Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Author: David Krieger

Farewell to the ABM Treaty

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of the United States Congress and over the objections of Russia and most US allies, George W. Bush has unilaterally withdrawn the US from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, rendering it void.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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

June 13, 2002
Stopping a Nuclear War in South Asia

Two nuclear-armed countries stand on the brink of war and the world seems paralyzed as it watches events unfolding in what seems like slow motion. It is a war that could easily escalate into a nuclear holocaust taking millions or tens of millions of lives, and virtually nothing is being done to end the standoff. The US and the UK have advised their citizens to leave the region and the UN is pulling out the families of UN workers in the region, but the UN Security Council has not yet even put the matter on its agenda let alone put forward any constructive solution.

The US has sent its Secretary of Defense to the region, but has lifted sanctions on the sale of military equipment to both countries that it imposed after they conducted nuclear tests in 1998. At the same time, the US continues to demonstrate its own reliance on nuclear weaponry, announcing on June 1st that it will resume production of plutonium “pits” used to trigger nuclear warheads.

Here is what Indian novelist Arundhati Roy has to say about the situation:

“Terrorists have the power to trigger nuclear war. Non-violence is treated with contempt. Displacement, dispossession, starvation, poverty, disease, these are all just funny comic strip items now. Meanwhile, emissaries of the coalition against terror come and go preaching restraint. Tony Blair arrives to preach peace and on the side, to sell weapons to both India and Pakistan. The last question every visiting journalist asks me: ‘Are you writing another book?’

“That question mocks me. Another book? Right now when it looks as though all the music, the art, the architecture, the literature, the whole of human civilization means nothing to the monsters who run the world. What kind of book should I write? For now, just for now, for just a while pointlessness is my biggest enemy. That’s what nuclear bombs do, whether they’re used or not. They violate everything that is humane, they alter the meaning of life.

“Why do we tolerate them? Why do we tolerate the men who use nuclear weapons to blackmail the entire human race?”

Arundhati Roy is absolutely right. It is because we tolerate these men and their dangerous, inhumane and genocidal policies whether they be in the US, Russia, UK, France, China, Israel, India or Pakistan — that nuclear war is possible and increasingly likely.

But what should we do now, while these men remain in control of the future of the fate of the people of India, Pakistan and the rest of the world? Here are a few modest suggestions:

Call for the UN Security Council to take charge of the situation as a matter of highest priority, require Indian and Pakistani forces to stand down their nuclear forces, move back from their front line positions, interpose UN Peacekeeping forces between them and require mediated talks between the leaders of the two countries.

Call for the permanent members of the UN Security Council (US, Russia, UK, France and China) to immediately cancel the sale and delivery of all military equipment to both India and Pakistan.

To deal with the continuing dangers of nuclear war, so easy to visualize in the India-Pakistan standoff, we should also call for all nuclear weapons states to immediately commence good faith negotiations for the elimination of all nuclear weapons as required by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the International Court of Justice.

Forty years ago, the world stood by helplessly as the US and former Soviet Union almost stumbled into nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis. We obviously failed to learn the lesson then that nuclear weapons are too dangerous to be left in the hands of any military force. Now we run the risk that acts of terrorists in the Kashmir conflict could trigger a war in South Asia that could quickly escalate to nuclear war. Similar conditions exist in the Middle East.

The potential for war in South Asia must be defused now before it erupts into large-scale conflict that could go nuclear. But it is not enough to only defuse the present crisis. The world must also become deadly serious about putting away forever these dangerous instruments of annihilation and genocide, before these instruments become seriously and massively deadly in wars that no one can truly desire or in the hands of terrorists.
*David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

June 3, 2002
New Security Challenges: Ten Themes

The International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility, in cooperation with Scientists for Global Responsibility and the University of Bradford Department of Peace Studies, held a seminar on “New Security Challenges: Global and Regional Priorities” at Bradford University on May 23-24, 2002. The following ten themes emerged from the seminar.

1. The new security challenges after September 11th are also the old security challenges. One major exception is the greater awareness of the increased vulnerability of the rich nations to determined terrorists. The vulnerability itself has not changed in a major way, but the determination of terrorists to exploit the vulnerability has notched up.

2. It remains critical for the rich nations to redefine security so that it takes into account the interests of not only the rich, but also of those at the periphery. Disparity, poverty, inequity and injustice are fertile breeding grounds for terrorism. The rich countries should be spending more of their resources to alleviate these conditions of insecurity rather than pouring their resources into military solutions.

3. Building the Castle Walls higher is a security strategy that is bound to fail. The rich cannot build these walls high enough to protect themselves from suicidal terrorists. Missile defenses, for example, are no more than a Maginot Line in the sky that cannot protect against terrorists and will not provide security against the threats of 21st century terrorism. Terrorists will simply go under or around the Castle Walls as the Germans went around the French Maginot Line in World War II.

4. There is a greater probability that weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, chemical, biological and radiological) will be used against the most powerful countries. The availability of these weapons, due to the continued reliance on them by the most powerful nations, creates a new “balance of power” that turns the strength of the powerful against themselves.

5. There is an increasing sense that international law is failing due to the strong opposition to international law solutions being demonstrated by the United States. At a time when international law and international cooperation are more needed than ever to achieve greater security, the United States is failing in its leadership.

6. From a regional perspective, both Europe and Russia are failing to demonstrate a meaningful restraint on US actions subverting international law. In this sense, they are failing in their own leadership and are making themselves potential accomplices in crime under international law.

7. The international system is not doing very well in implementing nonviolent methods of conflict resolution. One reason for this is continued reliance by the most powerful countries on military solutions to conflict. The United States alone has raised its military budget by nearly $100 billion since Bush became president.

8. There is a need to strengthen and empower international institutions to act even in the light of uncertainty. Their actions, however, must reasonable and legitimate, taking into account principles such as right intention, precautionary principle, last resort, proportionality, consistency and right authority.

9. There is a critical need to separate reality from illusion regarding security. The major sources of media continue to serve power and the status quo and fail to provide adequate perspective on key issues related to peace and security.

10. There is a continuing need to activate public opinion for global and humanitarian interests. This means that the independent voices for peace, justice, development and sustainability of civil society organizations are of critical importance in providing alternative perspectives to those of governments and the mass media on issues of peace and security.
*David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and Deputy Chair of the International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility.

May 31, 2002
Nuclear Dangers Remain After Bush-Putin Agreement

When major newspapers around the world trumpet headlines such as “U.S., Russia to Cut Nuclear Arms,” it should be cause for excitement, even celebration. Undoubtedly most people will greet this news with a sense of relief that we are moving in the right direction. Certainly it is better to have less nuclear weapons than more of them. But before we bring out the champagne, it would be a good idea to read the fine print and examine more closely what the treaty will and will not do.

The treaty calls for reducing the size of the actively deployed US and Russian strategic nuclear arsenals from some 6,000 weapons on each side today to between 1,700 and 2,200 by the year 2012. This is approximately a two-thirds reduction in actively deployed long-range nuclear weapons, a move that is certainly positive.

The treaty, however, has serious flaws. The nuclear weapons taken off active deployment will not necessarily be destroyed. It will be up to each country to determine what to do with these weapons. Many, if not most, of them will be placed in storage, ready to be rapidly redeployed if either country decides to do so.

There is also no immediacy to moving from current levels of strategic nuclear weapons to the promised lower levels. According to the terms of the treaty, each country needs only to reduce to the agreed upon levels by the year 2012. That also happens to be the year that the treaty terminates unless extended.

The United States has been a proponent of making the nuclear reductions reversible. The major problem with this approach is that it leads the Russians to do the same, and thereby increases the likelihood that these weapons could fall into the hands of terrorists. It would be better for both countries to permanently dismantle the nuclear weapons removed from active deployment, thereby removing the risk of theft by terrorists.

The treaty deals only with strategic or long-range nuclear weapons. It does not seek to control or reduce tactical or short-range nuclear weapons. Each side still retains thousands of these weapons, and there is serious concern about the Russian arsenal’s vulnerability to theft or unauthorized use. The US Nuclear Posture Review, made partially public in January 2002, called for the development of so-called “bunker buster” nuclear weapons that would be far more likely to actually be used than the larger long-range nuclear weapons.

As we evaluate this treaty, we should remember that even at the lowest level of 1,700 strategic nuclear weapons on each side, there will still be a sufficient number to destroy more than 3,000 cities. The use of far fewer nuclear weapons than this would put an end to civilization as we know it.

President Bush claims, “This treaty will liquidate the legacy of the Cold War.” This remains to be seen. By designing a treaty that will hold so many nuclear weapons in reserve and retain so many on active “hair-trigger” alert, the two sides are not exactly demonstrating a level of trust commensurate with their current friendly relations.

When the treaty is examined closely, it has more the feel of a public relations effort than a solid step toward reducing nuclear dangers and fulfilling the long-standing promises of the two countries to engage in good faith negotiations for nuclear disarmament. Unfortunately, even if this treaty is ratified and enters into force, we will remain in the danger zone that nuclear weapons pose to humanity and all life.

We still need an agreement that provides for deeper, more comprehensive and irreversible cuts with a far greater sense of urgency. Mr. Bush and Mr. Putin need to return to the negotiating table.

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

May 1, 2002
The President Has Gone Too Far

The president can no longer be considered simply a vacuous puppet brought to power by big business, a family name, and election fraud. He must now be viewed as a dangerous opponent of our constitutional form of government, international law and the international order that was born in the aftermath of World War II.

The US withdrawal from the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court, announced by the Bush administration on May 6, 2002, has all the markings of a watershed event, an event that could make one weep for what it portends for the future of humanity and our country. The Bush administration is marching ahead in its assault on international law. Never before has a nation removed its sovereign signature from a treaty. Now it is done.

In a one paragraph letter to the United Nations Secretary General, the US undersecretary of state for arms control, John Bolton wrote, “The United States does not intend to become a party to the treaty. Accordingly, the United states has no legal obligations from its signature on December 31, 2000.” In other words, our commitment means nothing. There is no reason for other sovereign states to rely upon the commitments of the United States. The administration has sent a clear signal that the US will decide which laws it will support and which it won’t and the rest of the world be damned.

The Bush administration demonstrates little interest in supporting international law. It is also pulling out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty to pursue missile defenses and space weaponization. This is an administration of militarists and unilateralists. They talk about withdrawing from the International Criminal Court because they fear that US servicemen could be brought to justice under the provisions of the Court, but what they really fear is that US leaders will be held to the same set of standards that the Court will apply to all leaders throughout the world.

In an article written in 1999, the same John Bolton pointed out that it was not American soldiers that would be in the most jeopardy, but rather “the president, the cabinet officers who comprise the National Security Council, and other senior civilian and military officers responsible for our defense and foreign policy.” But what would US leaders have to fear if they do not commit the most heinous of crimes under international law, crimes such as genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, the same crimes for which the Nazis were held accountable at Nuremberg?

Since Bush has become president, the United States has increased its military budget by nearly $100 billion, from $300 billion to almost $400 billion. Military power is the administration’s answer to international law. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld talks in plain language about our efforts to kill whomever we deem as our enemy. We are breaking with our allies, who are committed to international law. The US has become a unilateralist superpower, a rogue superpower, a dangerous force for international anarchy.

The House of Representatives has rubbed salt in the wound of our allies in the international community who support the Court by voting 264 to 152 in a sense of the Congress amendment to the Department of Defense Authorization Bill that no funding in the bill “should be used for any assistance to, or to cooperate with or to provide any support for, the International Criminal Court.” The House of Representatives, at the instigation of Tom DeLay, Also attached an amendment to the Supplemental Appropriations Bill that would prohibit US cooperation with the Court and would even authorize the US to invade Holland to free members of U.S. armed forces, civilians and allies held by the Court.

Most of the Senate has remained silent on Bush’s decision to withdraw from the Court. Senator Christopher Dodd, whose father was a prosecutor at Nuremberg, referred to the president’s decision as “irresponsible, isolationist, and contrary to our vital national interests.” Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle responded to Mr. Bush’s decision with these words of opposition: “This decision vastly decreases our ability to shape the ICC, ignores the fact that the ICC will come into existence regardless of whether we are involved or not, and raises the specter of unilateralism just as we will be turning to our allies for help in a series of crucial policy, diplomatic–and perhaps military–undertakings.”

The United States, which has an unparalleled opportunity to lead the world in upholding human rights and achieving a just peace, has slipped precipitously from the aftermath of World War II when it led the world in bringing Nazi leaders to justice at the Nuremberg Trials. The US chief prosecutor at Nuremberg, Justice Robert Jackson, argued, “The law must also reach the men who seize great power and deliberately combine to make use of it to commit an evil which affects every home in the world. The last step in preventing the periodic outbreak of war, which is unavoidable with international lawlessness, is to make a statesman responsible before the law.”

Bush’s policies promote international lawlessness and impunity under international law to leaders accused of grave crimes such as Osama bin Laden, General Augusto Pinochet, Idi Amin, Pol Pot and Henry Kissinger. The president’s policies encourage present and future leaders to believe that their crimes will also be blessed with impunity under the law. In the eyes of the world, including those of our closest allies, these policies underscore the US abdication of leadership in upholding international law and human rights.
*David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

May 1, 2002
A New Court to Uphold International Criminal Law: The World Moves Forward without the United States

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

April 1, 2002
Peace Proposal: Bring in the Children

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

April 1, 2002
Time is running out, and what is at stake is our common future

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

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

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

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

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

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

David Krieger, President
Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

April 1, 2002
Background on the Non-Proliferation Treaty

So long as nuclear weapons exist, the human species will remain threatened by nuclear annihilation. With nuclear weapons in the arsenals of some nations, humanity faces the possibility of future Hiroshimas and Nagasakis. The only way to assure that these tragedies are not repeated or that even worse nuclear tragedies do not occur is to move rapidly and resolutely to abolish nuclear weapons.

The 1996 Report of the Canberra Commission on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, composed of distinguished individuals from throughout the world, correctly concluded: “The proposition that nuclear weapons can be retained in perpetuity and never used – accidentally or by decision – defies credibility. The only complete defence is the elimination of nuclear weapons and assurance that they will never be produced again.”

The promise of the complete elimination of nuclear weapons is found in Article VI of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). In 1996, when the International Court of Justice issued its advisory opinion on the illegality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons, the Court clarified the obligation of Article VI of the Treaty. The Court concluded unanimously:

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.

Time may be running out on the international community’s ability to control either the proliferation or the use of nuclear weapons, as the nuclear weapons states continue to break their NPT promises to achieve meaningful nuclear disarmament. The parties to the NPT have special responsibilities to communicate clearly to the nuclear weapons states that they are transgressing on humanity’s future by their failure to fulfill their promises.

The Nuclear Disarmament Promise of the Non-Proliferation Treaty

The Non-Proliferation Treaty is one of the key nuclear arms control treaties of the latter half of the 20th century. The treaty was signed at Washington, London and Moscow on July 1, 1968 and entered into force on March 5, 1970. There are currently 187 states that are parties to the NPT, nearly all countries in the world. Four important exceptions are Israel, India, Pakistan and Cuba. The first three of these possess nuclear weapons and need to be brought into the NPT regime.

The primary purpose of the NPT is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. In negotiating the Treaty, the non-nuclear weapons states argued that the Treaty should not create a small class of permanent nuclear weapons states and a much larger class of states that have renounced their right to possess nuclear weapons. To remedy this inequality, Article VI of the Treaty called for ending the nuclear arms race and for nuclear disarmament. This article states:

Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

The promise of Article VI is a world free of nuclear weapons. The failure of the nuclear weapons states to fulfill this promise rightly continues to be a source of irritation and uneasiness to the non-nuclear weapons states parties to the Treaty.

New Promises

By the terms of the NPT, the parties to the Treaty held a Review and Extension Conference in 1995, twenty-five years after the Treaty entered into force. The purpose of this Conference was to determine whether the Treaty should be extended indefinitely or for a fixed period or periods. Some of the non-nuclear weapons states argued vociferously that the Treaty should be extended only for fixed periods and extensions of these periods should be tied to progress on nuclear disarmament by the nuclear weapons states. Taking the opposite position, the nuclear weapons states and their allies argued for an indefinite extension of the Treaty. In the end, with much arm-twisting and agreement to a set of new promises, the nuclear weapons states and their allies prevailed and the Treaty was extended indefinitely.

In the Final Document of the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference, the parties to the Treaty set forth certain additional promises for nuclear disarmament. The nuclear weapons states reaffirmed their Article VI commitment “to pursue in good faith negotiations on effective measures relating to nuclear disarmament.” All parties to the Treaty agreed on the importance of the following measures to fulfilling the Article VI promise:

(a) The completion by the Conference on Disarmament of the negotiations on a universal and internationally and effectively verifiable Comprehensive Nuclear-Test Ban Treaty no later than 1996. Pending the entry into force of a Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty, the nuclear-weapon States should exercise utmost restraint;

(b) The immediate commencement and early conclusion of negotiations on a non discriminatory and universally applicable convention banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices…

(c) The determined pursuit by the nuclear-weapon States of systematic and progressive efforts to reduce nuclear weapons globally, with the ultimate goals of eliminating those weapons, and by all States of general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

In other sections of the Final Document, the parties to the Treaty called for “development of nuclear-weapon-free zones, especially in regions of tension, such as in the Middle East,” and for the nuclear weapons states to provide further security assurances to the non-nuclear weapons states against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons against them. In a special resolution, the parties to the Treaty called for a special “Middle East zone free of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, chemical and biological, and their delivery systems….”

Following these promises, France and China continued testing nuclear weapons for a period of time. French testing in the Pacific raised global protests that caused them to cut their planned series of tests short. A Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) was negotiated and opened for signatures in September 1996. The Treaty, which has now been signed by 165 countries, cannot by its provisions enter into force until ratified by all 44 nuclear capable countries. Thirteen of these 44 countries have yet to ratify the Treaty, including the US and China. In addition, no progress has been made on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty; and the promise of “determined pursuit” of reducing nuclear weapons globally looks more like a major exercise in foot-dragging.

Two new nuclear weapons free zones were created following the 1995 Review and Extension Conference, one in Southeast Asia and one in Africa. These treaties, however, have not had strong support from the nuclear weapons states. Unfortunately, in the most critical regions of the planet, where the threat of use of nuclear weapons is higher, there has not been progress toward creating either nuclear weapons free zones or zones free of all weapons of mass destruction. These regions are the Middle East, South Asia and Northeast Asia. Further, the nuclear weapons states have not offered additional security assurances to the non nuclear weapons states. In some cases, they have back away from earlier security promises.

In 1998 the stakes of nuclear disarmament were raised when India, followed shortly by Pakistan, tested nuclear weapons and announced to the world that they were now nuclear powers. While these countries were initially sanctioned by the US for their overt proliferation of nuclear weapons, these sanctions were later removed following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against the US.

With little progress toward the nuclear disarmament promise of Article VI, the parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty met again for a Review Conference in the year 2000. It was a contentious conference, but in the end the parties to the Treaty, led by a coalition of middle power states, agreed on the following thirteen practical steps to achieve nuclear disarmament.

1. The importance and urgency of signatures and ratifications, without delay and without conditions and in accordance with constitutional processes, to achieve the early entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty.

2. A moratorium on nuclear-weapon-test explosions or any other nuclear explosions pending entry into force of that Treaty.

3. The necessity of negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament on a non discriminatory, multilateral and internationally and effectively verifiable treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices in accordance with the statement of the Special Coordinator in 1995 and the mandate contained therein, taking into consideration both nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation objectives. The Conference on Disarmament is urged to agree on a programme of work which includes the immediate commencement of negotiations on such a treaty with a view to their conclusion within five years.

4. The necessity of establishing in the Conference on Disarmament an appropriate subsidiary body with a mandate to deal with nuclear disarmament. The Conference on Disarmament is urged to agree on a programme of work which includes the immediate establishment of such a body.

5. The principle of irreversibility to apply to nuclear disarmament, nuclear and other related arms control and reduction measures.

6. An unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear-weapon States to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament, to which all States parties are committed under article VI.

7. The early entry into force and full implementation of START II and the conclusion of START III as soon as possible while preserving and strengthening the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems as a cornerstone of strategic stability and as a basis for further reductions of strategic offensive weapons, in accordance with its provisions.

8. The completion and implementation of the Trilateral Initiative between the United States of America, the Russian Federation and the International Atomic Energy Agency.

9. Steps by all the nuclear-weapon States leading to nuclear disarmament in a way that promotes international stability, and based on the principle of undiminished security for all:

– Further efforts by the nuclear-weapon States to reduce their nuclear arsenals unilaterally;
– Increased transparency by the nuclear-weapon States with regard to the nuclear weapons capabilities and the implementation of agreements pursuant to article VI and as a voluntary confidence-building measure to support further progress on nuclear disarmament;
– The further reduction of non-strategic nuclear weapons, based on unilateral initiatives and as an integral part of the nuclear arms reduction and disarmament process;
– Concrete agreed measures to further reduce the operational status of nuclear weapons systems;
– A diminishing role for nuclear weapons in security policies to minimize the risk that these weapons will ever be used and to facilitate the process of their total elimination;
– The engagement as soon as appropriate of all the nuclear-weapon States in the process leading to the total elimination of their nuclear weapons.

10. Arrangements by all nuclear-weapon States to place, as soon as practicable, fissile material designated by each of them as no longer required for military purposes under IAEA or other relevant international verification and arrangements for the disposition of such material for peaceful purposes, to ensure that such material remains permanently outside military programmes.

11. Reaffirmation that the ultimate objective of the efforts of States in the disarmament process is general and complete disarmament under effective international control.

12. 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.

13. The further development of the verification capabilities that will be required to provide assurance of compliance with nuclear disarmament agreements for the achievement and maintenance of a nuclear-weapon-free world.

Progress by each of the declared nuclear weapons states (US, UK, France, Russia and China) and by the three de facto nuclear weapons states (Israel, India and Pakistan) on these thirteen steps, which are set forth below, will be the subject of the next section of this briefing book.

March 1, 2002
Stopping a Rogue Superpower: Time Is Running Out
“If another country were planning to develop a new nuclear weapon and contemplating preemptive strikes against a list of non-nuclear powers, Washington would rightly label that nation a dangerous rogue state.”
— New York Time Editorial, March 12, 2002

In April the parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the world’s most important international agreement to achieve non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament, will meet at the United Nations to review progress toward achieving the goals of the Treaty. They will undoubtedly conclude that the Treaty stands in peril, as do the people of the world, due to the failure of the nuclear weapons states to fulfill their obligations under the Treaty to achieve progress on nuclear disarmament. This failure has been driven by the actions of the world’s only superpower.

The United States has acted in defiance of the international community in flagrantly failing to fulfill its promises and in actions undermining nuclear arms control treaties. The United States, under its current administration, has taken the following actions in direct opposition to the 13 Practical Steps for Nuclear Disarmament agreed to by all parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty at the 2000 NPT Review Conference:
- given notice of its intention to withdraw from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in order to unilaterally pursue missile defenses and the weaponization of outer space;
- failed to ratify and promote the entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and made plans to shorten the time needed to resume underground nuclear testing;
- developed contingency plans to use nuclear weapons against at least seven countries, five of which are non-nuclear weapons states that are parties to the NPT, in direct contradiction to long-standing security assurances given to countries without nuclear weapons;
- made nuclear war more likely by making plans to use nuclear weapons for specific purposes, such as bunker busting or destroying chemical or biological weapons stockpiles, and by developing smaller, more useable nuclear weapons; and
- made nuclear “disarmament” easily reversible by implementing policies that place deactivated nuclear warheads in storage rather than destroying them.
Taken together, these polices demonstrate a clear failure to pursue the “unequivocal undertaking” to achieve nuclear disarmament that was agreed to at the 2000 NPT Review Conference. Rather, these unilateral policies threaten the entire non-proliferation regime and raise the specter of nuclear war.Time is running out, and what is at stake is the future of humanity and all life. The nations and people of the world are challenged to stop a “rogue” superpower, uphold the Non-Proliferation Treaty and fulfill the goal of nuclear disarmament before disaster strikes.
*David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.
March 1, 2002