Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Author: Carah Ong

  • EPA Revised Standards Are Inadequate for Protecting Public Health

    Established in 1982, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is a non-profit, non-partisan, education and advocacy organization that initiates and supports efforts to eliminate nuclear threats to humanity. With headquarters in California, the Foundation has a membership of thousands individuals across the United States, including in Nevada.

    On behalf of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and our members, I am here today to express our deep concern over the Environmental Protection Agency’s revised radiation protection standard for the Yucca Mountain high-level radioactive waste dump in Nevada. We believe this revised radiation protection standard will fall far short of protecting public health and that it even disregards the agency’s own previous recommendations. If approved, this standard will ignore the scientific consensus on the health impact of radiation, as well as the many unresolved problems surrounding radioactive waste. It will set a terrible precedent; lowering the bar for radiation protection across the country.

    The Yucca Mountain project is a distinct danger to defenseless citizens – not just to this generation, but to thousands of generations to come who will be affected by this decision. In July 2004, a DC Circuit Court of Appeals decision found EPA’s previous standard – a 15 millirem per year radiation exposure limit for 10,000 years – to be illegal. According to the ruling, the standard EPA sets for Yucca Mountain must be consistent with a National Academy of Science (NAS) study on the subject, which recommended that the standard extend through the time of highest risk to the public, known as the “peak dose.” The Department of Energy estimates peak dose at several hundred thousand years.

    The EPA’s recently revised standard, however, fails to comply with the court ruling and the intent of the NAS recommendations. Instead of extending the 15 millirem per year limit through the time of peak risk, the EPA has proposed a two part standard – 15 millirem per year for 10,000 years, and then a 350 millirem per year standard thereafter (up to a million years).

    Such a standard is not scientifically justified, and would perhaps be the least protective radiation standard in the world. No other US or international radiation protection standard permits a dose of 350 millirems per year to individuals. In fact, EPA’s proposed standard is not even consistent with the agency’s own previous recommendations.

    Yucca Mountain is located on Native American land, belonging to the Western Shoshone by the treaty of Ruby Valley. The Western Shoshone National Council has declared this land a nuclear free zone and demanded an end to nuclear testing and the dumping of nuclear wastes on their land. We support the claims of the Western Shoshone to the sovereignty of their land, which they hold as sacred, and we believe that the revised radiation standard is a form of environmental racism that will disproportionately harm the lands and health of the Western Shoshone people.

    We are also concerned that Yucca Mountain sits above the only source of drinking water for the residents of Amargosa Valley. The aquifer below Yucca Mountain provides water to Nevada’s largest dairy farm, which supplies milk to some 30 million people on the west coast. Another casualty of EPA’s proposed rule is the Safe Drinking Water Act standard limiting radiation in drinking water to 4 millirem per year, which EPA would only enforce for the first10,000 years, but would then replace with the 350 millirem year all pathway exposure limit. Water is a precious resource, which will require more, not less, protection as time goes on. Yucca’s radioactive wastes will leak into the underlying drinking water aquifer, which will become the primary pathway for harmful doses to people downstream. The Safe Drinking Water Act standard should be applied to protect Yucca’s aquifer and the people downstream for as long as the high-level radioactive wastes remain hazardous, hundreds of thousands of years into the future.

    Yucca Mountain is also directly above an active magma pocket and is the third most seismically active area in the United States. In the past 25 years alone, over 600 earthquakes of 2.5 or greater on the Richter Scale have struck within 50 miles of Yucca Mountain. In 1992, a 5.6 quake cracked walls, shattered windows, and caused some one million dollars in damage to the Department of Energy (DoE) field office studying the site. On July 14, 2002, an earthquake registered a magnitude of 4.4 on the Richter Scale. It defies reason to expect that radioactive wastes will sit for tens of thousands of years undisturbed by unpredictable nature, or by human or technological errors in the design of the containment structure itself.

    The problem of what to do with high-level radioactive wastes warrants additional consideration and resources, including investigation of alternatives to Yucca Mountain. Instead of setting a new and very dangerous precedent for the storage of radioactive waste throughout the country in order to simply satisfy political pressures to license Yucca Mountain, the Environmental Protection Agency should fulfill its mission to protect human health and the environment. We ask you to withdraw this standard immediately, and propose a standard that is truly protective of public health and the environment for this generation and generations to come.

  • Who Will Make Us Safer from the Biggest Threat Facing the US?

    If you watched or heard about the first Presidential debate on September 30th, then you probably already know that one thing both presidential candidates agree upon is that nuclear proliferation poses the biggest threat to the US. What you might not know is which candidate will actually make Americans far safer and more secure. Understanding how the presidential candidates will deal with nuclear proliferation is essential in allowing US citizens to make an informed decision on who is best suited to lead this great country.

    One thing President Bush failed to mention is that, despite calls from past Presidents, nuclear weapons have assumed a far more central role in US security policy. The new, more “usable” role that the US government has assigned to nuclear weapons and its doctrine of pre-emptive warfare can encourage other nations to obtain nuclear weapons (and other weapons of mass destruction) in pursuit of their own security needs. These policies diminish US national security and attempts to control the spread of weapons of mass destruction, increasing the risk that other countries and terrorists will obtain and use nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction against the US.

    So, let’s take a moment to examine exactly where President Bush and Senator Kerry stand on just four key policies that would protect Americans and their families.

    Oppose creating dangerous new nuclear weapons that will lead others to follow our example.

    President George W. Bush requested some $36.6 million in the 2005 Budget for research on dangerous new nuclear weapons, including the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator or “bunker-buster” and “mini-nukes.”

    John Kerry has stated, “As president, I will stop this administration’s program to develop a whole new generation of bunker-busting nuclear bombs. This is a weapon we don’t need. And it undermines our credibility in persuading other nations. What kind of message does it send when we’re asking other countries not to develop nuclear weapons but developing new ones ourselves?”

    Ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and continue the current moratorium on nuclear testing, which are essential elements to promoting the international non-proliferation regime and protecting American security.

    President Bush opposes ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, already ratified by 115 countries, and has proposed $30 million in the 2005 Budget for reducing the time to resume nuclear testing from 24 months to 18 months.

    Senator Kerry supports ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and has emphasized its importance in promoting the international non-proliferation regime.

    Cancel funding for and plans to deploy offensive missile “defense” systems that could ignite a dangerous nuclear arms race and offer no security against terrorist weapons of mass destruction.

    In 2001, President Bush unilaterally withdrew the US from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with the former Soviet Union in order to deploy a missile “defenses.” He is seeking to deploy an inadequately tested missile defense system this year, and has requested a budget of more than $10 billion for this unproven system in 2005.

    Senator Kerry has stated that he believes in further missile defense research, but he does “not believe in rapid deployment of a system that hasn’t been adequately tested.” He has stated that “to abandon [the ABM Treaty] altogether is to welcome an arms race that will make us more vulnerable, not less.”

    Work with Russia to reduce the nuclear arsenals of both countries and ensure that nuclear weapons and materials stay out of the hands of terrorists or countries seeking to acquire nuclear capabilities.

    President Bush signed a treaty with the Russians that calls for bringing down the number of deployed strategic weapons to between 2,200 and 1,700 by the year 2012. The treaty, however, does not provide for verification and does not make the reductions irreversible. The treaty also terminates in the year 2012. Since weapons taken off active deployment will be kept on the shelf in reserve, they will be a tempting target for terrorists. President Bush has also called for reductions of more than nine percent in the funding for the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program to secure nuclear weapons and materials in the former Soviet Union.

    Senator Kerry has stated that the treaty that President Bush entered into “runs the risk of increasing nuclear theft by stockpiling thousands of warheads.” He further stated that “if we are to make America safer, and we must, it will take more than cosmetic treaties that leave Russia’s nuclear arsenal in place.” Kerry has called for increased joint efforts with the Russians to dispose of stocks of existing nuclear materials. He has stated that he will make securing nuclear weapons and materials in the former Soviet Union a priority in relations between the US and Russia and work with our allies to establish global standards for the safekeeping of nuclear materials.

    It is up to us voters to elect a President who will make us safer from the biggest threat facing the US. If you want to see the US implement more responsible nuclear policies, then visit www.chartinganewcourse.org to learn more and take action today.

    Carah Ong is the Development and Communications Director of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

  • Charting a New Course for US Nuclear Policy 2004 International Law Symposium

    From 13-15 May, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation held its 2004 International Law Symposium on Charting a New Course for US Nuclear Policy in Santa Barbara, California . The Symposium brought together experts in the fields of nuclear policy, communications and campaign strategy to develop creative ways in which to reverse the current trends of US nuclear policy. Participants included: Dr. Brent Blackwelder, Friends of the Earth; Michele Boyd, Public Citizen; Dr. John Burroughs, Lawyers’ Committee on Nuclear Policy; Jackie Cabasso, Western States Legal Foundation; Dr. Helen Caldicott, Nuclear Policy Research Institute; Dr. Urs A. Cipolat, Middle Powers Initiative; Dr. Daniel Ellsberg, independent international security analyst; Professor Richard Falk, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation; Dr. Michael Flynn, Center on Violence and Human Survival; Dr. Randall Forsberg, Institute for Defense and Disarmament Studies; Dr. David Krieger, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation; Professor George Lakoff, The Rockridge Institute; Professor Adil Najam, The Fletcher School of Law & Diplomacy/Tufts University; Carah Ong, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation; Professor Thomas G. Plate, UCLA Speech and Communication Studies; Dr. Bennett Ramberg, independent international security analyst; Dr. Tom Reifer, University of California at Riverside; Hon. Douglas Roche, Middle Powers Initiative; Jonathan Schell, The Nation Institute; Alice Slater, Global Resource Action Center for the Environment; and Rob Stuart, AdvocacyInc.

    US Nuclear Policy and the Geopolitical Landscape

    Richard Falk, Chair of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, delivered opening remarks to set the backdrop for the Symposium. He noted that there are three formidable challenges to charting a new course for US nuclear policy including post-realism, the “Hiroshima Temptation” and bipartisan nuclearism.

    The US , as the leading nuclear weapons state, has its first post-realist political leadership. It interprets conflict from the perspective of good versus evil, and illusion, rather than assessing risks and costs. It’s a struggle between good and evil, no rational calculations are appropriate. When it comes to illusions, none is greater than the US claimed mission to bring “democracy” to the beleaguered peoples of the Middle East . The reality is that it is a region that is only remotely compatible with American goals. The current administration is post-realist in the sense that earlier leaders prided themselves, especially in the context of nuclear weapons, on their sense of rationality, their awareness of limits, and their exclusion of moralizing the justification for use of force. The post-realist American world view is reinforced by the suicidal extremism of the al Qaeda engagement with conflict.

    When it comes to nuclear weapons, we are witnessing a revival of what Falk labels the “Hiroshima Temptation,” the absence of an inhibiting restraint arising from the prospect of retaliation. This is part of a larger, dangerous condition in which the US is inclined to use force to uphold its position of global dominance, given its decline in economic and diplomatic leverage. The US has dismissed international law – from the failure to observe the Geneva Conventions with respect to prisoners in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib to the defiant attitude of the White House with respect to recourse to wars of choice. President Bush has stated that the US will never seek a “permission slip” when its security is at stake, indicating his disregard for international law.

    The nature of the policy and structural issues associated with nuclear weapons are deeper than the Bush administration. Both Bush, Sr. and, even more so, Clinton missed a golden opportunity to advocate nuclear disarmament in the 1990s – after the Soviet Union collapsed – to achieve a regime of total abolition of weapons of mass destruction. Not only was this not done, it was not even seriously considered. Holding open a nuclear option was no longer premised on deterrence, but rather it became associated with dominance. It was during the 1990s that the Pentagon began speaking of “full-spectrum dominance.” And it should not be forgotten that the neo-conservatives were thirsting for a second Pearl Harbor . One of the present dangers is a willed complacency regarding the possibility of a second 9/11.

    The only hope for charting a new course for US nuclear policy is to restore realism in the US leadership. US leadership must also make a self-interested repudiation of the “Hiroshima Temptation” and rebuild a cooperative multi-polar world order. US leadership will be greatly enhanced by the rejection of nuclearism, the only clear path to non-proliferation.

    The US and the Non-Proliferation Regime

    Senator Douglas Roche, O.C., gave a report on the 2004 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) Meeting, which concluded six days prior to the start of the Symposium. It is clear the NPT, the cornerstone of the non-proliferation regime, is in crisis. To examine how the crisis came about and what to do about it, we must look at the role of the US . While the other declared Nuclear Weapons States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France and China are all also in contravention of their responsibilities to the NPT, it is the US that sets the pace. The US is the leading military power in the world by far, the lynchpin of NATO, and the dominant voice at the United Nations. With 31 members, the US delegation was the largest at the recent NPT PrepCom. US views deeply affect the policies of all Western nations and Russia .

    The US astounded many delegates at the 2004 PrepCom by disowning its own participation in the 2000 consensus that produced the “unequivocal undertaking.” It refused to allow the 2000 Review Conference to be used as a reference point for the 2005 Review. The result was turmoil and a collapse of the PrepCom.

    What delegates from around the world are deeply concerned about is the US attempt to change the rules of the game. At least before, there was a recognition that the NPT was obtained in 1970 through a bargain, with the nuclear weapons states agreeing to negotiate the elimination of their nuclear weapons in return for the non-nuclear states shunning the acquisition of nuclear weapons. Adherence to that bargain enabled the indefinite extension of the NPT in 1995 and the 13 Practical Steps of 2000. Now the US is rejecting the commitments of 2000 and premising its aggressive diplomacy on the assertion that the problem of the NPT lies not in the actions of the nuclear weapons states but in the lack of compliance by states such as North Korea and Iran .

    The whole international community, nuclear and non-nuclear alike, is concerned about proliferation, but the new attempt by the nuclear weapon states to gloss over the discriminatory aspects of the NPT, which are now becoming permanent, has caused the patience of the members of the Non-Aligned Movement to snap. They see a two-class world of nuclear “haves” and “have-nots” becoming a permanent feature of the global landscape. In such chaos, the NPT is eroding and the prospect of multiple nuclear weapons states, a fear that caused nations to produce the NPT in the first place, is looming once more.

    But the US vigorously defended its policies, giving no ground to its critics. From the opening speech by John R. Bolton, Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, US representatives insisted that attention not be diverted from the violations of the NPT by would-be nuclear powers “by focusing on Article VI issues that do not exist.”

    A March 2004 report to Congress reveals that the US is employing a double standard concerning compliance with the NPT. Whereas the US wants to move forward with a new generation of nuclear weaponry, it adamantly rejects the attempt by any other state to acquire any sort of nuclear weapon. The US clearly wants to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons; of that there can be no doubt. But it does not want to be questioned on what it regards as its right to maintain enormous stocks (despite numerical reductions) and to keep nuclear weapons as a cornerstone of its military doctrine. The US is widely criticized around the world for this double standard.

    There is no way to reconcile this resurgence of nuclear weapons development ( Germany called it a nuclear “renaissance”) with disarmament. Even as it says it is adhering to the NPT, the US is flouting it. Only a change in attitude by the US administration can now save the Treaty.

    Responding to US Nuclear Policy in a Climate of Violence

    Daniel Ellsberg noted in his presentation that humans are not a species to be trusted with nuclear weapons. We need to understand ourselves as humans in relation to this deadly technology. The US has always had as its plan to act first or preemptively. Ellsberg noted that nuclear weapons have been used many times as a threat like a gun pointed at someone’s head.

    Tom Reifer observed that the Bush administration reserves the right to invade countries on the basis of the threat of weapons of mass destruction. There is a need to reframe the message to talk about the real dangers. While some are afraid that nuclear weapons may fall into the wrong hands, we must realize that there are no right hands for nuclear weapons. We need to connect to the global economic movement and connect nuclear weapons issues to militarism issues.

    Bennett Ramberg began his presentation noting that Libya is no longer a nuclear aspirant and Iraq is no longer a nuclear threat. Iran is now a nuclear threat and it is likely that the US or Israel may preemptively strike Iran . Ramberg proposed that Israel should be encouraged to give up its nuclear weapons and in exchange be brought under the NATO nuclear umbrella. We must also work for a Middle East Nuclear Weapons Free Zone, and create a nuclear taboo around the world.

    Civic, Moral and Legal Responses to Nuclear Weapons

    John Burroughs said that among the overarching themes under which to place nuclear abolition have been “human security,” the “right to peace,” and the “rule of law”. The Lawyers’ Committee on Nuclear Policy and the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research pursued the latter theme in the 2003 book, Rule of Power or Rule of Law? An Assessment of U.S. Policies and Actions Regarding Security-Related Treaties . The book places US non-compliance with the NPT disarmament obligation in the broader context of US rejection or undermining of a range of global security treaties concerning global warming, international justice, landmines, and biological and chemical weapons. “Rule of law” clearly is an important element of the message. However, it doesn’t seem to be the best overall theme, rather a sub-theme. It does not wholly persuade the US policy elite, much of which accepts US hegemony and has a highly skeptical attitude about international law and institutions. It has some resonance with the public, because the rule of law is associated with US traditions and constitutionalism. But it is not a galvanizing theme.

    The rule of law message can help in the essential work of counteracting ongoing US reliance on threat or execution of preventive war against nuclear proliferation. This may be the shape of years and decades to come if the US does not adopt a policy of relying instead on preventive diplomacy and reciprocal and cooperative action that includes reduction and elimination of the US arsenal. See Peter Weiss’s remarks at http://lcnp.org/disarmament/nuclearweaponspreventivewar.htm

    One critical task for nuclear abolition outreach and organizing is to relate seriously to other movements, not only in the use of rhetoric but also through concrete contributions. An example is LCNP’s work on the World Tribunal on Iraq , which held its New York session on May 8, 2004 . For information and presentations, see www.worldtribunal-nyc.org . Organizers included highly motivated and competent graduate students and activists.

    Jonathan Schell stated that the Bush Administration is pursuing a path that will lead to a multitude of disasters. We need an alternative path. We have been deceived about the Nuclear Age. The US establishment did not want nuclear weapons discredited after Hiroshima and Nagasaki because they planned to rely upon them. Reagan and Gorbechev understood the danger of nuclear weapons. There was radical neglect of addressing the nuclear threat during the Clinton years. Under the Bush Administration there has been a nuclear “unlearning.” Deep truths have been cast aside. Even President Reagan understood that nuclear weapons cannot win wars and must never be used. The US must make its nuclear arsenal visible to Americans. We are facing layer upon layer of deception. We need to reincorporate the nuclear story.

    Helen Caldicott stated that killers throughout history have been put on pedestals. American people are good people. How do we teach the American people? We have to make an emotional appeal and reach their hearts as well as their minds.

    Setting Priorities for US Nuclear Policy

    Adil Najam stated that if the planet were a country, it would be a poor, divided, degraded, insecure, poorly governed, country of apartheid, as well as a third world country. We need to understand nuclearism in a feudal context. South Asia contains 40% of the world’s poor, ½ of all illiterates in the world. 260 million live without basic health facilities, 337 million do not have safe drinking water, 400 million go hungry and 500 million people live below the poverty line. Alas, South Asia is the most militarized area of the world. Spending money for military purposes has a real cost to the security of people. There is a new politics of nuclearism. Nuclear weapons are the poor man’s weapon. There is no argument one can make to disarm if the US does not take the lead. Najam quoted his grandmother saying, “If you point your finger at someone, three fingers will point back at you.”

    Urs Cipolat said that International Law is the most powerful antidote to the acceptance of nuclear weapons. The only tool human society uses to prevent the abuse of power is law. The rule of law is not intended to be the language of elite but rather to restrict the power of the elite. Absent the rule of law, force rules.

    Jackie Cabasso said that the US now relies on extended deterrence. The US is now spending $6.5 billion a year on nuclear weapons. “It’s too expensive” or “it won’t work” are fatally flawed arguments.

    Alice Slater asked, “What is the difference between the commercial nuclear industry that seeks to sell nuclear materials ‘at reasonable cost’ and the international Mafia that is now trading and profiting from the same materials? It is the delusory vision held by the “legal” nuclear industrialists that proliferation can be controlled. We will never be able to guard all the loose nuclear materials and black market smuggling while we constantly generate ever more lethal nuclear waste. The time for nuclear arms control fixes while continuing business as usual is over. The game is up.

    There is only one way to move forward. The nations of the world must call not only for complete nuclear disarmament, but for an end to “peaceful” nuclear power. At this critical moment, with a world mired in poverty and the constant threat of war and terrorism, our survival depends on implementing a plan for sustainable energy abundant in nature-local renewable resources-the sun, the wind, the tides. Urgent action is needed to fund and harness these natural treasures by establishing an International Sustainable Energy Fund.

    Developing a Blueprint for US Nuclear Policy

    David Krieger answered the question, “What would be the basic contours of a new course for US nuclear policy?” There are many forms and timeframes that a new US nuclear policy could take. Most important, however, must be a commitment to achieve the multilateral phased elimination of nuclear weapons within a reasonable timeframe and the further commitment to provide leadership toward that goal. The US will have to demonstrate by its actions, not only its words, that it is committed to this goal.

    The US must use its convening power to bring all nuclear weapons states together to the negotiating table to negotiate a Nuclear Weapons Convention. This would be consistent with the unanimous conclusion of the International Court of Justice in its 1996 Advisory Opinion on the Illegality of Nuclear Weapons: “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.”

    In terms of a timeframe, one proposal, put forward by the Mayors for Peace Emergency Campaign to Ban Nuclear Weapons, calls for starting negotiations on a treaty to ban nuclear weapons in 2005, the completion of negotiations by 2010, and the elimination of all nuclear weapons by the year 2020. The exact date of completing the process of nuclear disarmament may be less important than the demonstration of political will to achieve the goal combined with substantial steps toward the goal. It is clear that the world will become far safer from nuclear catastrophe when there are a few tens of nuclear weapons rather than tens of thousands.

    The US must forego provocative policies in nuclear weapons research and development leading to new and more usable nuclear weapons (“bunker busters” and “mini-nukes”). It must also stop working toward reducing the time needed to resume nuclear testing; and cease planning to create a facility to produce plutonium pits for large numbers of new or refurbished nuclear warheads.

    The US will need to reevaluate building defensive missile systems and weaponizing outer space, both projects that stimulate offensive nuclear responses.

    The US will have to make its nuclear reduction commitments irreversible by dismantling the weapons taken off active deployment.

    Finally, the US must give assurances to other countries that it is not relying upon its nuclear weapons for use in warfare. Such assurances could take the form of legally binding negative security assurances (the US will not use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear weapons state) and an agreement to No First Use against other nuclear weapons states, as well as taking its arsenal off hair-trigger alert.

    Krieger also answered the question, “What would be needed to achieve this change in course in US nuclear policy?” It is unlikely that US leaders will come to the conclusion of their own accord that it is necessary to chart a new course in US nuclear policy. They need serious prompting, both from American citizens and from the rest of the world. Other countries have been trying to influence the US government on this issue throughout the post-Cold War period to little avail. While other countries should certainly continue in this pursuit, the burden of responsibility for changing the course of US nuclear policy remains primarily with US citizens. It is an awesome responsibility, one on which the future of the world depends.

    A massive education and advocacy program is needed in the United States to mobilize widespread support for a new course in US nuclear policy. It will require resources, professionalism and persistence. The issue must be framed in a way that US citizens can grasp its importance and raise it to a high level in their hierarchy of policy priorities. The messages must be simple, clear and compelling. It is a challenge that demands our best thinking and organized action. It will require the wedding of old fashioned policy promotion with new technologies such as the internet. It will also require greater cooperation among advocacy groups and creativity in expanding the base of involvement by individuals and civil society groups that care not only about peace and disarmament, but also about the environment, human rights, health care and many other issue areas.

    Michael Flynn stated that the possible use of nuclear weapons will remain as long as states maintain dominance. 9/11 was a low tech affair. Since then, we have just been waiting for the next attack, and we are expecting that it will be a more sophisticated affair. Most claims by the current administration are stated in such a matter-of-fact way that journalists do not source facts and they take what is said at face value.

    War has always shown men what they are capable of under stress, and war always brings out the best in technology. Many theorists write about the salvational power of nuclear weapons. People have been led to believe that our security depends on them, and many who believe in them know little about them.

    Randy Forsberg said we need a campaign to reverse US nuclear policy. She said we should not limit the campaign to just the nuclear issue. We need to recapture the American dream. We need to coalesce the efforts of all nuclear disarmament and arms control organizations. We also need to allow those organizations buy-in to a US campaign for a new direction in US nuclear policy.

    Issue Framing

    George Lakoff spoke about issue framing. The right wing has created a self-sustaining system. They train all legislators, candidates for office, judges, lawyers and kids down to the age of 15. There is a reason they have invested this way. If you look at their moral system – they defend and extend their moral system itself. They look and plan ahead. The highest value on the right is to defend the moral structure and build infrastructure for it. The highest value on the left is to help individuals. The right has state-of-the-art facilities. 80% of talking heads are from right-wing think tanks. Their message of discipline is enforced across the entire spectrum.

    The right wing understands the nature of thought and the relationship between thought and language. If someone tells you not to think of an elephant, that is the only thing you will be able to think about. A word is defined relative to a frame. If you negate it, you still have the same frame.

    Rule # 1: don’t negate their frame. Find your own.

    Rule # 2: In most cases, it takes a long time to get a frame into most peoples’ brains. If a fact contradicts a frame, the frame remains. Frames do not occur alone. They are in systems that support each other. You can’t just negate one frame because other frames support it.

    Deep-framing is about largely unconscious world views. The metaphorical thought for morality is different between liberals and conservatives. We all have a metaphor for the nation’s founding.

    There are two different understandings of the nation and two different understandings of the family. We can therefore look at the metaphor of the nation as a family. There are two models. For the right, James Dobson is in the forefront for setting family values. He is heard on 3,000 radio stations across the country every day. He is also the author of Dare to Discipline . The right believes that the world is a dangerous place and that there will always be competition. They also believe kids are born bad and they will do what they want. Thus, kids need a strict father – who will give painful punishment. In order for kids to be made moral, they must be physically disciplined. This physical discipline will lead to mental discipline and this leads to a belief in the link between morality and prosperity.

    The right believes that there are winners and losers and the losers deserve to lose. Thus, it is moral to pursue self-interests. For the right, retribution is the main model. If you do something bad, there must be a consequence. Power and morality should go together. For the right, there is also a moral hierarchy: God over man, man over nature, parents over children, straights over gays, whites over non-whites. And, the strict father is the moral authority. For the right, giving up nuclear weapons would be giving up a means of discipline.

    The other model is the progressive model. They believe in having two nurturing parents and they raise their children to be nurturers. Progressives empathize with their children and if you empathize with your child, you will want them to be protected. PROTECTION, then, is a value for progressives. Progressives want their children to be treated FAIRLY, they want their child to be FULFILLED, to have OPPORTUNITY . Progressives are also interested in maintaining COMMUNITY, COOPERATION, TRUST, HONESTY and OPEN, TWO-WAY COMMUNICATION.

    Every person has both these models in their lives and we live and vote by these models. At least 38 to 40 percent percent of people have chosen one of these models. A swing voter is someone in the middle; i.e. they have both models in different parts of their life.

    Centrism is doubly mistaken. Both family models are in your brain. When one side uses your language, they are activating their models. We must therefore approach the issue from the level of shared morality and use our own language and rename theirs.

    Communications Strategies

    Rob Stuart spoke about communications strategies and also network-centric versus ego-centric models. BURST! Media surveyed 12,000 Web users. Of those surveyed, 53.4% were definite voters and 70% of the definite voters between the ages of 18 – 24 plan to use the Internet for information on the 2004 election. The survey also found that 61% of senior voters plan to use the Internet as a source for political information. This is a big increase over Internet usage during the mid-term 2002 elections. The number of women who will use the Internet for political information for the upcoming 2004 election will also dramatically increase from the mid-term 2002 elections, making the numbers of likely women almost equal to the numbers of likely men to use the Internet for political information.

    Stuart also offered some statistics related to current Internet users. According to AOL, 43% of broadband subscribers have multiple Internet sessions per day, in contrast to only 19% of narrow band users. 73% of broadband users call the Internet a better source of information than newspapers or television. The Internet is their preferred source for getting information. Broadband users do much more blogging and content offering. 60% have created online content or shared files. Broadband users spend 5 times as much time online vs. dial-up users. On AOL, broadband users have 80% more community sessions and share 40% more files.

    While the Internet is changing everything, natural forces are all around us. People share a deep connection to the Earth, their community and to each other. The goal then is to use the Internet’s infrastructure to tap into these connections and foster growing networks of effective supporters for coordinated campaigns and actions.

    Ego-Centric Model

    The ego-centric model focuses on building organizational morale and internal team cohesion. Key staff are evaluated on internal organizational goals and value is placed on raising organizational profile, development and centralizing organizational resources. In the ego-centric model, leadership focuses on goals and managing staff to achieve specific goals. Ego-centric organizations are generally resistant to information sharing. In the ego-centric model, there is a hierarchal decision making structure, members contribute money but not ideas and the organization defines programs as unique or original.

    Network-Centric Model

    The network-centric model is focused on expanding the number of people and organizations reached. It is also focused on expanding capacity of the network to perform. In the network-centric model, more attention is paid to information sharing. A network-centric organization values social contact between staffs of partner organizations and facilitates the rise of multiple leaders by enabling coordinated action. A network-centric model has a distributed power structure, and leverages and shares resources with partners. The leadership of a network-centric organization provides vision and energy to the network.

    What’s Needed

    For a campaign or organization to be successful, it must provide tools that connect and inform people as well as tools that model best practices and establish a “code.” A successful campaign or organization also needs strategies that facilitate individual and community “bottom up” action as well as strategies that will facilitate messages that aggregate power and stimulate new learning.

    Shaping the Message: Influencing the Public and Policy Makers

    Tom Plate said there is no such thing as free press. He noted that editors are interested in stories, not ideas. In general, the media is not interested in foreign issues because it is hard to get the US public to focus on it. It is more important to be seen on web pages than in hard copy because that is where most people are getting their information.

    Brent Blackwelder stated that the most important thing that the disarmament community can do is to be part of a larger framework. The progressive community has to get its hands dirty and mobilize the electorate. We also need to participate in broader issues as part of our long-term goals.

    Michele Boyd stated that members of Congress are always looking for political cover. Nothing will happen in Congress unless an outside force pushes it. If we want something done in Congress, there needs to be prior public discourse. We need to get Rotary clubs and businesses interested in our campaigns. Editorials in the press are not democratic, but they are powerful in moving congress and can influence votes.

    Carah Ong said that the Bush Administration has afforded us an opportunity to reinvigorate a movement for human and environmental security. A movement to chart a new course for US nuclear policy must re-frame the message in the current geopolitical context. A new movement must also include age, race and gender diversity, and it must re-empower citizens everywhere. A new movement must address the sanitization of violence that prevails in our society and delegitimize excuses for violent behavior.

    Carah also said that we should spend time finding out what resonates with young people today. We need to link with the music culture and use it as a means to disseminate our message. We also need to link university involvement in nuclear weapons issues to broader issues of militarization. We must also actively register young people to vote.

    Young people need mentors to be more involved in the movement. There is also a need for sustainable jobs and living wages within the nuclear disarmament movement. The movement must also do a better job of empowering and providing organizing tools and networking opportunities for youth and encourage networking with other issue areas. The campaign needs to develop curricula and distribute it to university professors, particularly in Global Security, International Studies and International Relations fields.

    The media is not the enemy, it is a tool. We have to remember that members of the media are not experts in the nuclear disarmament field. Today, we are not only in the “Age of image over content,” as Tom Plate stated, but we are also in the age of short attention span. As such, we must have an attractive and sexy message. We also need to focus on Internet media, including OneWorld, Alternet, and Common Dreams, because they service millions of Internet users and rapidly distribute information. We need to have a constant coordinated response to world events and link those issues/events to the nuclear issue. We need a spokesperson who is credible and well-known to speak on behalf of the campaign.

    Next Steps

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and the participants of the 2004 Symposium will continue to work together to develop a campaign to Chart a New Course for US Nuclear Policy this year. The participants have set up an email listserve to continue discussion and planning. At the end of the Symposium, a working group was established to develop a set of Talk ing Points on Charting a New Course for US Nuclear Policy based on progressive core values. The campaign will support existing nuclear disarmament campaigns, but also bring the “New Course” nuclear issues into larger fora connected with peace and disarmament, social justice, nuclear power, the environment, and human rights issues. Members of the campaign will also pitch stories about US nuclear policy and nuclear issues to editorial boards and other members of the media. The campaign seeks to mentor and involve more youth in the effort.

  • Force Above Law: The New International Disorder?

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

    Security in the Post-September 11th World

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

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

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

    Manifest Destiny: Divine Right to Use Force?

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

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

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

    New Nuclear Policy: First Strike

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

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

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

    Arms Control: Significant Nuclear Reductions or Maximum Nuclear Flexibility?

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

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

    Retreat from Law

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

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

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

    Conclusions

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

  • Yucca Mountain: A Salient Solution?

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

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

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

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

    What can you do?

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

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

    Congressional Switchboard is 202-225-3121

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

    Resources

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

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

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

     

  • India and Pakistan: A Crisis That Can Not Be Ignored

    India and Pakistan are moving dangerously toward war. On 22 May, Indian Prime Minister Atal Vajpayee told troops “to be ready for sacrifice…It’s time to fight a decisive battle.” The Pakistani government responded by saying they would use “full force” if India is to strike. The greatest concern not only to the region, but to the world is whether or not either country will resort to using nuclear weapons in order to “win” a war.

    Tensions have been mounting between South Asian nuclear rivals India and Pakistan, particularly since the 13 December terrorist attacks on the Indian Parliament. On 12 January, Pakistani President General Musharraf made a landmark speech condemning terrorism, promising internal reform and calling for a peaceful resolution with India over the disputed Kashmir region–the issue at the center of the standoff between the two nations. However, in India’s view, Musharraf has done substantively little to stop Islamic militants and Indian officials have charged Musharraf with continuing to support them.

    Statements from India and Pakistan in the past few months have indicated that both countries are willing to fight a nuclear war, should one side attack the other with a nuclear weapon. Pakistan has gone so far as to state that it is prepared to counter any attack from India. Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf stated on 6 January, “If any war is thrust on Pakistan, Pakistan’s armed forces and the 140 million people of Pakistan are fully prepared to face all consequences with all their might.” On 30 December 2001, Indian Defense Minister George Fernandes stated, “We could take a strike, survive and then hit back. Pakistan would be finished.”

    In a move viewed by Pakistan as a provocative gesture in the region, India conducted a test of a new version of its nuclear-capable medium-range Agni missile on 25 January. After India test-fired the Agni missile, General Musharraf made an offer to work with India for the de-nuclearization of South Asia. India rejected the proposal saying that without global disarmament, the denuclearization of South Asia is meaningless.

    Although the actual numbers of nuclear weapons in each arsenal are unknown, it is estimated that India has some 65 nuclear weapons and Pakistan has some 24-48 nuclear weapons. There are serious concerns about the military and intelligence infrastructures of both countries. Admiral L. Ramdas, retired Chief of the Indian Navy, stated earlier this year, “India and Pakistan lack effective command, control, communication and intelligence systems. When these infrastructures are not there, it makes the whole system more sensitive, accident-prone, and therefore dangerous. Global zero alert would be a major step towards providing a de facto security guarantee.”

    Both India and Pakistan must show restraint and resolve the current crisis before the conflict escalates any further, making the use of nuclear weapons in a war between the two countries even more likely. Neither country will win a war in which nuclear weapons are used. The situation in India and Pakistan evidences that the use, let alone the existence, of nuclear weapons is completely irrational because they do the exactly the opposite of what they purport to do. Nuclear weapons do not provide security. Neither India, nor Pakistan, nor anyone in this world is more secure because of the existence of nuclear weapons. In fact, at this moment India, Pakistan and indeed the whole world sit on the precipice of nuclear annihilation. It is time for global leadership, particularly from the nuclear weapons states, to rid the planet of these completely irrational weapons.

    More Resources on Nuclear South Asia

    Statements from Admiral L. Ramdas are available online at http://www.ieer.org/latest/ramdas2.html.

    “Pakistan’s Nuclear Forces 2001” from the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is now available in the January/February 2002 of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists at http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/nukenotes/jf02nukenote.html

    “India’s Nuclear Forces 2001” from the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is now available in the January/February 2002 of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists at http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/nukenotes/ma02nukenote.html

  • 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

  • Revealed Nuclear Policies Are a Sign of Bad Faith To Rest of the World

    On 9 March, reports surfaced in major US media that the US Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) released on 9 January contains contingency plans for using nuclear weapons against seven states: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, North Korea, Russia and China. It also reportedly contains plans to develop and deploy new “earth-penetrating” nuclear weapons and to accelerate the time it would take to resume full-scale nuclear testing. Using nuclear weapons against other states or developing new nuclear weapons would directly violate US obligations to pursue the elimination of nuclear weapons under Article VI of the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

    At the 2000 NPT Review Conference, the US, along with the other state parties to the treaty, committed themselves to an “unequivocal undertaking” to eliminate nuclear weapons and to a diminishing role for nuclear weapons in security policies. Even if the US does not pursue the plans outlined in the NPR, as Secretary of State Colin Powell and other top military and government officials are claiming, the provocative rhetoric could unravel the non-proliferation regime.

    “The fact that the US is developing contingency plans to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states will certainly be viewed as a sign of bad faith by most of the world and will do serious damage to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty,” said David Krieger, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.”

    Weapons of mass destruction and missile proliferation do pose a legitimate threat not only to US security, but also to international security. However, unilateral US threats to use nuclear weapons, in conjunction with developing and deploying missile defenses, as a means of countering these threats is likely to provoke rather than prevent proliferation. A much better option would be for the US to take the lead on negotiations for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery.

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation has issued an international appeal that has now been signed by over 100 prominent individuals, including 38 Nobel Laureates. The Appeal to End the Nuclear Weapons Threat to Humanity and All Life calls upon the US and other nuclear weapons states to take the following practical steps as a means to preserve the non-proliferation regime and achieve the complete elimination of nuclear weapons:

    * 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 nuclear weapons states and policies of No Use against non-nuclear weapons states.

    * Reallocate resources from the tens of billions of dollars currently being spent for maintaining nuclear arsenals to improving human health, education and welfare throughout the world.

  • Withdrawal from the ABM Treaty Threatens US and International Security

    The Bush Administration’s announcement on 13 December to withdraw from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in order to proceed with plans to develop and deploy ballistic missile defenses threatens both US and international security. The announcement that the US will withdraw from the accord negotiated with the former USSR is a signal that the US is willing to act unilaterally and outside the jurisdiction of international law. US withdrawal from the ABM treaty may provoke arms races, including in Outer Space, and undermine international disarmament and non-proliferation efforts.

    The deployment of ballistic missile defenses is not an effective means to countering the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery. The deployment of ballistic 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.

    Although the proposed US missile defense systems would have been utterly useless in the 11 September terrorist attacks, the Pentagon and other proponents of the systems have continued to call for increased funding for missile defense in the US 2002 fiscal year (FY 2002). The FY 2002 Defense Authorization Bill includes $7 to $8.3 billion for missile defense spending (the President is provided authority to spend $1.3 billion either for missile defense or to combat terrorism, a $3 billion or 57% increase over the authorized FY 2001 budget.

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, an international non-profit, non-partisan education and advocacy organization, believes that a much better option to increase global cooperation and security is to preserve the ABM Treaty until something more comprehensive can replace it. While the stated purpose of ballistic missile defense systems is to defend against missile attacks, it is unlikely that they could do so effectively.

    Additionally, the inherent link between the deployment of ballistic missile defense and the weaponization of outer space means that withdrawal from the ABM Treaty will allow the US to continue conduct tests of space weapons. A far better option for the US would be to take the lead on long-promised negotiations for the abolition of nuclear weapons, as well as other weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery.

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation urges Congress oppose the President’s announced withdrawal from the ABM Treaty. The Foundation also urges the US, Russia, China, and other countries to renew and fulfill their commitments to multilateral agreements, in particular all nuclear weapons states should fulfill their nuclear disarmament obligations in accordance to the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

    For more information on global initiatives to prevent the proliferation of ballistic missiles and abolish weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery, please visit the website of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation at https://wagingpeace.davidmolinaojeda.com.

  • Evolving Thoughts on 11 September Events From a Young US Peace Activist Perspective

    When I first awoke on Tuesday, 11 September 2001 and began watching from the West Coast the events unfolding in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania, I had a variety of reactions. While the tragedy which occurred in the US against innocent people is unjustifiable by any means, US citizens and citizens around the world must seize this opportunity to examine the root causes of violence and respond with redoubled efforts to create a truly just and peaceful world for all human beings.

    My first reaction was “What a way to celebrate the International Day of Peace!” But not once during the course of the day did I hear media make mention that it was in fact the International Day of Peace until a tiny scroll message announced it at 9:30 p.m. pacific time, nearly thirteen hours after the first crash.

     

    I knew from the first sight that I saw on the television that as a peace activist and a US citizen, the events would greatly alter my life. All of the US media reports from the first moment and continuing voiced a sense of resurgent nationalism ever apparent in the minds of Americans. Americans on television and in the papers cried out for revenge and retaliation mirroring the calls from the US government and military. I thought to myself, “How will people in the US respond to the message of peace? How will people listen to the voice of non-violence?” Headline after headline, news story after news story reiterated the need for justice, not true justice, but a perverted justice based on military retaliation.

     

    My heart went out to the victims of the acts of violence committed that day. But even more so, my heart went out to victims of violence everywhere around the world. I realized how self-centered and naive we are in the US. Every day, violence is a daily occurrence in many countries around the world. Very few acknowledge their suffering. Some 40,000 children die every day from malnutrition, where is the peace and justice in that? Immediately, heads of state around the world responded to the events in the US, allying with the government and military’s plans to seek out and take revenge upon those responsible for the acts. Organizations and individuals also sent messages of solidarity and condolences to the people of the US. While I appreciated these messages, at the same time I was saddened to think of all victims of violence around the world who do not receive condolences and solidarity, let alone acknowledgement of their struggle for survival. What makes the loss of American lives more valuable than the loss of lives in other parts of the world? Violence has become a means by which we place value on human life and the environment. We consider certain losses justifiable so that 20 percent of the world’s population can exploit 80 percent of its wealth.

     

    The government and military also immediately accused a scapegoat and the media reported this person and his affiliates to the American people, feeding into the frenzy and anger of a nation too blinded by the devastating images before our eyes to see reality. If in fact, the acts of violence were committed by terrorists, weren’t we the party responsible for creating them? How could we not know that the seeds we sowed during the Cold War, the seeds we continued to sow after the dissolution of the USSR would not come back to haunt us? How can we be so selfish as a society to believe that our consumption and way of life is a right only we should enjoy? Why is that we are the only ones in the world that should enjoy it?

     

    Many have called the events a “collective loss of innocence” in this country as have been other historical moments, such as the two World Wars, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the assassination of John F. Kennedy, the Vietnam War, the Korean Crisis and the Cold War. I hope that instead we would stop and re-evaluate the 11 September events as a collective loss of ignorance. After the dissolution of the USSR, the US was under the impression that it had “triumphed” over the “evils” of communism. But we did not stop think about the policies we instituted around the world in the name of democratic ideology, an ideology funded and backed by capitalism and militarism. At the end of the Cold War, the US was presented with a great opportunity to be a true leader, to take the lead in negotiations for the abolition of nuclear weapons, to reduce our reliance on military might, to decrease the vast amount of money spent on defense, to redefine global security in terms of human and environmental needs rather than in terms of military superiority. But we chose not to take this role. Instead, we continue to plunder the environment, to consume vast amount of the precious Earth’s resources, to ignore human suffering beyond our “national” borders.

     

    Younger generations in the US do not understand why this event occurred. We do not recall the perceived threat of communism of the Cold War or the duck and cover drills practiced in the event of a nuclear strike. We do not recall protesting the Vietnam War. We do not recall the Korean War or the Cuban Missile Crisis. We do not remember JFK’s assassination. We have only read of these events in textbooks. This US administration and military quickly called the 11 September acts, “acts of war.” The military-corporate-education complex needs US citizens, particularly younger generations, to live in fear of a perceived threat, a threat that has been to some extent been missing since the end of the Cold War. Without a perceived threat, how can they justify increased military spending? How else can they justify “controlling and dominating” the Earth and Outer Space because of the widening gap between the “haves and the have-nots” which “threaten” US economic interests here and abroad? How else can they justify missile defense systems, systems which would have rendered useless in the events of 11 September? How else can they justify developing and deploying the B61-11, a new nuclear weapon that makes the use of nuclear weapons more likely in the future of conflict despite international obligations to abolish nuclear weapons?

     

    The existence of war, nuclear weapons and all weapons of mass destruction evidence our insecurity and our inability to understand how our actions affect others. As human beings, we desire to be secure, yet we have some how deemed it in our nature to live in fear of each other and therefore we try to justify our urge to resolve conflicts through violent means. We must remember our commonality and our humanity and be mindful not to demonize any peoples based on ethnicity, religion, nationality and gender. We must put a stop to nationalism and hatred. We must not allow prejudice into our hearts and minds.

     

    Many analysts and editorialists have called the 11 September events a “defining moment” in this country’s history. I hope that indeed it will be a defining moment in American history in that we as a nation will stop to think about why such an event occurred here. We as citizens are responsible for the actions of our government and military. As a democracy, we elect our leaders. Governments only have the right to govern based on the will of the people they govern. It must be our will as individuals to achieve peace and we must hold our governments responsible to ensure the maintenance of peace for all peoples. We should call upon our leaders to examine the policies we have created and institute new policies that will preclude the use of violence and loss of life in the future. Rather than withdrawing from international establishments and obligations as the current administration is doing, the US should engage in the international community to promote cooperation and not rely on military might as the principal means of solving conflict. The US should work collaboratively with the global community to address the underlying causes of violence and promote non-violent cooperative measures to resolve conflict.

     

    Our only hope is to educate ourselves and future generations that all humans deserve to live with dignity, compassion and respect for one another and the environment, and that humans must use the Earth’s precious resources constructively and sustainably. Martin Luther King, Jr. Stated, “Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly”. We must be cognizant of the inter-relatedness of all communities and peoples. Though cultures and traditions may vary, and though we are all individually unique, we are united by our humanity. We are all brothers and sisters of one human family and we must learn to live with each other and respect our differences. We must keep our impoverished brothers and sisters who live in the developing world in our conscience. With these ideals and principles, the human family can coexist harmoniously with each other and the Earth, making a peaceful world possible.