Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Blog

  • Statement on the Bombing of Afghanistan

    (The following statement was made at a Press Conference of Prominent Canadians Calling for a Halt to the Bombing of Afghanistan in Toronto)

    The relentless bombing of Afghanistan, now in its 18th day, goes beyond the intent of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1368. When the Security Council gave its assent “to take all necessary steps” to respond to the September 11 attacks, it did not approve a bombing campaign that would kill innocent civilians in their Afghan villages, drive 70 percent of the people in Herat (population 800,000) out of their homes, kill 10 civilians yesterday on a bus at the city gates of Kandahar, and destroy a Red Cross warehouse among other unfortunate acts of what is drily called “collateral damage.”

    It may seem comforting to say that civilians are not targeted, but it is not “collateral damage” when thousands of refugees fleeing the bombs are jammed along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border in unspeakable conditions. UNICEF warns that the crisis “is threatening the lives of millions of women and children” and that “1.5 million children may not make it through the winter.” Christian Aid, which reported that 600 people have already died in the Dar-e-Suf region of northern Afghanistan due to starvation and related diseases, says needy people are being put at risk by government spin-doctors who are showing a callous disregard for life.

    The bombing of Afghanistan, one of the most desperate and vulnerable regions of the world, is producing an international catastrophe. The bombing is immoral, unproductive and only by the most dubious logic can it be said to possess even a shred of legality.

    As Article 51 of the U.N. Charter makes clear, it is the Security Council that has the authority and responsibility to maintain or restore international peace and security. Let me emphasize: the bombing coalition, in exceeding the exercise of the right of self-defence, which gave a legal cover to the bombing, has sidelined the legitimate authority of the Security Council to manage this crisis.

    It is said that the invocation for the first time of Article 5 of the NATO Charter provides the legal grounds for Canada to give its support to the military campaign. The Article provides the solidarity that an attack on one member will be considered an attack on all and thus NATO will take the responsive actions it deems necessary. But where has it been proven that the government of Afghanistan, despotic as it is, engineered or carried out the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon? It has yet to be confirmed that any of the 19 suspected hijackers comes from Afghanistan. Is the belief that Osama bin Laden, the terrorist leader, is in Afghanistan justification for imposing catastrophe on the whole populace?

    Continued bombing is not what the United Nations intended. The bombing must stop now – and Canada, to be faithful to its own values, must press the United States and its coalition partners to call a halt so that humanitarian aid can reach the desperate people of Afghanistan.

  • Time to Shut Down the Nation’s Nuclear Plants

    In the aftermath of the horrific September 11 attack on the World Trade Center there has been considerable discussion in the US media about the threat of a future chemical or biological attack. Meanwhile, the much greater threat posed by a successful terrorist attack on a US nuclear reactor has passed almost without notice. Currently there are about 110 operational nuclear reactors in the United States. And virtually every one of these electrical generating facilities is vulnerable to terrorism. Indeed, from the standpoint of the terrorist it would be hard to imagine a more ideal target than a nuclear reactor. These plants are uniquely vulnerable by virtue of their design. A successful assault on even one nuclear reactor could produce a catastrophe that would make the recent tragedy in New York seem puny by comparison.

    Such terrorism would be much easier to mount than the attack on the World Trade Center. No need to hijack a commercial jet liner. A small plane would suffice, and could be legally rented at any of a hundred airports in the US. The plane could be flown to a remote air strip located, say, on a rented farm, there loaded with explosives or even gasoline, before being pointed in kamikaze fashion at a nuclear plant.

    Such an attack, planned by someone with the necessary expertise, and staged by a handful of determined men, would be extremely difficult to stop. Current operational safeguards at US nuclear plants are designed to protect against truck bombs. But apparently no thought has been given to the sort of aerial assault that toppled the World Trade Center.

    The objective of such terrorism would be to disable the nuclear plant’s safety (cooling) systems, triggering a worst-case scenario: a nuclear melt-down.

    A partial melt-down of uranium fuel did occur at Three Mile Island in 1979, and, again, at Chernobyl in 1986. However, serious as these accidents were, especially Chernobyl, the long-term consequences of a full-scale melt-down would be immeasurably worse, worse even than the detonation of a nuclear weapon. Why? Because the core of a nuclear reactor contains many times as much uranium fuel as the largest nuclear bomb. Hence the potential for the release of far more radiation.

    Try and imagine, if you can, the hellish scenario that would result from such an attack. A full scale melt-down is a runaway nuclear reaction in the core of a nuclear reactor. It leads to a “China Syndrome,” where the “hot” uranium fuel literally melts its way through the floor of the reactor’s containment vessel, then sinks into the earth until it reaches ground water; whereupon a gigantic plume of intensely radioactive material rises like death into the air and begins to spread with the winds over a vast area.

    Let us assume such an attack near a large US city — a fair assumption given that many nuclear plants are located near metropolitan areas. With the prevailing winds, a melt-down at a plant in Pennsylvania, say, or in Virginia, would contaminate a large portion of the eastern seaboard with lethal radiation, killing untold numbers of people, and necessitating the evacuation of tens of millions of others. Large areas would be rendered uninhabitable for centuries. Entire cities, including New York and even the nation’s capital, might have to be permanently vacated. The human cost in lives, not to mention the vast disruptions to American society, would be on a scale that is impossible to comprehend.

    Yet the danger is all too real. Although the inherent vulnerability of nuclear reactors to terrorism has been understood for many years, the threat has not been taken seriously — until now — for reasons of hubris and greed.

    From the day of their election President Bush and Vice President Cheney have touted a new generation of “clean” and “safe” nuclear power reactors that, we are told, will solve the nation’s latest energy crisis. The two most powerful men in the land have, in short, been doing everything in their power to magnify the problem, and have played straight into the hands of Osama bin Ladin.

    No doubt, Bush and Cheney’s support for nuclear has been driven by politics. They have sought to reward those in industry who supported their candidacy. Make no mistake, the only reason nuclear power has survived is because of federal subsidies. Corporate welfare has been its life-blood. In a truly free marketplace nuclear energy would long ago have gone the way of the dinosaurs.

    In the wake of the disaster in New York the nation must finally come to terms with the true risks of nuclear energy. We must face the reality that there is no way to adequately safeguard these plants. When terrorists are willing to die they are very difficult to stop. The only solution is prevention: phase out nuclear power as soon as possible in an orderly transition to wind and solar energy; which are immune to terrorism, in addition to being cost-effective and environmentally friendly.

    *Mark Gaffney is the author of a pioneering study of the Israeli nuclear weapons program. Mark is currently preparing a briefing paper “Will the Next Mid-East War Go Nuclear?” for the Washington-based Middle East Policy Council. He can be reached at: PO Box 100 Chiloquin, OR 97624 541-783-2309

  • A Leading Role for the Security Council

    In the past month, the world has witnessed something previously unknown: a common stand taken by America, Russia, Europe, India, China, Cuba, most of the Islamic world and numerous other regions and countries. Despite many serious differences between them, they united to save civilization.

    It is now the responsibility of the world community to transform the coalition against terrorism into a coalition for a peaceful world order. Let us not, as we did in the 1990’s, miss the chance to build such an order.

    Concepts like solidarity and helping third world countries to fight poverty and backwardness have disappeared from the political vocabulary. But if these concepts are not revived politically, the worst scenarios of a clash of civilizations could become reality.

    I believe the United Nations Security Council should take the lead in fighting terrorism and in dealing with other global problems. All the main issues considered by the United Nations affect mankind’s security. It is time to stop reviling the United Nations and get on with the work of adapting the institution to new tasks.

    Concrete steps should include accelerated nuclear and chemical disarmament and control over the remaining stocks of dangerous substances, including chemical and biological agents. No amount of money is too much for that. I hope the United States will support the verification protocol of the convention banning biological weapons and ratify the treaty to prohibit all nuclear tests ‹ though both steps would reverse the Bush administration’s current positions.

    We should also heed those who have pointed out the negative consequences of globalization for hundreds of millions of people. Globalization cannot be stopped, but it can be made more humane and more balanced for those it affects.

    If the battle against terrorism is limited to military operations, the world could be the loser. But if it becomes an integral part of common efforts to build a more just world order, everyone will win ‹ including those who now do not support American actions or the antiterrorism coalition. Those people, and they are many, should not all be branded as enemies.

    Russia has shown its solidarity with America. President Vladimir Putin immediately sent a telegram to President Bush on Sept. 11 condemning the “inhuman act” of that day. Russia has been sharing information, coordinating positions with the West and with its neighbors, opening its air space, and providing humanitarian assistance to the Afghan people and weapons to the Northern Alliance.

    This has been good policy. But we should bear in mind that both in the Russian establishment and among the people, reaction to it has been mixed. Some people are still prone to old ways of understanding the world and Russia’s place in it. Others sincerely wonder whether the world’s most powerful country should be bombing impoverished Afghanistan. Still others ask: We have supported America in its hour of need, but will it meet us halfway on issues important to us?

    I am sure Russia will be a serious partner in fighting international terrorism. But equally, it is important that its voice be heard in building a new international order. If not, Russians could conclude that they have merely been used.

    Irritants in American-Russian relations ‹ issues like missile defense and the admission of new members to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization ‹ will be addressed in due course, but they will be easier to solve once we have moved toward a new global agenda and a deeper partnership between our two countries.

    Finally, it would be wrong to use the battle against terrorism to establish control over countries or regions. This would discredit the coalition and close off the prospect of transforming it into a powerful mechanism for building a peaceful world.

    Turning the coalition against terror into an alliance that works to achieve a just international order would be a lasting memorial to the thousands of victims of the Sept. 11 tragedy.

  • Canadians Are Ready to Fight, But Want Some Answers

    Orginally Published in the Globe and Mail Metro**

    Thanksgiving weekend brought Canadians face to face with the harsh reality of living in a post-Sept. 11 world. At a time traditionally set aside to join family and friends in quiet celebration of our blessings, we found ourselves as a charter member of a military operation against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and the terrorist network of Osama bin Laden.

    There is no more difficult decision for a government to make and people to accept than the commitment to fight. It calls for a clear declaration of support for our military personnel who are asked to do the fighting. That’s why it is strange that Parliament will not meet until next week.

    The House of Commons should be convened immediately, not only as the forum through which Canadians can express their solidarity, but as a place where tough questions can be asked about the conduct and objectives of this military operation.

    We all knew this battle was coming, but little clue was given as to the nature of Canadian involvement. Now that it is upon us, and promises to be a long-term engagement of a particularly tricky and complex kind, it is vital that there be a much better understanding of how this use of force will reduce the terrorist threat, what the consequences will be for the broader goal of instituting an international legal order, and whether Canada will do more than offer troops.

    Both Prime Minister Jean Chretien and President George W. Bush spoke of a grand strategy involving diplomatic, humanitarian and financial efforts. But little is known about what this means and who will call the shots. The “coalition” members — including Canada — have yet to meet, other than through a series of bilateral telephone calls and visits to the White House. This strikes me as a hub-and-spoke arrangement, where direction comes from the centre with little input from the outside members. This is not a foundation for building an international partnership based on collective responsibility and contribution, nor one in which Canada can play an active creative role.

    To use one example: This country has been at the forefront of establishing an international legal system to hold accountable those who commit crimes against humanity, including acts of terrorism. The construction of such a criminal system should be one of the prime goals of an anti-terrorist coalition. But the Bush administration has just endorsed a bill submitted by Senator Jesse Helms that would deny U.S. aid to any country that ratified the statute setting up the international criminal court. Hardly a position Canada should be supporting.

    Then there is the problem of the humanitarian consequences of an attack against Afghanistan, where there is already a refugee disaster in the making. It is shrewdly recognized by the Bush administration that the military action will exacerbate the situation, so it is dropping food and medicine and trying to persuade the people to stay put. While an important gesture, it is not an effective response. The refugee needs go far beyond airlifted supplies. These people, reeling from two decades of civil war, need sanitation, water, medical treatment, shelter and security, just for starters.

    The matter of Afghan refugees is a priority, requiring an international effort preferably through the United Nations, as suggested by Kofi Annan. Will Canada take the lead in mobilizing this kind of multilateral exercise? Can we take the lead in this kind of initiative now that we have been singled out by the U.S. President as a prime member of the military team attacking the Taliban? Or has our value as an independent player been compromised? Closer to home is the question of Canadians’ own security now that we are identified as front-line participants. Most analysts expect a retaliation to this attack. Osama bin Laden has promised a holy war. The probability of our being in the front line of that retaliation has increased commensurate with our role in the coalition. That means added responsibility to provide protection for Canadians here and abroad. This is especially crucial in enhancing security for our embassies and other visible overseas organizations such as cultural centres, aid projects and large Canadian business operations. We are about to learn the hard price to pay in fighting the war against a hidden, dedicated, merciless, covert enemy.

    The aftershock of the Sept. 11 attacks is now being felt. How Canadians will muster their resources to help restore a sense of security for people around the world is the issue of our day. We have just begun to ask the pertinent questions.

    * Lloyd Axworthy, foreign affairs minister from 1996 to 2000, is director and CEO of the Liu Centre for the Study of Global Issues at UBC.

  • Bombing Unworthy of US: Senator Says Militarism is Not the Answer to Terrorism

    Is the relentless bombing of Afghanistan justified? My answer is no.

    I must immediately couple that answer with my belief that the criminals who committed the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 must be apprehended and brought to justice. But that goal does not justify killing innocent people and destroying the infrastructure of a country that already has a million refugees.

    The alternative to bombing is to send in ground troops to comb the countryside and all the caves to find Osama bin Laden and his fellow-plotters. This is not done because the U.S.-led coalition fears that troops would be killed by the mines planted throughout Afghanistan.

    Thus, air attacks have been chosen as the response to terrorism. The response is unworthy of nations that pride themselves on upholding international human rights. For, as the Kosovo bombing of only two years ago showed, even “smart” bombs cannot distinguish between military targets and civilians. The human misery left in the wake of a bombing campaign is horrendous.

    The world must move beyond the tears, grief and anger of Sept. 11 and finally establish a just and stable foundation for international peace and security.

    Let it not be said that I am insensitive to the thousands of lives lost in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. I went to New York a week ago, took the subway down to the financial district and saw the World Trade wreckage with my own eyes. The devastation was overpowering. Mounds of debris, six stories high, assaulted the eyes. People were stunned, just looking at such a grotesque sight.

    I then went to the United Nations and talked with Jayantha Dhanapala, Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs, who said that, bad as this tragedy was, it could have been worse.

    “Consider if weapons of mass destruction had been used by these terrorists. We need urgently to eliminate all weapons of mass destruction because they could fall into the hands of terrorists.”

    The UN leadership wants rapid progress on eliminating nuclear weapons and is preparing to debate a draft convention suppressing nuclear terrorism. But unless Canada comes out four-square opposing all nuclear weapons — which will offend the U.S. — our words about keeping nuclear weapons from terrorists will be empty.

    I am concerned that the path of militarism is leading the world to even greater dangers. Nuclear terrorism is only a matter of time.

    We have been attacked. Our first response is to attack back. Public sentiment, driven by a culture that still sees war as the means to peace, seeks retaliation. In this climate, militarism expands constantly.

    But Kofi Annan, UN Secretary-General, sees the needs of peace and fighting terrorism differently. While the UN Security Council unanimously passed a resolution expressing “its readiness to take all necessary steps to respond to the terrorist attacks,” that is not carte blanche to bomb at will.

    The bombing has gone beyond the intent of the resolution, but Annan cannot stop the use of such military might once unleashed. What he has done — and what Canada must insist upon — is to include in the implementation of this resolution other means to combat terrorism. This includes political, legal, diplomatic and financial means.

    Another Security Council resolution spelled out a host of actions ranging from police work to cutting off funding to new communications technologies that must be taken. Rather than assenting to a bombing campaign, it would be better to concentrate Canada’s resources on security and anti-terrorism measures. The extra $250 million announced yesterday by Foreign Minister John Manley announced should be only the beginning. These steps will be far more effective in rooting out the terrorist cells in many countries than bombing in the hope of cutting off the head of a terrorism that has tentacles spread around the world.

    It is both ironic and disingenuous to couple the bombing with dropping food and medicine. This is a chaotic and ineffectual way of meeting humanitarian needs that are mounting by the hour. Rather, the international community should be mounting — with the same vigour displayed in the bombing campaign — a massive assault on poverty. It is the inhuman conditions that so many millions of people are subjected to that breed the conditions that terrorists exploit.

    Also, as Annan has urged, there must be a “redoubling” of international efforts to implement treaties to cut off the development of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction before terrorists get them.

    Militarism is not the answer to terrorism. The building of an international legal system that promotes social justice is.

    *Douglas Roche is an Independent Senator from Alberta and the author of “Bread Not Bombs: A Political Agenda for Social Justice.” Senator Roche also serves as an advisor for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • Call for Children to Help Children

    Dear Parents and Teachers:

    President Bush has asked each child in America to send one dollar to the White House to help Afghan children. However, the President is already spending billions of dollars to bomb Afghanistan. These bombs have hit villages, hospitals and a Red Cross relief storage building. They have already killed many Afghans, including children.

    Our government has provided some emergency food relief, but it is far from adequate. According to aid workers in Afghanistan, some 7.5 million Afghans may be threatened with starvation this winter unless the bombing is halted to allow food to reach the Afghan people.

    Recognizing that sending a dollar to President Bush’s effort will do very little to prevent mass starvation in Afghanistan this winter, we suggest that children send one dollar or more to the United Nations agency in charge of relief efforts for Afghan children at this address: UNICEF, 333 East 38th Street, New York, NY 10016.

    We also suggest that children write to President Bush to ask him to stop the bombing so that relief workers can get food through to the Afghan people to prevent millions of them, including children, from starving this winter.

    The President’s address is: 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC 20509-1600. You can also email him at president@whitehouse.gov. Copies of emails can be sent to the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation at wagingpeace@napf.org.

    It is time for the children of the world to unite in calling for an end to all violence and for a global effort to provide food, shelter, clothing, health care and education for every person on the planet.

    We encourage you to share these ideas with your children, and to pass on this message.

  • The Many Faces of Terrorism

    We cannot minimize the horror of the recent acts of terrorism in the U.S. The individual loss of a loved one multiplied 5,000 times over adds up to an arithmetic of terrible sorrow. You cannot fight what you consider injustice by acts that are themselves extreme violations of justice. Indiscriminate violence is the terrible curse of the mind of the terrorist. All acts of terrorism must be totally rejected as illegitimate means of struggle, because they fail the principle of discrimination. Indiscriminate violence in times of war or peace violates this principle. Resistance to injustice that discriminates has always been historically justified. The Geneva Protocols relating to war demand that the essential discrimination between combatants and non-combatants be rigorously maintained. The most serious and significant violation of this protocol was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, with a total of 200,000 prompt deaths of civilians and the decades-long delayed torture of radiation effects. This was committed by a so-called civilized people.

    Thus we must not let the larger perspective be carried away on the flood of sympathy. While it is totally unacceptable to use unjust means to fight injustice, this does not make the injustice disappear. By all the criteria of current social indicators the U.S. is an unjust society compared to the rest of the highly industrialized Western world.This is manifest in structural terrorism against the poor, other minorities and persistent racism. “Hate acts” against Moslem Americans have already multiplied, including the bombing of mosques.

    All major religions contain elements of forgiveness and vengeance. At the same time, all major religions have a fundamentalist or exclusionary group who embrace fanaticism. The current horrendous acts of terrorism were obviously carried out by this kind of extremist position. The evidence to date is that the culprits were Islamic fundamentalists. However, if you have read my book on Ronald Reagan, you will see that there are high-ranking U.S. Christian fundamentalists – Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and their ilk – who believe a great war between good and evil will take place – Armageddon – and that only “true” Christians will ultimately survive. They have prepared to fight that war in a self-fulfilling prophecy. Falwell and Robertson have now revealed their twisted minds by suggesting that the terrorist attacks on the U.S. were a form of divine punishment for its tolerance to secularism, feminism, homosexuality, etc. Every U.S. president since Ronald Reagan has operationalized programs to fight and win a nuclear war with Russia through a preemptive disarming strike against all Russian missile sites on land, on and under the oceans and in the sky. The talk about rogue states as the reason for a National Missile System (NMD) is an outright deception. Russia is the only country that threatens the U.S.¹s global hegemony. The above strike would lead to fifteen million civilian Russian deaths or two and a half holocausts. This is an act of extreme terrorism which I have documented beyond any possible dispute. The International Court of Justice has concluded that such a threat is a violation of International Humanitarian Law. Perhaps the NMD system will shoot down hijacked planes on U.S. territory, a costly exchange of human life.

    Returning to the events in New York City, if you had read a novel in which some nineteen persons hijacked four civilian jumbo jets, one terrorist on each of the hijacked planes having been trained in an accredited school for flying these jets and that all nineteen were prepared to die in their acts of terror, you would have had to conclude that this plot was farfetched. The amount of detailed planning and the level of organization to accomplish such a task is mind-boggling. They had to do this with primitive plastic weapons, break into the cockpit and keep the flight crews and passengers under control.

    Returning to my earlier theme that we must retain a larger perspective on terrorism, the blockade of Iraq has led to an estimated death of some one million of its citizens, mostly children. This is also an act of terrorism. Even in the war against the scourge of fascism, the allies used unacceptable means insofar as they violated the principle of discrimination by the mass bombing of Axis cities which, in any case, later proved to be counter-productive. The U.S. has consistently supported right-wing leaders in Central and South America who carried out reigns of terror. Using the current U.S. argument that countries that harbour terrorists are, themselves, guilty proves the guilt of the U.S.

    We must also adjust our perspective to the realities of a unipolar world and the singular force of Pax Americana. The current political solidarity is politically correct, but cannot cover up the profound and persistent political differences that divide the U.S., a division that will outlast such solidarity. Congress, by giving George W. Bush carte blanche to retaliate, has assured the perpetuation of violent response. It has been reported that only one member of Congress voted against this blanket resolution.

    In conclusion, the U.S. is now reaping and will continue to reap what it has sowed. The scars of the Middle East wedded to Islamic terrorism and Israeli intransigence will never put an end to their acts of terrorism until some final peaceful solution is achieved, creating a Palestinian State (with no armed forces) and making Jerusalem an international city. These are minimum requirements. George W. Bush will not solve the problem but exacerbate it. In many ways he is the problem. We can now all see that the NMD policy cannot protect the American public. Some time in the near future terrorists will explode a small suitcase nuclear bomb in a major U.S. city. And a ground war in Afghanistan could not only unite Islamic fundamentalists but prove to be a second Viet Nam, as the Soviets learned.

    The U.S. could yet be the victim of blowback for having supported the Taliban in that war. Blowback is the phenomenon of supporting regimes who later become your worst enemy. Blowback could also haunt the C.I.A. for its legion of dirty tricks, including murder, throughout the world. Even now there is a case pending against Henry Kissinger for the murders in Chile of the head of the military and the democratically-elected president. This launched the Pinochet reign of terror. The U.S.’s major Arab ally is Saudi Arabia, hardly a model of democracy. Then, of course, there was the Iran Contra affair, illustrating that the CIA is not above making deals with terrorists, including those from Islam. In fact the CIA is a terrorist organization, not unlike its counterparts in almost all countries. In this way the terrible events in New York were truly the reaping of what was sowed. The tragedy, of course, is the slaughter of the innocents.

    There is still the opportunity for positive defensive measures. All civilian air carriers could implement some simple reforms following El Al’s procedures, i.e. carrying an armed sky marshal aboard and having cockpits on large passenger planes sealed off from crew and passengers. This would prevent hijackings. Together with a permanent solution to the Palestinian issue, this will help. But ultimately U.S. policy will have to undergo radical change from the new imperialism of its present posture to a true democratic society dedicated to peace and justice. This will involve a fundamental change in an American culture of structural violence and a self-image of being Number One. And under the present administration, this is less likely than ever.

    All of this does not preclude the legitimate task of identifying dedicated terrorists and preventing further acts of terrorism. But if this is attempted through excessively violent means, it will prove counter-productive and only perpetuate the dynamics of violence.

  • Missile Defense and Space War Do Not Provide Security Against Terror

    Speech by Juergen Scheffran* at an anti-war demonstration in Berlin, October 13, 2001 (Revised translation from German)

    The events of September 11 have terribly demonstrated how vulnerable our industrial society is. Military lobbyists are using the public fear about terror for their own purposes. They try to convince us that war and new weapons can protect us against terrorism, weapons of mass destruction and missile attacks. They promote the vision of the military controlling outer space in order to counter all threats on earth.

    September 11 marks the complete failure of all security systems of the world’s greatest military power. All intelligence and secret services, expensive reconnaissance satellites and a giant high-technology military arsenal were incapable to detect people from the neighborhood using pocket knifes to convert commercial airliners into weapons of mass destruction. The attempt to achieve security from great distance with most advanced technical systems failed miserably against a determined enemy sitting within society, waiting for the appropriate moment to attack. Contrary to the vision of a high frontier in outer space, in reality the concept of frontier becomes meaningless in an interlinked, globalized and fractal society where the threat can be everywhere and nowhere.

    Nevertheless, US President George W. Bush still believes that his country can be protected by a multi-billion dollar space shield against ballistic missiles from rogue states. His Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is heading towards space weapons to prevent a Pearl Harbor in space. And the US Space Command aims at a comprehensive space dominance to control earth. The intention is to control the information flows around the globe, to achieve the capability to strike everywhere at any time, and to protect against all adverse consequences. A huge network of missile interceptors and laser weapons, military satellites and radars shall detect, pursue and destroy any threat.

    In order to realize these plans Bush has recently nominated the previous director of the Space Command, Richard Myers, to become the leader of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff. Instead of dreaming visions of space war, Myers now directs the attack on Afghanistan, a country which has been devastated by decades of civil war. People who until now were massacred by swords, knifes and rifles are now being attacked by laser-guided bombs which probably will not hit those responsible for the terror.

    The quest for total security may lead to total control and total war. Missile defense and space dominance feed a dangerous illusion of security which prevents the search for alternatives and real solutions. Those who feel protected against any threat are tempted to continue a miserable globalization policy, to ignore poverty and hunger, environmental destruction and climate change, scarcity of energy and water in the world. Similar to the attacks on Afghanistan, which sow new terror and drive the chain of violence, the attempt to control earth from space provokes feelings of powerlessness. Despair, anger and hate create the breeding ground for terrorism.

    Promoting missile defense and space war adds fuel to the flames of conflict, heats the arms race on earth and in space, provokes instabilities in crisis regions of the Middle East, South Asia and North-East Asia, wastes valuable resources which are required to solve global problems. The destruction of existing arms control and disarmament treaties, including START II, the ABM Treaty, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the Biological Weapons Convention, ultimately will strike back to the USA. What they do, others can claim for themselves.

    Many have dreamt of invulnerability in history but noone ever reached it. Sometimes it is the recognition of the own vulnerability that requires conflict resolution, the settlement of disputes and agreement. The people in Central Europe had to live over four decades of the Cold War with the worst of all threats: complete nuclear annihilation. Inspired by the peace movement and Gorbachev’s New Thinking they learned that only a policy of common security and disarmament could bring peace to Europe. The history of Berlin clearly demonstrates that walls do not exist forever, that parts of the world can neither be excluded nor confined.

    Power projection into space and anti-terror wars cannot provide true security. The alternatives are clear and simple: avoid threats before they emerge; dry out the causes of terror; cut the instruments of violence and destruction. To be specific, it is essential to improve international control of missiles and space weapons, of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, leading towards their ultimate elimination and prohibition. Here Europe can be a leader instead of following the US in military strikes. In addition, the possible motivations and the social conditions of terrorism have to be tackled. Sustainable peace requires a broad basis within society which includes the well-being of all people. This is the best way to undermine the sources and resources of terror.

    *Juergen Scheffran is physicist, co-founder of the International Network of Engineers and Scientists Against Proliferation (INESAP) and editor of the INESAP Information Bulletin at the Technical University of Darmstadt in Germany.

  • U.S. Needs a Contigency Plan For Pakistan’s Nuclear Arsenal

    There is growing concern, and evidence for concern, that the instability in Afghanistan could quickly spread to neighboring Pakistan and undermine the security of that country’s nuclear arsenal. Of all of the negative consequences this turn of events might bring, none would be more dangerous and catastrophic than nuclear weapons falling into the hands of the Taliban or Al Qaeda.

    Until Sept. 11, the Pakistani regime and the Taliban were very close, and there have been reports out of Pakistan that military officers assisted the Taliban in preparing for U.S. airstrikes—counter to direct orders from Pakistan’s leader, Gen. Pervez Musharraf. Top military officers, including the head of Pakistan’s intelligence services, recently have been sacked, reportedly for their pro-Taliban views.

    Violence in the streets, while not widespread beyond the border area with Afghanistan, speaks to the tensions inside Pakistan. A Newsweek poll this week found that 83% of Pakistanis polled sympathized with the Taliban in the current conflict. It is possible, therefore, that Pakistani forces assigned to protect Pakistan’s nuclear forces could be compromised.

    This is surely the nightmare scenario, and immediate steps should be taken to prevent such a turn of events from coming to pass.

    Pakistan possesses enough nuclear material for close to 40 nuclear weapons, if not more. The U.S., however, knows very little about how this material is stored, what security measures are applied to its protection, how personnel with access to nuclear weapons and materials are screened and where the material is located.

    Pakistan has a responsibility to ensure that its assets are adequately protected and to convince other countries that this responsibility is taken seriously. Other countries and organizations have a responsibility to help Pakistan keep these materials secure, without in any way assisting that country in modernizing or deploying its nuclear capability.

    The International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, a U.N.-affiliated organization, has decades of experience in developing and verifying security measures associated with nuclear weapons-usable materials. The agency routinely assists countries in ensuring that their peaceful nuclear programs are adequately protected. Despite its lack of membership in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Pakistan could receive advice and assistance from the IAEA.

    In addition, the U.S. and other IAEA members have extensive experience—publicly available—on how to protect nuclear materials and on how to ensure that weapons-usable uranium or plutonium cannot be diverted without being detected. States could make equipment available to Pakistan that did not directly assist in its development or control of nuclear weapons, such as alarm systems and polygraph equipment for personnel screening. In addition, corporations and nongovernmental organizations with significant expertise in nuclear matters could provide Pakistan with assistance on security.

    Pakistan has resisted any outside attempts to help secure its nuclear materials. There is the risk that receiving assistance for its nuclear program from outside powers might further destabilize the current situation. Yet Pakistan has already made its strategic decision to throw in with the West against terrorism. Taking this additional step, while difficult, may be part of the price it pays to reestablish itself as a responsible global partner.

    If Pakistan does not agree to these types of programs, the U.S. should begin to work immediately on contingency plans should the Islamabad regime lose control over its nuclear arsenal. These plans should include the ability to rapidly deploy forces to Pakistan to find and regain control of any lost nuclear materials and, only as a last option in a crisis, remove them from Pakistan to a secure location.

    These steps might seem extreme. Yet when faced with the real possibility of losing control of nuclear weapons to the types of organizations capable of the destruction seen Sept. 11, they could be considered realistic and even prudent. The consequences of not being prepared to act are too great for us to imagine, even with our new ability to imagine the horrible.

    *Jon B. Wolfsthal is an associate in the Carnegie Endowment’s nonproliferation program and a former nonproliferation policy advisor to the U.S. Department of Energy.

  • This War is Illegal

    A well-kept secret about the U.S.-U.K. attack on Afghanistan is that it is clearly illegal. It violates international law and the express words of the United Nations Charter.

    Despite repeated reference to the right of self-defence under Article 51, the Charter simply does not apply here. Article 51 gives a state the right to repel an attack that is ongoing or imminent as a temporary measure until the UN Security Council can take steps necessary for international peace and security.

    The Security Council has already passed two resolutions condemning the Sept. 11 attacks and announcing a host of measures aimed at combating terrorism. These include measures for the legal suppression of terrorism and its financing, and for co-operation between states in security, intelligence, criminal investigations and proceedings relating to terrorism. The Security Council has set up a committee to monitor progress on the measures in the resolution and has given all states 90 days to report back to it.

    Neither resolution can remotely be said to authorize the use of military force. True, both, in their preambles, abstractly “affirm” the inherent right of self-defence, but they do so “in accordance with the Charter.” They do not say military action against Afghanistan would be within the right of self-defence. Nor could they. That’s because the right of unilateral self-defence does not include the right to retaliate once an attack has stopped.

    The right of self-defence in international law is like the right of self-defence in our own law: It allows you to defend yourself when the law is not around, but it does not allow you to take the law into your own hands.

    Since the United States and Britain have undertaken this attack without the explicit authorization of the Security Council, those who die from it will be victims of a crime against humanity, just like the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks.

    Even the Security Council is only permitted to authorize the use of force where “necessary to maintain and restore international peace and security.” Now it must be clear to everyone that the military attack on Afghanistan has nothing to do with preventing terrorism. This attack will be far more likely to provoke terrorism. Even the Bush administration concedes that the real war against terrorism is long term, a combination of improved security, intelligence and a rethinking of U.S. foreign alliances.

    Critics of the Bush approach have argued that any effective fight against terrorism would have to involve a re-evaluation of the way Washington conducts its affairs in the world. For example, the way it has promoted violence for short-term gain, as in Afghanistan when it supported the Taliban a decade ago, in Iraq when it supported Saddam Hussein against Iran, and Iran before that when it supported the Shah.

    The attack on Afghanistan is about vengeance and about showing how tough the Americans are. It is being done on the backs of people who have far less control over their government than even the poor souls who died on Sept. 11. It will inevitably result in many deaths of civilians, both from the bombing and from the disruption of aid in a country where millions are already at risk. The 37,000 rations dropped on Sunday were pure PR, and so are the claims of “surgical” strikes and the denials of civilian casualties. We’ve seen them before, in Kosovo for example, followed by lame excuses for the “accidents” that killed innocents.

    For all that has been said about how things have changed since Sept. 11, one thing that has not changed is U.S. disregard for international law. Its decade-long bombing campaign against Iraq and its 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia were both illegal. The U.S. does not even recognize the jurisdiction of the World Court. It withdrew from it in 1986 when the court condemned Washington for attacking Nicaragua, mining its harbours and funding the contras. In that case, the court rejected U.S. claims that it was acting under Article 51 in defence of Nicaragua’s neighbours.

    For its part, Canada cannot duck complicity in this lawlessness by relying on the “solidarity” clause of the NATO treaty, because that clause is made expressly subordinate to the UN Charter.

    But, you might ask, does legality matter in a case like this? You bet it does. Without the law, there is no limit to international violence but the power, ruthlessness and cunning of the perpetrators. Without the international legality of the UN system, the people of the world are sidelined in matters of our most vital interests.

    We are all at risk from what happens next. We must insist that Washington make the case for the necessity, rationality and proportionality of this attack in the light of day before the real international community.

    The bombing of Afghanistan is the legal and moral equivalent of what was done to the Americans on Sept. 11. We may come to remember that day, not for its human tragedy, but for the beginning of a headlong plunge into a violent, lawless world.

    *Michael Mandel, professor of law at Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto, specializes in international criminal law.