Author: Mike Ryan

  • Appeal on Proposed Transport of Spent Nuclear Fuel from Kozloduy to Russia Vienna, Austria

    Signed by 46 Representatives of European NGOs

    We, undersigned representatives of environmental organizations, scientists, politicians, are in strong opposition to proposed transportation of spent nuclear fuel from Bulgarian nuclear plant Kozloduy to Russia for the reprocessing. Spent nuclear fuel is high-level nuclear waste produced by nuclear industry and its transportation poses significant danger to the environment and population of the countries through which the spent nuclear fuel will be transported. According to the agreement between the governments of Bulgaria, Russia, Ukraine and Moldova, signed on November 28, 1997, in Sofia (Bulgaria) the Kozloduy’s spent nuclear fuel must be transported to Russian reprocessing facility “Mayak” through Ukraine and Moldova. There were already many protests by citizen’s groups in these countries against the proposed nuclear transport, even the Moldovian Environmental Minister asserted that the transportation through the terrotory of Moldova is illegal. These weren’t taken into account by the governmental institutions in all four countries. Citizens’ rights for healthy environment and access to information are totally ignored by the mentioned agreement: population of participating countries aren’t informed about the risk of nuclear transportation which, in case of an accident, could cause a great damage to the environment and public health. According to the statistical data of Russian Ministry of Atomic Power, 43% of all the nuclear incidents occurred during transportation in different stages of nuclear-fuel cycle. Reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel is the most dangerous process the nuclear-fuel cycle consist of – largest nuclear accident in USSR happened to “Mayak” reprocessing facility in 1957 when the amount of radioactivity that was released to the environment was 2,5 times more than during Chernobyl accident. Reprocessing creates additional liquid radioactive waste which quantity is 160 times more, compared to spent nuclear fuel’ amount before reprocessing. According to acting Russian legislative act – decree No. 773 signed by the President of Russia on July 29, 1995 – waste of reprocessing will be sent back to Bulgaria. The Bulgarian public isn’t informed about this condition. Total ignorance of public right by the governments of post-communist countries can seriously damage the process of establishing democratic traditions in Eastern Europe. The public will must be respected. Eastern governments should run the public participation procedures for such a controversial issues through which public may express its concerns.

    We demand to cancel the plan for transportation of Kozloduy’s spent nuclear fuel through Ukraine and Moldova to Russia, as well as its reprocessing. No more spent nuclear fuel should be produced or transported by Bulgaria. Investments should be made into: the finding of a solution for spent nuclear fuel problem right at the Kozloduy’ site immediately; development of renewable sources of energy and energy-efficiency programs in Bulgaria in order to replace dangerous and unnecessary nuclear power reactors.

    Signature:
    46 REPRESENTATIVES OF EUROPEAN NGOS
    Date and Place:
    VIENNA/AUSTRIA, SEPT 25-27, 1998

  • Joint Statement Against Nuclear Tests and Weapons by Retired Pakistani and Indian Armed Forces Personnel

    Recent developments in South Asia in the field of nuclear weapons and the means of their delivery are a serious threat to the wellbeing of this region.

    The fact that India and Pakistan have fought wars in the recent past and do not as yet enjoy the best of relations, makes this development all the more ominous. The signatories of this statement are not theoreticians or arm-chair idealists; we have spent many long years in the profession of arms and have served our countries both in peacetime and in war.

    By virtue of our experience and the positions we have held, we have a fair understanding of the destructive parameters of conventional and nuclear weapons. We are of the considered view that nuclear weapons should be banished from the South Asian region, and indeed from the entire globe.

    We urge India and Pakistan to take the lead by doing away with nuclear weapons in a manifest and verifiable manner, and to confine nuclear research and development strictly to peaceful and beneficient spheres.

    We are convinced that the best way of resolving disputes is through peaceful means and not through war – least of all by the threat or use of nuclear weapons. India and Pakistan need to address their real problems of poverty and backwardness, not waste our scarce resources on acquiring means of greater and greater destruction.

    Signed

    Air Marshal Zafar A. Choudhry (Pakistan)
    Admiral L. Ramdas (India)
    Lt. Gen Gurbir Mansingh (India)

  • 68 Leaders Call for the De-Alerting of Nuclear Weapons

    The Honorable William Jefferson Clinton
    The White House
    Washington, DC 20500

    The Honorable Boris Yeltsin
    The Kremlin
    Moscow, Russia

    Dear President Clinton and President Yeltsin:

    When you come together in your forthcoming meeting, we urge you to set a course so that Earth may enter the new millennium with all nuclear weapons taken off high alert status. One straightforward method to accomplish this would be to separate warheads from their delivery vehicles and place them in secure storage.

    We ask that the United States and Russia mutually commence the de-alerting process no later than January 1999 and complete the task no later than December 31, 1999. We ask you to work with the United Kingdom, France, and China so that they will likewise take their nuclear arsenals off alert within that time frame.

    With the Cold War over for nearly ten years, the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and China maintain peaceful relations and carefully avoid military confrontation. Yet all five nations live in a condition of nuclear insecurity because of the danger of accidental or unauthorized launch of missiles kept on hair-trigger alert. They face the risk of attack by missiles launched on warning due to miscommunication or misinterpretation of data. By removing these dangers, mutual de-alerting will substantially enhance the national security of all the nuclear weapon states.

    Mutual de-alerting is an action which the two of you can carry out through executive action. This is what your predecessors, President George Bush and President Mikhail Gorbachev, did in the fall of 1991 when they reduced the alert status of strategic bombers and a sizable number of intercontinental ballistic missiles. In 1994 you two took a positive step when you agreed to stop aiming strategic missiles at each other’s country. It is well within the purview of executive authority to move now to de-alerting your respective nuclear arsenals.

    De-alerting carries the endorsement of a variety of groups, including the Canberra Commission (1996), a statement of 60 generals and admirals leaders from around the globe (1996), the National Academy of Sciences in the United States (1997), a statement of 117 civilian leaders, including 47 past and present heads of states and prime ministers (1998), and the recent New Agenda Declaration by the foreign ministers of Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Slovenia, South Africa, and Sweden (1998). This approach also has the support of a variety of religious bodies and numerous non-governmental organizations.

    De-alerting would be very welcome by all the people of Earth who would like to enter the new millennium free from the fear of nuclear destruction. We hope that you will take advantage of the opportunity to lead the world in this direction.

    Sincerely yours,

    Organizations from the United States
    Howard W. Hallman, Chair
    Methodists United for Peace with Justice

    Robert W. Tiller, Director of Security Programs
    Physicians for Social Responsibility

    Joe Volk, Executive Secretary
    Friends Committee on National Legislation (Quakers)

    Donnan Runkel, Executive Director
    Peace Links

    Christopher Ney, Disarmament Coordinator
    War Resisters League

    Anne Anderson, National Coordinator
    Psychologists for Social Responsibility

    Ellen Thomas
    Proposition One Committee

    Paul F. Walker, Ph.D., President
    Veterans for Peace

    Robin Caiola, Executive Director
    20/20 Vision

    Michael Mariotte, Executive Director
    Nuclear Information and Resource Service

    Gordon S. Clark, Executive Director
    Peace Action

    Susan Shaer, Executive Director
    Women’s Action for New Directions

    Daniel Plesch, Director
    British-American Security Information Council

    John Isaacs
    Council for a Livable World

    Tim Barner
    World Federalist Association

    David Krieger, President
    Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

    Clayton Ramey
    Fellowship of Reconciliation

    Mary H. Miller, Executive Secretary, and Rev. David Selzer, Chair
    Episcopal Peace Fellowship

    Marie Dennis, Director
    Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns

    Jay Lintner, Director, Washington Office
    United Church of Christ, Office for Church in Society

    Curtis Ramsey-Lucas, Director of Legislative Advocacy
    National Ministries, American Baptist Churches

    Bishop Walter F. Sullivan, President
    Pax Christi USA

    Margaret N. Spallone, Recording Secretary
    Abolition 2000 Working Group of the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the
    Religious Society of Friends

    L.William Yolton, Executive Secretary
    Presbyterian Peace Fellowship

    Kathy Thornton, RSM, National Coordinator
    NETWORK: A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby

    Rev. Robert Moore, Executive Director
    Coalition for Peace Action (New Jersey)

    Ralph Hutchison, Coordinator
    Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance (Tennessee)

    Marylia Kelley, Executive Director
    Tri-Valley CAREs (California)

    Byron Plumley, Disarmament Program Director
    American Friends Service Committee (Colorado Office)

    Greg Mello
    Los Alamos Study Group (New Mexico)

    David Buer, Interim Director
    The Nevada Desert Experience (Nevada)

    Jonathan Parfrey, Executive Director
    Physicians for Social Responsibility/Los Angeles

    Wayne Shandera, MD
    Physicians for Social Responsibility/Houston

    Peter Wilk, MD, Co-President
    Physicians for Social Responsibility/Maine

    Ed Arnold, Executive Director
    Physicians for Social Responsibility/Atlanta

    Robert M. Gould, MD, President
    Physicians for Social Responsibility/Greater San Francisco Bay Area

    Herbert M. Perr, MD
    Physicians for Social Responsibility/Nassau County

    Jennifer Aldrich, Executive Director
    Physicians for Social Responsibility/Oregon

    Wendy Perron, Executive Director
    Physicians for Social Responsibility/New York City

    Josiah Hill III, PA, President
    Physicians for Social Responsibility/Oregon

    Daniel Kerlinsky, MD
    Physicians for Social Responsibility/New Mexico

    Martin Fleck, Executive Director
    Physicians for Social Responsibility/Washington

    Wells R. Staley-Mays, Director
    Peace Action/ Maine and Physicians for Social Responsibility/Maine

    Jonathan M. Haber
    Action Site to Stop Cassini Earth Flyby (Massachusetts)

    Harry Rogers, Nuclear Issues Coordinator
    Carolina Peace Resource Center (South Carolina)

    Organizations from other nations
    John Hallam
    Friends of the Earth
    Australia

    Zohl de Ishtar
    Women for a Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific
    International Peace Bureau
    Australia

    Graham Daniell
    People for Nuclear Disarmament
    Western Australia

    Babs Fuller-Quinn, Coordinator
    Australian Peace Committee (National Office)
    Australia

    Irene Gale, Secretary
    Australian Peace Committee (South Australian Branch)
    Australia

    Pauline Mitchell, Secretary
    Campaign for International Cooperation and Disarmament
    Australia

    Debbie Grisdale, Executive Director
    Physicians for Global Survival
    Canada

    Norman Abbey, Director
    Nanoose Conversion Campaign
    Canada

    Joanna Miller
    Project Ploughshares
    Canada

    Peter Coombes, President
    End the Arms Race
    Canada

    Caterina Lindman, Chair
    St. Jerome’s University Social Justice Committee,
    Canada

    Peter G. Rasmussen, Co-chairperson
    Pax Christi
    Denmark

    Laura Lodenius, Press Secretary
    Peace Union of Finland
    Finland

    Malla Kantola, Secretary General
    Committee of 100
    Finland

    Regina Hagen
    Darmstaedter Friedensforum
    Germany

    David Wakim, Chairperson
    Pax Christi Trust
    Aotearoa-New Zealand

    Kate Dewes, Vice President
    International Peace Bureau
    Aotearoa-New Zealand

    Professor Bent Natvig
    Science and Responsibility in the Nuclear Age
    Norway

    Bengt Lindell, Secretary
    Swedish Physicians Against Nuclear Weapons (SLMK)
    Sweden

    Commander Robert Green RN (Ret’d), Chair
    World Court Project
    United Kingdom

    Anni Rainbow and Lindis Percy
    Campaign for the Accountability of American Bases
    United Kingdom

    George Farebrother, Secretary
    World Court Project UK
    United Kingdom

    Dave Knight, Chair
    Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
    United Kingdom

  • Chronology of the India-Pakistan Conflict

    NEW DELHI, July 26 (Reuters) – Following is a chronology of major events involving arch-rivals India and Pakistan, whose prime ministers meet in Colombo on the sidelines of a regional conference in Sri Lanka on Wednesday.

    October 27, 1947: War breaks out between India and Pakistan in disputed Himalayan region of Kashmir barely two months after their independence from Britain.

    January 1, 1949: Ceasefire, ordered by United Nations Security Council, takes effect in Kashmir.

    September 6-22, 1965: Full-scale India-Pakistan war over Kashmir, which ends after a U.N. call for ceasefire.

    January 3, 1966: Indian Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri and Pakistani President Ayub Khan sign Soviet-mediated peace pact.

    December 3-17, 1971: India-Pakistan War over East Pakistan (later Bangladesh) which ends when 90,000 Pakistani troops surrender.

    July 2, 1972: Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and counterpart Zulfikar Ali Bhutto sign peace accord in Shimla.

    Nov 1, 1982: Gandhi and Pakistani President Mohammad Zia-ul-Haq agree to begin talks on a non-aggression treaty.

    May 18, 1974: India detonates first nuclear device, but says it is for atomic research and not weapons.

    January 20, 1986: Talks between Indian and Pakistani foreign secretaries end inconclusively in Islamabad. But both agree on “desirability” of a peace treaty and non-aggression pact.

    December 31, 1988: India and Pakistan sign agreement not to attack each other’s nuclear facilities.

    February 5, 1989: Pakistan army chief General Mirza Aslam Beg says Pakistan has successfully test-fired its first long-range surface-to-surface rockets, named Hatf-1 and Hatf-2.

    Feb 6, 1992: Pakistan says it has acquired knowledge to make a nuclear bomb but will not do so.

    January 1-3, 1994: Foreign secretaries of the two countries fail to narrow differences on Kashmir. Pakistan rules out more talks unless India stops alleged human rights violations in Kashmir.

    August 23, 1994: Then former premier Nawaz Sharif tells rally in Pakistan-ruled Azad (Free) Kashmir, forming a third of Jammu and Kashmir, that Pakistan has an atomic bomb. The government denies this.

    January 30, 1996: Pakistani and Indian military officers meet on ceasefire line dividing Kashmir to ease tension after clashes.

    June 4, 1996: Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto urges Indian counterpart H.D. Deve Gowda to resume dialogue. Deve Gowda responds positively, but Pakistan drops idea when India holds local elections in Jammu and Kashmir.

    March 28-31, 1997: Indian and Pakistani foreign secretaries open the first round peace talks in New Delhi, agree to meet again in Islamabad.

    April 9: Indian Foreign Minister Inder Kumar Gujral and Pakistani counterpart Gohar Ayub Khan meet in New Delhi. India says several hundred fishermen held by each side will be freed.

    May 12: Prime Ministers Inder Kumar Gujral and Nawaz Sharif hold separate talks at SAARC summit in Maldives.

    June 19-23: After second round of talks in Islamabad, Indian and Pakistani foreign secretaries announce eight-point agenda for peace talks, including Kashmir issue, and say they will set up mechanism to tackle it.

    August 14-15 : India and Pakistan mark 50 years of independence.

    Aug 26 – India rejects U.S. offer to mediate to end Kashmir border clashes, saying differences should be solved in bilateral talks.

    September 18 – Talks between foreign secretaries end in stalemate, but both sides say they will meet again.

    Sept 22 – In a speech to the U.N. General Assembly, Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif offers to open talks on a non-aggression pact with India, proposing that both nations strike a deal to restrain their nuclear and missile capabilities.

    Sept 23 – Sharif meets Gujral for talks in New York which end with no breakthrough.

    Oct 26 – Gujral says he is cautiously optimistic that personal friendship with Sharif will help ease tension over Kashmir, but their meet on the fringes of a Commonwealth summit achieves little.

    Feb 4, 1998 – Pakistan warns it might review its policy of nuclear restraint if India’s new Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party government redeems election pledge to make nuclear weapons.

    April 6 – Pakistan tests its longest range, 1,500 km (932 mile) Ghauri missile.

    May 11 – India conducts three underground nuclear tests in the western desert state of Rajasthan near the border with Pakistan.

    May 13 – India conducts two more tests and says its series of tests is complete.

    May 14 – U.S. President Bill Clinton says the tests ae a “terrible” mistake and orders sanctions that put more than $20 billion of aid, loans and trade on ice. Japan orders a block on around $1 billion of aid loans, followed by a host of European nations.

    May 28 – Pakistan conducts five nuclear tests in response to the Indian blasts. President Clinton, his request to Sharif not to test rebuffed, vows sanctions.

    May 30 – Pakistan conducts one more nuclear test and says its series of tests is complete.

    June 6 – U.N. Security Council condemns India and Pakistan for carrying out nuclear tests and urges the two nations to stop all nuclear weapons programs.

    June 12 – India and Pakistan invite each other for talks, but fail to agree on the agenda.

    Group of Eight Nations (G-8) imposes a ban on non-humanitarian loans to India and Pakistan as punishment for their nuclear tests.

    June 23- India suggests talks between the two countries’ prime ministers at South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) summit in Colombo, Sri Lanka.

    June 24 – Pakistan agrees to talks with India in Colombo.

    July 10 – Vajpayee offers Pakistan a no-first-use pact, economic cooperation, and appeals for its participation in joint efforts to achieve universal disarmament. Pakistan in turn says it is ready to sign a non-aggression treaty with India.

    July 25 – Vajpayee says in a magazine interview that India is committed to resolving differences with Pakistan through a bilateral dialogue. He also indicates that India could conduct further tests of its Agni intermediate-range missile.

  • Joint Statement Against Nuclear Tests and Weapons By Retired Pakistani, Indian and Bangladeshi Armed Forces Personnel

    The following Joint Statement Against Nuclear Tests and Weapons signed by sixty-three Retired Pakistani, Indian and Bangladeshi Armed Forces Personnel is hereby submitted to:

    The Secretary General of the United Nations
    To the Prime Minister of Pakistan
    To the Prime Minister of India
    To the President of the United States of America
    To the President of France
    To the Prime Minister of U.K.
    To the President of China
    To the President of the Russian Federation

    Recent developments in South Asia in the field of nuclear weapons and the means of their delivery are a serious threat to the well being of this region. The fact that India and Pakistan have fought wars in the recent past and do not as yet enjoy the best of relations, makes this development all the more ominous. The signatories of this statement are not theoreticians or arm-chair idealists; we have spent many long years in the profession of arms and have served our countries both in peacetime and in war. By virtue of our experience and the positions we have held, we have a fair understanding of the destructive parameters of conventional and nuclear weapons. We are of the considered view that nuclear weapons should be banished from the South Asian region, and indeed from the entire globe. We urge India and Pakistan to take the lead by doing away with nuclear weapons in a manifest and verifiable manner, and to confine nuclear research and development strictly to peaceful and beneficient spheres.

    We are convinced that the best way of resolving disputes is through peaceful means and not through war – least of all by the threat or use of nuclear weapons. India and Pakistan need to address their real problems of poverty and backwardness, not waste our scarce resources on acquiring means of greater and greater destruction.
    Signed by:
    Air Marshal Zafar A. Chaudhry (Pakistan)
    Admiral L. Ramdas (India) [Ex. Chief of the Indian Navy]
    Lt. Gen Gurbir Mansingh (India)
    Brigadier John Anthony (India)
    Brigadier Madhav Prasad (India)
    Commodore Norman Warner (India)
    Major Vijai Uppal (India)
    Lt Col G.J. Eduljee (India)
    Air Commodore A.K. Banerjee (India)
    Air Commodore A.K. Venkateshwaran (India)
    Commodore K.K. Garg (India)
    Major General M A Mohaiemen (Bangladesh)
    Air Vice Marshal Saeedullah Khan (Pakistan)
    Air Vice Marshal M. Ikramullah (Pakistan)
    Air Vice Marshal M. Y. Khan (Pakistan)
    Air Vice Marshal C. R. Nawaz (Pakistan)
    Air Commodore S. T. E. Piracha (Pakistan)
    Air Commodore Rafi Qadar (Pakistan)
    Air Commodore Ejaz Azam Khan (Pakistan)
    Air Commodore Qamarud Din (Pakistan)
    Air Commodore Habibur Rahman (Pakistan)
    Air Commodore G. Mujtaba Qureshi (Pakistan)
    Air Commodore A. Aziz (Pakistan)
    Air Commodore Wahid A. Butt (Pakistan)
    Wing Commander N. A. Siddiqui (Pakistan)
    Wing Commander M. Yunus (Pakistan)
    Wing Commander Shajar Hussain (Pakistan)
    Flight Lieutenant M. A. Mannan (Pakistan)
    Group Captain N. A. Sheikh (Pakistan)
    Group Captain Amir Shah (Pakistan)
    Group Captain M. Amin (Pakistan)
    Group Captain G. M. Siddiqi (Pakistan)
    Group Captain Khalid Jalil (Pakistan)
    Group Captain Sirajud Din Ahmed (Pakistan)
    Major Saeed A. Malik (Pakistan)
    Dr. Capt. Tariq Rahman (Pakistan)
    Brigadier Rao Abid Hamid (Pakistan)
    Major Ishtiaq Asi (Pakistan)
    Wing Commander Aameen Taqi (Pakistan)
    Brig Izzat M. Shah (Pakistan)
    Sqn Ldr Ihsan Qadir (Pakistan)
    Lt Col Abdur Rehman Lodhi (Pakistan)
    Maj Amjad Iqbal (Pakistan)
    Maj Ishtiaq Asif (Pakistan)
    Lt. Col. Nadeem Rashid Khan (Pakistan)
    Brig Shahid Aziz (Pakistan)
    Brig Bashir Ahmad (Pakistan)
    Capt Omar Asghar Khan (Pakistan)
    Air Marshal M. Asghar Khan (Pakistan) [Ex-C-in-C Pakistan Air Force]
    Lt. Col. Ahsan Zaman (Pakistan)
    Lt. Col. Azhar Irshad (Pakistan)
    Brig Jahangir Malik (Pakistan)
    Lt. Col. S. Imtiaz H. Bokhari (Pakistan)
    Maj.Gen. Syed Mustafa Anwar Husain (Pakistan)
    Brig Humayun Malik (Pakistan)
    Brig A. Wahab (Pakistan)
    Maj. Naim Ahmad (Pakistan)
    Brig SE Jivanandham (Pakistan)
    Brig Luqman Mahmood (Pakistan)
    Lt. Gen Sardar F.S. Lodi (Pakistan)
    Lt. Col. Ernest Shams (Pakistan)
    Lt. Col. Aijazulhaq Effendi (Pakistan)
    Brig Mir Abad Hussain, ex Ambassador (Pakistan)

  • Resolution on Nuclear Testing by India and Pakistan

    The European Parliament,

    -having regard to its previous resolutions on nuclear non-proliferation, nuclear testing and the work of the Canberra Commission for a nuclear weapon-free world,

    -having regard to the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT),

    -having regard to the terms of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT),

    -having regard to the statements made by the Council of the European Union, the G7, the UN Security Council and the meeting of the five permanent members of the Security Council,

    A. whereas the signatories of the Non-Proliferation Treaty have committed themselves to the objective of the elimination of all nuclear weapons,

    B. whereas over the past decades the two main nuclear powers have reduced the number of their nuclear warheads and envisage continuing this reduction through a number of bilateral agreements,

    C. whereas these reductions do not, as yet, point to rapid progress towards full elimination of these weapons,

    D. noting with great concern that India carried out five nuclear tests during the period 11-13 May 1998,

    E. noting with great concern that Pakistan then carried out six nuclear tests during the period 28-30 May 1998,

    H. noting that a number of countries, including some EU Member States, the United States and Japan, have decided to impose sanctions on both countries in response to these nuclear tests,

    I. noting that both countries already allocate a disproportionate part of both their GNP and their budget on military spending and on military, nuclear research and development,

    J. whereas the nuclear tests are likely to damage both the Pakistani and Indian economies, in view of their effect on foreign loans and investment, which in turn will affect the already low social condition of the population,

    K. emphasizing that in order to strengthen stability and security in the region and in the world as a whole it is necessary for India and Pakistan on the one hand to adhere to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty without any modification thereof, and on the other hand to adhere to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty immediately and unconditionally, thus facilitating its entry into force,

    L. noting the unanimous conclusion of the International Court of Justice that there is an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict international control,

    1. Condemns the recent nuclear tests carried out in May 1998 by India and then by Pakistan and expresses its deep concern about the danger to peace, security and stability in the region and in the world as a whole provoked by these tests; remains convinced that the NPT and the CTBT are the cornerstones of the global non-proliferation regime and the essential bases for progress towards nuclear disarmament;

    2. Urges the Indian and Pakistani governments to refrain from any further nuclear tests, to adhere to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty without any modification of this Treaty and to adhere to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty immediately and unconditionally;

    3. Calls on the Indian and Pakistani governments to give a commitment immediately not to assemble or deploy nuclear weapons and devices, and to halt the development of ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads;

    4. Calls on the Indian and Pakistani Governments to start talks immediately to reduce tension in the region, to establish a framework for reconciliation and cooperation and thus to promote peace, security and stability in South Asia and throughout the continent; calls on the Council and the Member States to assist the Governments of India and Pakistan, where necessary and possible, in this process of reconciliation and cooperation, possibly by (co-)sponsoring a regional conference on security and confidence-building measures;

    5. Calls on the Council and the Member States to prevent the export of equipment, materials and/or technology that could in any way assist programmes in India or Pakistan for nuclear weapons or for ballistic missiles capable of carrying such weapons;

    6. Calls on Member States which have not yet done so to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty immediately, in order to facilitate its entry into force as soon as possible;

    7. Calls on the five nuclear weapons states to interpret their Treaty obligations as an urgent commitment to the total elimination of their nuclear weapons;

    8. Asks the Council and the Commission to examine ways and means to promote further progress towards the gradual elimination of nuclear weapons and calls on the Council to present a regular progress report to Parliament;

    9. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Commission, the Council, the UN Security Council, the governments of the Member States and the governments and parliaments of India and Pakistan.

  • G8 Foriegn Ministers Communique on Indian and Pakistani Nuclear Tests

    London

    1. We, the Foreign Ministers of eight major industrialised democracies and the Representative of the European Commission, held a special meeting in London on 12 June 1998 to consider the serious global challenge posed by the nuclear tests carried out by India and Pakistan. Recalling the statement issued by our Heads of State or Government on 15 May, and emphasising the support of all of us for the communiqué issued by the P5 in Geneva on 4 June and United Nations Security Council Resolution 1172, we condemn the nuclear tests carried out by India on 11 and 13 May 1998 and by Pakistan on 28 May and 30 May. These tests have affected both countries’ relationships with each of us, worsened rather than improved their security environment, damaged their prospects of achieving their goals of sustainable economic development, and run contrary to global efforts towards nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament.

    2. The negative impact of these tests on the international standing and ambitions of both countries will be serious and lasting. They will also have a serious negative impact on investor confidence. Both countries need to take positive actions directed towards defusing tension in the region and rejoining the international community’s efforts towards non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament. Urgent action is needed both to halt an arms race on the Sub-Continent, which would divert resources from urgent economic priorities, and to reduce tension, build confidence and encourage peaceful resolution of the differences between India and Pakistan, so that their peoples may face a better future.

    3. With a view to halting the nuclear and missile arms race on the Sub-Continent, and taking note of the official statements of the Indian and Pakistani Governments that they wish to avoid such an arms race, we consider that India and Pakistan should immediately take the following steps, already endorsed by the United Nations Security Council:

    • stop all further nuclear tests and adhere to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty immediately and unconditionally, thereby facilitating its early entry into force;
    • refrain from weaponisation or deployment of nuclear weapons and from the testing or deployment of missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons, and enter into firm commitments not to weaponise or deploy nuclear weapons or missiles;
    • refrain from any further production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices and participate, in a positive spirit and on the basis of the agreed mandate, in negotiations with other states in the Conference on Disarmament for a Fissile Material Cut-Off Convention with a view to reaching early agreement;
    • confirm their policies not to export equipment, materials and technology that could contribute to weapons of mass destruction or missiles capable of delivering them, and undertake appropriate commitments in that regard.

    We believe that such actions would be strongly in the interest of both countries.

    4. With a view to reducing tension, building confidence and encouraging peaceful resolution of their differences through dialogue, India and Pakistan should:

    • undertake to avoid threatening military movements, cross-border violations, including infiltrations or hot pursuit, or other provocative acts and statements;
    • discourage terrorist activity and any support for it;
    • implement fully the confidence- and security-building measures they have already agreed and develop further such measures;
    • resume without delay a direct dialogue that addresses the root causes of the tension, including Kashmir, through such measures as early resumption of Foreign Secretary level talks, effective use of the hot-line between the two leaders, and realisation of a meeting between Prime Ministers on the occasion of the 10th SAARC Summit scheduled next month;
    • allow and encourage progress towards enhanced Indo-Pakistani economic cooperation, including through a free trade area in South Asia.

    We encourage the development of a regional security dialogue.

    5. We pledge actively to encourage India and Pakistan to find mutually acceptable solutions to their problems and stand ready to assist India and Pakistan in pursuing any of these positive actions. Such assistance might be provided, at the request of both parties, in the development and implementation of confidence- and security-building measures.

    6. The recent nuclear tests by India and Pakistan do not change thedefinition of a nuclear weapon state in the NPT, and therefore, notwithstanding those tests, India and Pakistan do not have the status of nuclear weapon states in accordance with the NPT. We continue to urge India and Pakistan to adhere to the NPT as it stands, without any conditions. We shall continue to apply firmly our respective policies to prevent the export of materials, equipment or technology that could in any way assist programmes in India or Pakistan for nuclear weapons or for ballistic missiles capable of delivering such weapons.

    7. It is our firm view that the nuclear tests by India and Pakistan reinforce the importance of maintaining and strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as the cornerstone of the non- proliferation regime and as the essential foundation for the pursuit of nuclear disarmament. We all, nuclear weapon states and non-nuclear weapon states alike, reiterate our determination to fulfil the commitments relating to nuclear disarmament under Article VI of the NPT. These commitments were reaffirmed at the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference and included the determined pursuit by the nuclear weapon states of systematic and progressive efforts to reduce nuclear weapons globally with the ultimate goal of eliminating those weapons. We note the progress already made in this direction and welcome the firm intention both of the United States and of the Russian Federation to bring START II into force, and to negotiate and conclude a START III agreement at the earliest possible date. We also note contributions made by other nuclear weapon states to the reductions process. We call upon all states to sign and ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty rapidly to ensure its entry into force, and welcome the determination of the member governments of the G8 that have not yet ratified the Treaty to do so at the earliest possible date. We continue to look for the accession to the NPT of the remaining countries which are not yet parties to it.

    8. We call on all the member states of the Conference on Disarmament to agree on the immediate opening of the Cut-Off negotiation at the CD.

    9. Both India and Pakistan face enormous challenges in developing their economies and building prosperity. However, the recent nuclear tests have created an atmosphere of regional instability which will undermine the region’s attractiveness to both foreign and domestic investment, damaging business confidence and the prospects for economic growth. The diversion of their resources to nuclear and other weapons programmes displaces more productive investment and weakens their ability to pursue sound economic policies. It calls into question the commitment of both governments to poverty reduction and undermines the regional cooperation between SAARC countries on social and economic issues. In line with the approach to development set out in the Naples, Lyon, Denver and Birmingham Communiqués, we call on both governments to reduce expenditure that undermines their objective of promoting sound economic policies that will benefit all members of society, especially the poorest, and to otherwise enhance cooperation in South Asia.

    10. We believe it is important that India and Pakistan are aware of the strength of the international community’s views on their recent tests and on these other subjects. Several among us have, on a unilateral basis, taken specific actions to underscore our strong concerns. All countries should act as they see fit to demonstrate their displeasure and address their concerns to India and Pakistan. We do not wish to punish the peoples of India or Pakistan as a result of actions by their governments, and we will therefore not oppose loans by international financial institutions to the two countries to meet basic human needs. We agree, however, to work for a postponement in consideration of other loans in the World Bank and other international financial institutions to India and Pakistan, and to any other country that will conduct nuclear tests.

    11. We pledge to convey the common views of our Governments on these matters to those of India and Pakistan with a view to bringing about early and specific progress in the areas outlined above. We plan to keep developments under review and to continue the process of pursuing the goals on which we are all agreed.

  • India Press Statement

    As announced by the Prime Minister this afternoon, today India conducted three underground nuclear tests in the Pokhran range. The tests conducted today were with a fission device, a low yield device and a thermonuclear device. The measured yields are in line with expected values. Measurement have also confirmed that there was no release of radioactivity into the atmosphere. These were contained explosions like the experiment conducted in May 1974.

    These tests have established that India has a proven capability for a weaponised nuclear programme. They also provide a valuable database which is useful in the design of nuclear weapons of different yields for different applications and for different delivery systems. Further, they are expected to carry Indian scientists towards a sound computer simulation capability which may be supported by sub-critical experiments, if considered necessary.

    The Government is deeply concerned, as were previous Governments, about the nuclear environment in India’s neighbourhood. These tests provide reassurance to the people of India that their national security interests are paramount and will be promoted and protected. Succeeding generations of Indians would also rest assured that contemporary technologies associated with nuclear option have been passed on to them in this the 50th year of our independence.

    It is necessary to highlight today that India was in the vanguard of nations which ushered in the Partial Test Ban Treaty in 1963 due to environmental concerns. Indian representatives have worked in various international forums, including the Conference on Disarmament for universal, non-discriminatory and verifiable arrangements for the elimination of weapons of mass destruction. The Government would like to reiterate its support to efforts to realise the goal of a truly comprehensive international arrangement which would prohibit underground nuclear testing of all weapons as well as related experiments described as ‘sub-critical’ or ‘hydronuclear.’

    India would be prepared to consider being an adherent to some of the undertakings in the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. But this cannot obviously be done in a vacuum. It would necessarily be an evolutionary process from concept to commitment and would depend on a number of reciprocal activities.

    We would like to reaffirm categorically that we will continue to exercise the most stringent control on the export of sensitive technologies, equipment and commodities – especially those related to weapons of mass destruction. Our track record has been impeccable in this regard. Therefore we expect recognition of our responsible policy by the international community.

    India remains committed to a speedy process of nuclear disarmament leading to total and global elimination of nuclear weapons. Our adherence to the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Biological Weapons Convention is evidence of our commitment to any global disarmament regime which is non-discriminatory and verifiable. We shall also be happy to participate in the negotiations for the conclusion of a fissile material cut-off treaty in the Geneva based Conference on Disarmament.

    In our neighbourhood we have many friends with whom relations of fruitful cooperation for mutual benefit have existed and deepened over a long period. We assure them that it will be our sincere endeavour to intensify and diversify those relations further for the benefit of all our peoples. For India, as for others, the prime need is for peaceful cooperation and economic development.

     

  • Canadian Church Leaders Seek End to Nuclear Weaponry: The Salvation Army War Cry

    On Thursday, February 26, 1998, a representative group of church leaders went before the standing Committee of the House of Commons to talk about the moral urgency of a global drive to abolish nuclear weapons. This is one of the many social justice issues which The Salvation Army in this territory, in partnership with other churches and agencies, is seeking to address and resolve. The following letter addressed to Prime Minister Chretien from church leaders in Canada, was signed by Commissioner Donald V. Kerr, territorial commander.

    Salvationists need to be involved actively where we are, in social services, but also in collaboration with others to seek to advocate action on the many and varied social justice issues which threaten to damage and destroy families, and our world.

    Dear Prime Minister Chretien,
    We write in deep appreciation of your government’s persistent and courageous leadership in the ongoing effort to rid the world of the scourge of anti-personnel landmines, and to challenge you to bring that same visionary dedication to bear on efforts to rid the world of nuclear weapons.

    Our church communities rejoiced with all Canadians, and especially with people in mine-affected countries, in that proud moment in Ottawa last December when Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy signed the land mines treaty on behalf of Canada and when you handed to the UN Secretary-General a copy of the legislation confirming Canada as the first country to ratify the treaty. It was truly a milestone event, showing the world what can be achieved when governments and movements work together, and particularly, when leaders step forward to challenge and encourage others.

    We are grateful for your personal commitment to the effort to ban land mines and for the key role played by Mr. Axworthy and many officials in the Department of Foreign Affairs. Our gratitude and congratulations to you and your colleagues also extend to the many thousands of Canadians, individuals and organizations, who provided energy and expertise to make this achievement possible.

    Canadian church communities, responding to God’s call to all people to be agents of love and healing in a world that still knows great pain, participated in the movement to ban land mines. As church leaders, we believe that obedience to that same call of God requires us now to raise our voices in urgent appeal to our own communities, to all Canadians, and to you and your government, to bring a new commitment to what we believe to be one of the most profound spiritual challenges of our era — the challenge to rid the world of the plans and the means to nuclear annihilation.

    The willingness, indeed the intent, to launch a nuclear attack in certain circumstances bespeaks spiritual and moral bankruptcy. We believe it to be an extraordinary affront to humanity for nuclear weapon states and their allies, including Canada, to persist in claiming that nuclear weapons are required for their security. Nuclear weapons do not, cannot, deliver security — they deliver only insecurity and peril through their promise to annihilate that which is most precious, life itself and the global ecosystem upon which all life depends. Nuclear weapons have no moral legitimacy, they lack military utility, and, in light of the recent judgement of the World Court, their legality is in serious question. The spiritual, human and ecological holocaust of a nuclear attack can be prevented only by the abolition of nuclear weapons — it is our common duty to pursue that goal as an urgent priority.

    The Canadian churches have long worked for the elimination of nuclear weapons. In 1982, we leaders wrote to, and met with, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau to affirm “nuclear weapons in any form and in any number cannot ultimately be accepted as legitimate components of national armed forces.” In 1988, we sent the same message to Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, stating that ” nuclear weapons have no place in national defence policies.”

    Since then we have welcomed the substantial progress that has been made to end the nuclear arms race and reduce the size of the superpowers’ nuclear arsenals, But these steps, important as they are, are not nearly enough. The end of the Cold War has created an unprecedented opportunity to start the process toward the final elimination of nuclear weapons and the World Court has confirmed that it is a legal obligation.

    We are therefore especially disturbed by the refusal of nuclear weapons states to even begin negotiations on the abolition of nuclear weapons and to set clear time frames and objectives – and we are profoundly disappointed that Canada has to date chosen to publicly accept that refusal. Indeed, nuclear weapon states continue to take steps to maintain and improve or modernize” their nuclear arsenals for the indefinite future.

    It is our sincere belief that Canada has much to contribute to the effort to make nuclear abolition a reality In this regard, we are heartened by your pledge in Securing Our Future Together (the second “Red Book”) that “a re-elected Liberal government will… work vigorously to eliminate nuclear and chemical weapons and antipersonnel mines from the planet.” We are compelled to note, however, that Canada continues to support, and to seek the illusory protection of, nuclear weapons in a number of ways (see the Appendix, pp. 3-4). Canada’s position as an advocate of nuclear disarmament in the UN General Assembly, the Conference on Disarmament, and other forums is compromised by this fact.

    The time has come for Canada to take a strong, principled stand against the continued possession of nuclear weapons by any state, affirming abolition as the central goal of Canadian nuclear weapons policy and adding Canada’s voice to the call to immediately begin negotiations on a Nuclear Weapons Convention.

    In support of this goal, Canada should immediately take the following actions:

    Urge all states to negotiate by the year 2000 an agreement for the elimination of nuclear weapons within a time-bound framework;

    Urge all nuclear weapons states, as interim measures and as a sign of good faith in such negotiations, to take all their nuclear forces off alert status and to commit themselves to no-first-use of nuclear weapons;

    Renounce any role for nuclear weapons in Canadian defence policy, and call on other countries, including Russia and Canada’s NATO allies, to do likewise;

    Review the legality of all of Canada’s nuclear-weapons related activities in the light of the International Court of Justice ruling of July 8, 1996, and move quickly upon the completion of this review to end all activities determined to be of questionable legality; and,

    Embrace publicly the conclusions of the Canberra Commission report of August 14,1996, including in particular its recommendations that the nuclear weapons states “commit themselves unequivocally to the elimination of nuclear weapons and agree to start work immediately on the practical steps and negotiations required for its achievement” and that the non-nuclear states support this commitment and join in co-operative international action to implement it.

    As it approaches the dawn of a new Millennium, Canada could offer no finer demonstration of its commitment to being a constructive and healing presence in the international community than to deploy some of its considerable diplomatic skill and political capital to ensure that the world enters the next Millennium with a formal treaty commitment to rid the world of the scourge of nuclear weapons.

    The Canadian churches which we represent are committed to continuing their work toward the abolition of nuclear weapons, in co-operation with other Canadian and international nuclear abolition efforts. In this spirit of co-operation and common cause, we respectfully request the opportunity to meet with you at the earliest possible date to explore ways in which Canadian churches can further support the government in taking bold new steps to make nuclear weapons abolition an urgent priority.

    We look forward to your early response. Please know that you and your colleagues in the Government of Canada are supported by the prayers and good wishes of Canadians.

    His Eminence Metropolitan Archbishop Sotiros, Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Toronto (Canada); Fr. Anthony Nikolie, Polish National Catholic Church of Canada; Mr. M. L. Bailey, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in Canada; Jim Moerman, Reformed Church in America; Fr. Marcos Marcos, St. Mark’s Coptic Orthodox Church; The Very Rev. Bill Phipps, United Church of Canada; Bishop Telmor Sartison, Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada; Archbishop H. Derderian, Primate, Canadian Diocese of the Armenian Orthodox Church; Marvin Frey, Executive Director, Mennonite Central Committee Canada; The Rev. Dr. Kenneth W Bellous, Executive Minister, Baptist Convention of Ontario and Quebec; Rt. Rev. Dr. Daniel D. Rupwate, General Superintendent, British Methodist Episcopal Church; The Right Rev. Seraphim, Bishop of Ottawa and Canada, Orthodox Church in America; The Most Rev. Michael G. Peers, Primate, The Anglican Church of Canada; The Rev. Messale Engeda, Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church; Donald V. Kerr Commissioner, The Salvation Army; John Congram, Moderator, Presbyterian Church in Canada; Bishop Francois Thibodeau, c.j.m., President, The Episcopal Commission on Social Affairs, Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops; Gale Wills, Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) in Canada.

    The Salvation Army’s Positional Statement on World Peace (1990)
    The Salvation Army as part of the Universal Christian Church, seeks the establishment of peace as proclaimed by Jesus Christ. The Army recognizes that the world’s problems cannot be solved by force, and that greed and pride, coupled with the widespread desire for domination, poison the souls of men and sow seeds of conflict.

    Since there exists in thermonuclear weapons a destructive power of vast proportions almost too frightful to contemplate, The Salvation Army believes that nuclear disarmament by all nations is a necessary element of world peace. However, a nation has the right to defend itself against the aggression of another nation.

    The Salvation Army continues to be deeply concerned with the investment of huge financial resources to aid the escalating production of terrifying weapons of mass destruction, rather than the diversion of these funds to socioeconomic growth throughout the world. Disarmament, peace and development are inextricably linked.

    The Salvation Army pledges its members to pray and work for peace and to seek to realize the Church’s unique witness to the source of true peace, God himself.

  • NATO Expansion

    To the U.S. Senate

    We believe that NATO expansion is a serious mistake. In this post-Cold War period, we should concentrate on reducing Russia’s arsenal of nuclear weapons, ensuring that her warheads and nuclear materials are secure from diversion, and bringing Russia into the Western family of democratic nations. As you know, Russia has delayed ratification of the START II Treaty because of NATO expansion. Further, the tensions raised by expanding NATO towards Russia’s borders can only make more difficult our critical effort to ensure her stockpile of nuclear warheads do not fall into the hands of terrorists or rogue regimes.

    We lament that, after the expensive and dangerous Cold War, we seem to take rather cavalierly the opportunity at long last to build a friendship with Russia. Surely, moving NATO right up to Poland’s border with the Russian province of Kaliningrad cannot be taken as an act of friendship, however we might dress it up with rhetoric. Admitting the Baltics, who share long borders with Russia, will make matters even worse.

    The Administration has stated repeatedly the first round “will not be the last.” Thus, this first vote is not simply about Poland Hungary and the Czech Republic. It is as much about Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Slovenia and the several others whose expectations have been raised. How can we admit some and exclude others without creating instability and tensions? Indeed, how can there be stability if Russia is destabilized by expansion?

    We share the goal of a stable Europe, but suggest that it would be far better to address the needs of Central and Eastern Europe and the Baltics by opening the markets of Western Europe to them and by pressing our allies to admit them to the European Union, an organization much better suited to nation-building than a military alliance.

    Signed by former Republican Senators

    Jim Abdnor of South Dakota
    Edward Brooke of Massachusetts
    Dick Clark of Iowa
    John Culver of Iowa
    Mark Hatfield of Oregon
    Gordon Humphrey of New Hampshire
    Roger W. Jepsen of Iowa
    Mack Mattingly of Georgia.

    Signed by former Democratic Senators

    Thomas Eagleton of Missouri
    Gary Hart of Colorado
    John Melcher of Montana
    George McGovern of South Dakota
    Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin
    Sam Nann of Georgia
    Adlai Stevenson of Illinois
    Harrison Williams of New Jersey.