotion Phil and Bob brought to this cause is truly inspiring, and they have engaged in an endeavor of truth and justice that deserves the utmost respectability. I personally want to thank everyone involved for providing me with such an inspiring and wonderful experience.
    – Anonymous

    This world often leaves me depressed and questioning of the ability to produce positive change; I can easily get consumed by the grim reality of the current state of things. However, this conference has renewed my hope and reinvigorated my spirit… The interaction and conversations that have taken place over the past few days are priceless and will lead to great things in the future.
    – Anonymous